SPOILER ALERT: This post will be using material from all three of Nolan's "Dark Knight trilogy" movies.
Just to get this out of the way, I love the Dark Knight trilogy. Ledger's depiction of Joker is my favorite of all the actors who have played the part. I even find Bane's voice... tolerable. I'm not hating on the movies, I just want to point out a major flaw in The Dark Knight Rises.
In Batman Begins, Bruce realizes that his parents charitable foundations aren't helping the city as much as they should. So, he decides to clean up the streets himself. He spends all of the first movie fighting the mob, but in the second movie, the mob is still there, under new leadership. In The Dark Knight, the Joker brings down the mob... by killing its leaders and taking over. Batman doesn't kill Joker, like Jack Nicholson. He saves Joker from the fall, and Joker is arrested. However, at the end of the movie, he takes the fall for Harvey's crimes so that the "Dent Act" would still go through and keep all the mobsters off the streets. Now, in Dark Knight Rises, we find that Batman hasn't made an appearance in 12 years, but it's ok, because the police haven't really needed him. We find that the Wayne foundation stopped giving money to a children's home because Wayne Enterprises isn't making a profit. Why isn't it making profit? Because Bruce dumped a lot of time and money to develop a clean fusion reactor, which he shut down because he read somewhere that ONE SCIENTIST had discovered a way to make a bomb out of a fusion reactor... which didn't exist yet, because Wayne Enterprises was building the first one, but that's beside the point. So, Bruce effectively lets his company tank, and somehow we're expected to believe a hero whose nickname in the comics is "Detective" isn't aware of this? So, when Bane shows up, Bruce's plan is to put the costume back on and go one-on-one with him, after having not done this for 12 years. Bane kicks Bruce's butt, severely. So, after Bane traps the city's cops, and sets free all the prisoners of Blackgate prison, what does Bruce do? He gets his butt kicked by Bane again in a one-on-one fight, only to be saved by Selina. Now, with all these prisoners loose, the city's cops dying in the streets, Bruce decides to fake his own death while saving Gotham from the neutron bomb. So, Bruce's plan was to become a symbol that criminals would fear, but he ultimately failed to bring down the mob, that was done by the Joker. He failed to defeat Bane, that was ultimately done by Selina. He took the fall for Harvey so a bunch of criminals would stay locked up, and when those prisoners get loose due to Bane (which includes Scarecrow and Joker), he decides to fake his own death and go overseas with Selina and start a new life, leaving Gotham to fend for itself with most of Gotham's cops now dead from the street fight with Bane's army (which were using Bruce's extra Batmobiles, so they had superior firepower in that fight).
Also, how did Batman not find out Miranda Tate was really Talia Al Ghul? The real Batman would have done a background check, and when he couldn't go back any farther, he would have done what Batman does and find out anyway!
Thank you Nolan for giving us three awesome movies, but you made Batman look like an incompetent jerk.
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Sunday, September 29, 2013
Something Different
James Bond is the world's oldest superspy.
Appearing in 23 movies in the past 51 years, you begin to wonder how one man manages to defeat evil masterminds so often, or how the world ends up in trouble so much.
A popular theory is that James Bond is a code name for whichever agent currently holds the 007 position, which also conveniently explains why one man is played by 6 different actors. However, this theory is wrong. First, in the early movies, M sometimes refers to Bond as Commander Bond, acknowledging his naval rank, because Bond first served in the navy before joining MI6. If James Bond was just a code name, his superior wouldn't attach a rank to it that he had earned outside of the Bond persona. Second, in On Her Majesty's Secret Service, Bond discovers his family crest and motto "The world is not enough." He also gets married in this movie, and his wife is gunned down in a drive-by. In License to Kill, Felix Liter tells his wife that Bond was once married, to explain Bond's negative reaction to catching the garter. In The World is Not Enough, Bond quotes his family motto and even states that it is his family motto. In all three of these movies, Bond is played by a different actor. If these three actors were portraying three different men with the same code name, why would the later two react to things that happened to the first? Third, in The World is Not Enough, when Q gives Bond his watch, Q comments "this is your 20th I believe." This statement would have had no meaning to a new agent who just assumed the code name of James Bond. Fourth, in Goldeneye, Bond makes a statement to M about her predecessor. How would he have known details about her predecessor if he had not interacted with the man? Goldeneye was the first movie to feature Brosnan as Bond and Judi Dench as M, so Brosnan's Bond was not seen in a movie with the previous M.
In conclusion, James Bond is a man, not a code name. Assuming Bond achieved the rank of commander and joined MI6 and became a 00 agent by the time he was 30, Daniel Craig looks good for playing an 80 year old man.
Appearing in 23 movies in the past 51 years, you begin to wonder how one man manages to defeat evil masterminds so often, or how the world ends up in trouble so much.
A popular theory is that James Bond is a code name for whichever agent currently holds the 007 position, which also conveniently explains why one man is played by 6 different actors. However, this theory is wrong. First, in the early movies, M sometimes refers to Bond as Commander Bond, acknowledging his naval rank, because Bond first served in the navy before joining MI6. If James Bond was just a code name, his superior wouldn't attach a rank to it that he had earned outside of the Bond persona. Second, in On Her Majesty's Secret Service, Bond discovers his family crest and motto "The world is not enough." He also gets married in this movie, and his wife is gunned down in a drive-by. In License to Kill, Felix Liter tells his wife that Bond was once married, to explain Bond's negative reaction to catching the garter. In The World is Not Enough, Bond quotes his family motto and even states that it is his family motto. In all three of these movies, Bond is played by a different actor. If these three actors were portraying three different men with the same code name, why would the later two react to things that happened to the first? Third, in The World is Not Enough, when Q gives Bond his watch, Q comments "this is your 20th I believe." This statement would have had no meaning to a new agent who just assumed the code name of James Bond. Fourth, in Goldeneye, Bond makes a statement to M about her predecessor. How would he have known details about her predecessor if he had not interacted with the man? Goldeneye was the first movie to feature Brosnan as Bond and Judi Dench as M, so Brosnan's Bond was not seen in a movie with the previous M.
In conclusion, James Bond is a man, not a code name. Assuming Bond achieved the rank of commander and joined MI6 and became a 00 agent by the time he was 30, Daniel Craig looks good for playing an 80 year old man.
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
Playing Your Best (D&D) Lesson 3: Best Buff Class
After posting lesson 2: Arcane Casters, I began to wonder, which base class is the best buff class. For today's lesson, I will be doing a comparison of the Bard, Cleric, and Wizard classes, using only the PHB. For this comparison, I'll be looking at only the class's buff abilities (how well they improve the team). Also, this comparison will be made at levels 1, 5, and 10 to provide a look at the class as a starter, low-level, and mid-level.
The bard in D&D 3.5 is an interesting class, and one that I often overlook, or dismiss jokingly as a useless class. Upon closer analysis, my opinion hasn't changed much. The bard is an arcane class, but only goes up to spell level 6, and is the only arcane class in the PHB that doesn't get 1st level spells at 1st level. Among the bard's buff abilities are bardic music and a handful of spells.
Bardic music is an interesting class feature. The bard can perform up to once per day per class level and can start a performance as a standard action and maintain a performance as a standard action. At level 1, the bard can use this performance for Inspire Courage. Inspire Courage grants a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls, and saves against charm and fear. At level 5 the bard can use Inspire Competence. Inspire Competence grants a +2 bonus to any skill check (except for Hide and Move Silently, where a bard's performance would be counter-productive). At level 9, the bard gains Inspire Greatness, and this is where it gets interesting. Inspire Greatness grants a target temporary hit points equal to 2d10 + twice the target's constitution modifier, a +2 bonus to attack rolls and a +1 bonus to fortitude saves. The target also counts as being 2 levels higher for the purpose of determining how other spells affect them.
The downside of bardic music is that the benefits only last for as long as the bard maintains the performance, and in the case of Inspire Courage and Inspire Greatness, the benefit lasts for 5 rounds after the performance ends. So, if the bard wants to maintain an effect longer than 6 rounds, the bard has to give up the ability to take other actions.
The bard's spells are rather lackluster when it comes to buffing. The only buff spells on the list of 1st level bard spells are remove fear and summon monster. Remove fear is a situational spell, and summon monster I isn't going to do much more than provide you a weak combatant you can flank with for a couple of rounds. The bard does get a few decent buffs at higher levels, such as heroism, haste, and freedom of movement.
The 3.5 cleric has a decent selection of buff spells. At 1st level, bless tops the list as the best buff spell, granting a +1 attack bonus to the entire party, while protection pulls a close second, granting a single target a +2 bonus to AC and saves and preventing charm and domination effects. A level 5 cleric has the magic circle spell, granting the benefit of the protection spell, but to everyone within 10ft of him, but also has the spell prayer, which I have often overlooked, but as it turns out, it is a decent spell, hitting everything within 40ft of the cleric, granting a +1 bonus to attacks, weapon damage, skills, and saves to allies within range, and giving enemies in range a -1 penalty to those rolls. What makes this more awesome is that the spell allows spell resistance but no save, and it provides a luck bonus, a bonus type that isn't granted often so you won't have to worry about same type duplication. The only downside to this spell is that it lasts for 1 round per caster level, so it's short-term, but for what it does, it's not bad. In addition to these two 3rd level spells, the cleric has a good list of 2nd level spells to pick from such as aid, remove paralysis, resist energy, lesser restoration, shield other, and spiritual weapon, all of which are decent buffs. When a cleric gains access to 4th level spells, freedom of movement, restoration, and summon monster IV show up as effective buffs, and yes, I'm counting summon spells as buffs because they effectively give you another party member, although weaker than most of your current party, but a summoned creature can help set up flanking positions, granting +2 bonuses to your allies' attack rolls in addition to dishing out extra hits and possibly drawing fire. Unfortunately, the list of 5th level cleric spells include more debuff, utility, and offensive spells than buff spells, making true seeing the best buff from that list.
As for the wizard, the wizard is probably a better option for a debuffer or controller than a party buffer, but the wizard does have access to good buff spells, so let's see how it compares. 1st level buff spells include magic weapon and protection. Magic weapon is also available to the cleric, but was not included in the cleric's list, because it is trumped by bless, though it should be noted that magic weapon does grant +1 to damage, which bless doesn't, and does allow the weapon to bypass the DR of a monster with DR #/magic, which bless does not. However, most monsters with DR #/magic are of a CR that by the time the party fights them, there should already be at least one or two magic weapons in the party, so the spell is often redundant. A wizard's buff choices do get better at higher levels with blur and resist energy, then displacement, haste, heroism, and magic circle. Followed by greater invisibility and summon monster IV, and finally break enchantment.
So, which class is really the best buffer?
At level 1: The bard can grant a 6-round buff of +1 attack and damage to multiple allies, but only once per day. The cleric can bless, granting +1 to attack and saves against fear for 1 minute per level, twice per day, and can use their domain spell for a protection or magic weapon. The wizard could cast magic weapon or protection twice per day, both of which last for 1 minute per level. So, at level 1, the cleric wins with the most/longest buffs, followed by the wizard, then the bard, however the bard is the only class that can provide a damage bonus to multiple allies at 1st level, and the bard could extend the buff for additional rounds, but the bard would be unable to do anything during those rounds, while the cleric and wizard would still be free to act.
At level 5: The bard can grant a +2 bonus to a skill check, and can now use bardic music abilities up to 5 times per day, meaning 5 skill boosts or 5 instances of 6-round attack, damage, and fear buffs. Plus, at 5th level, the bard can now cast heroism twice per day. The cleric can now bless 4 times per day, plus use the domain spell for protection/magic weapon, as well as cast any of the awesome 2nd level buff spells 3 times per day, plus drop a domain for another aid or spiritual weapon, and could cast 2 magic circle or prayer spells per day and use the domain spell for magic circle. The wizard now has 4 magic weapon/protection spells, 3 blur/resist energy, and 1 displacement, haste, heroism, or magic circle. At 5th level, the cleric is still winning with more total buffs per day, plus a wider variety of buffs, while the wizard is the only class capable of casting haste at this level, and the bard is the only class that can provide a skill buff. In combat, the cleric wins again, with the wizard pulling a close second, while out of combat, the bard can provide a competence boost that nobody else can match.
At level 10: The bard now has 10 bardic music uses per day, and has access to inspire greatness, granting temporary hit points, +2 to attack rolls, and +1 to fortitude saves. The bard can also cast heroism 4 times, haste 3 times, and freedom of movement once. The cleric can cast freedom of movement, restoration, or summon monster IV 4 times, plus a domain spell, and true seeing twice, plus a domain spell. The wizard now has greater invisibility and summon monster IV 4 times, and break enchantment twice. It's a bit harder to pick a winner here, since the bard has 10 performances now, and the inspire courage bonus has improved to +2. At higher levels, the bard hedges out both the cleric and wizard in terms of providing more short-term bonuses per day. The wizard's greater invisibility makes the party rogue a non-stop sneak attacker, assuming enemies that rely on sight. However, the cleric still has access to the widest variety of buffs, and can cast more spells per day than the wizard. So in terms of total buffs per day, the bard now has 10 bardic music uses, plus 4 heroisms, 3 hastes, and one freedom of movement, for a total of 18 buffs, the cleric has a total of 25 spells per day (not counting 0-levels) any of which could be used for buffing, and the wizard has 20 spells per day. So, the cleric wins with most buffs per day. In terms of damage buffs, the bard wins with inspire courage. However, the wizard's redeeming factor is that he has access to a few buff spells that the cleric doesn't.
Summary
Bard: not a good low-level buffer, starts getting decent at levels 8 and 9 when inspire courage grants +2 bonus and inspire greatness becomes an option.
Cleric: a good buffer at any level, with the biggest variety of buff spells and most spells per day.
Wizard: a better buffer than the bard at lower levels, has access to some buff spells the cleric doesn't.
Notes: calculations of spells per day were made using an 18 attribute score for the character's primary casting attribute. Cleric domain spells assumed the good and war domains, most other domains were lacking in buff spells.
The bard in D&D 3.5 is an interesting class, and one that I often overlook, or dismiss jokingly as a useless class. Upon closer analysis, my opinion hasn't changed much. The bard is an arcane class, but only goes up to spell level 6, and is the only arcane class in the PHB that doesn't get 1st level spells at 1st level. Among the bard's buff abilities are bardic music and a handful of spells.
Bardic music is an interesting class feature. The bard can perform up to once per day per class level and can start a performance as a standard action and maintain a performance as a standard action. At level 1, the bard can use this performance for Inspire Courage. Inspire Courage grants a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls, and saves against charm and fear. At level 5 the bard can use Inspire Competence. Inspire Competence grants a +2 bonus to any skill check (except for Hide and Move Silently, where a bard's performance would be counter-productive). At level 9, the bard gains Inspire Greatness, and this is where it gets interesting. Inspire Greatness grants a target temporary hit points equal to 2d10 + twice the target's constitution modifier, a +2 bonus to attack rolls and a +1 bonus to fortitude saves. The target also counts as being 2 levels higher for the purpose of determining how other spells affect them.
The downside of bardic music is that the benefits only last for as long as the bard maintains the performance, and in the case of Inspire Courage and Inspire Greatness, the benefit lasts for 5 rounds after the performance ends. So, if the bard wants to maintain an effect longer than 6 rounds, the bard has to give up the ability to take other actions.
The bard's spells are rather lackluster when it comes to buffing. The only buff spells on the list of 1st level bard spells are remove fear and summon monster. Remove fear is a situational spell, and summon monster I isn't going to do much more than provide you a weak combatant you can flank with for a couple of rounds. The bard does get a few decent buffs at higher levels, such as heroism, haste, and freedom of movement.
The 3.5 cleric has a decent selection of buff spells. At 1st level, bless tops the list as the best buff spell, granting a +1 attack bonus to the entire party, while protection pulls a close second, granting a single target a +2 bonus to AC and saves and preventing charm and domination effects. A level 5 cleric has the magic circle spell, granting the benefit of the protection spell, but to everyone within 10ft of him, but also has the spell prayer, which I have often overlooked, but as it turns out, it is a decent spell, hitting everything within 40ft of the cleric, granting a +1 bonus to attacks, weapon damage, skills, and saves to allies within range, and giving enemies in range a -1 penalty to those rolls. What makes this more awesome is that the spell allows spell resistance but no save, and it provides a luck bonus, a bonus type that isn't granted often so you won't have to worry about same type duplication. The only downside to this spell is that it lasts for 1 round per caster level, so it's short-term, but for what it does, it's not bad. In addition to these two 3rd level spells, the cleric has a good list of 2nd level spells to pick from such as aid, remove paralysis, resist energy, lesser restoration, shield other, and spiritual weapon, all of which are decent buffs. When a cleric gains access to 4th level spells, freedom of movement, restoration, and summon monster IV show up as effective buffs, and yes, I'm counting summon spells as buffs because they effectively give you another party member, although weaker than most of your current party, but a summoned creature can help set up flanking positions, granting +2 bonuses to your allies' attack rolls in addition to dishing out extra hits and possibly drawing fire. Unfortunately, the list of 5th level cleric spells include more debuff, utility, and offensive spells than buff spells, making true seeing the best buff from that list.
As for the wizard, the wizard is probably a better option for a debuffer or controller than a party buffer, but the wizard does have access to good buff spells, so let's see how it compares. 1st level buff spells include magic weapon and protection. Magic weapon is also available to the cleric, but was not included in the cleric's list, because it is trumped by bless, though it should be noted that magic weapon does grant +1 to damage, which bless doesn't, and does allow the weapon to bypass the DR of a monster with DR #/magic, which bless does not. However, most monsters with DR #/magic are of a CR that by the time the party fights them, there should already be at least one or two magic weapons in the party, so the spell is often redundant. A wizard's buff choices do get better at higher levels with blur and resist energy, then displacement, haste, heroism, and magic circle. Followed by greater invisibility and summon monster IV, and finally break enchantment.
So, which class is really the best buffer?
At level 1: The bard can grant a 6-round buff of +1 attack and damage to multiple allies, but only once per day. The cleric can bless, granting +1 to attack and saves against fear for 1 minute per level, twice per day, and can use their domain spell for a protection or magic weapon. The wizard could cast magic weapon or protection twice per day, both of which last for 1 minute per level. So, at level 1, the cleric wins with the most/longest buffs, followed by the wizard, then the bard, however the bard is the only class that can provide a damage bonus to multiple allies at 1st level, and the bard could extend the buff for additional rounds, but the bard would be unable to do anything during those rounds, while the cleric and wizard would still be free to act.
At level 5: The bard can grant a +2 bonus to a skill check, and can now use bardic music abilities up to 5 times per day, meaning 5 skill boosts or 5 instances of 6-round attack, damage, and fear buffs. Plus, at 5th level, the bard can now cast heroism twice per day. The cleric can now bless 4 times per day, plus use the domain spell for protection/magic weapon, as well as cast any of the awesome 2nd level buff spells 3 times per day, plus drop a domain for another aid or spiritual weapon, and could cast 2 magic circle or prayer spells per day and use the domain spell for magic circle. The wizard now has 4 magic weapon/protection spells, 3 blur/resist energy, and 1 displacement, haste, heroism, or magic circle. At 5th level, the cleric is still winning with more total buffs per day, plus a wider variety of buffs, while the wizard is the only class capable of casting haste at this level, and the bard is the only class that can provide a skill buff. In combat, the cleric wins again, with the wizard pulling a close second, while out of combat, the bard can provide a competence boost that nobody else can match.
At level 10: The bard now has 10 bardic music uses per day, and has access to inspire greatness, granting temporary hit points, +2 to attack rolls, and +1 to fortitude saves. The bard can also cast heroism 4 times, haste 3 times, and freedom of movement once. The cleric can cast freedom of movement, restoration, or summon monster IV 4 times, plus a domain spell, and true seeing twice, plus a domain spell. The wizard now has greater invisibility and summon monster IV 4 times, and break enchantment twice. It's a bit harder to pick a winner here, since the bard has 10 performances now, and the inspire courage bonus has improved to +2. At higher levels, the bard hedges out both the cleric and wizard in terms of providing more short-term bonuses per day. The wizard's greater invisibility makes the party rogue a non-stop sneak attacker, assuming enemies that rely on sight. However, the cleric still has access to the widest variety of buffs, and can cast more spells per day than the wizard. So in terms of total buffs per day, the bard now has 10 bardic music uses, plus 4 heroisms, 3 hastes, and one freedom of movement, for a total of 18 buffs, the cleric has a total of 25 spells per day (not counting 0-levels) any of which could be used for buffing, and the wizard has 20 spells per day. So, the cleric wins with most buffs per day. In terms of damage buffs, the bard wins with inspire courage. However, the wizard's redeeming factor is that he has access to a few buff spells that the cleric doesn't.
Summary
Bard: not a good low-level buffer, starts getting decent at levels 8 and 9 when inspire courage grants +2 bonus and inspire greatness becomes an option.
Cleric: a good buffer at any level, with the biggest variety of buff spells and most spells per day.
Wizard: a better buffer than the bard at lower levels, has access to some buff spells the cleric doesn't.
Notes: calculations of spells per day were made using an 18 attribute score for the character's primary casting attribute. Cleric domain spells assumed the good and war domains, most other domains were lacking in buff spells.
Saturday, July 14, 2012
Playing Your Best (D&D), Lesson 2-1: Arcane Casters
I've always had a fondness for playing spellcasters in rpgs. I enjoy the fact that my character is capable of things that deny explanation, and the fact that I'm always a threat even without weapons. In the course of my gaming career, I have played mostly casters. Almost all of my D&D characters have been sorcerers, and most recently wizards, and when I'm not playing D&D, I play the closest thing I can to a caster. During this lesson, I'm going to analyze some of the spells and functions of the arcane caster of D&D 3.5.
Let's take a moment to examine a few spells. Most casters who begin their adventures at level 1 will probably pick Magic Missile as their go-to combat spell, but why? As a first level caster, a Magic Missile will only deal 2-5 damage. The upside is that it always hits, it ignores armor and resistances, but at that low level, that shouldn't be an issue. The downside is that it hits only one target. Assuming you were able to cast 3 of them per day, that's a total of 6-15 damage. What about some other 1st level spells? My personal favorites are Sleep and Color Spray. Sleep is an awesome spell at 1st level, affecting as many as four opponents of equal level. This spell can end a fight or at least remove about half of your opponents from the fight when used correctly. Color Spray has the drawback of being a much shorter range spell, and it only affects as many opponents as you catch in the spray, however it remains useful longer, since Sleep has a maximum level of opponent it can affect, and Color Spray just has reduced effects against more powerful opponents.
Usually around 3rd level spells is when arcane casters really start getting interesting. This is when you get your first few spells that really alter gameplay. The question is, which ones do you want? Fireball or Lightning Bolt are usually the go-to choice for combat, both affecting multiple targets, and both doing appreciable damage. However, these are very poor choices. By the time you get access to these spells, you will be a level 5 character. Both spells will deal 5d6 damage at this level, and both allow a reflex save for half damage. Also, both spells will hurt your allies if they get caught in the area. That means you have to tell the party tank to stand back while you blast the enemies, and once your allies get into melee, you have to resort to other spells. Let's take a look at the damage output of a Fireball cast by a level 5 wizard. 5d6 works out to anywhere from 5-30 damage, with an average of 17 damage. Sure, it does that much damage to multiple targets, but you just burned your most powerful spell to deal about the same amount of damage that the party tank could do with one or two attacks, so unless you hit more than one opponent with it, that was a pretty big waste of power.
So, what kinds of spells are the most effective?
Some players like "save-or-die" spells. These spells are very powerful. If the target fails their save, they're either dead, or darn near close enough that they might as well be. However, there are two major problems with these types of spells. The first is if the enemy makes their save, you just wasted your turn and a spell to do absolutely nothing. Second, if the enemy fails their save, you just invalidated the rest of the party.
I'm going to go a step further and put forth the argument that in D&D 3.5, any spell that allows a save is not worth your time. Let me break it down for you. The difficulty to make a save against a spell is 10 + the spell's level + the caster's primary attribute modifier. So, let's assume you put an 18 into your spellcasting attribute, that means the difficulty to save against your spells is 14 + the spell level. Every character's good save starts at +2 at first level and goes up by 1 at every even numbered level. If your spell were targeting their best save, and assuming they have higher than a +0 attribute modifier, they have at least a +3 bonus to their save, which would give them a 40% chance of passing a save against your 1st level spell, and 5% less for each higher spell level. However, if you're a 5th level wizard, you have 3rd level spells, so let's take a look at that Fireball. A reflex save of 17 is required to take half damage from your fireball. If you're fighting other 5th level opponents, you're looking at a +4 bonus if reflex is their best save or +1 if it's not, plus their dexterity modifier. Even with +0 from dexterity, that gives them a 40% chance of success if reflex is their good save and 25% if it's not. Now, that might sound pretty good, but let's take a look at something. For every 2 levels a character gains, their best save improves by 1, and their bad saves improve at every 3 levels. Your spells do not. Your Fireball will always require a 17 to save unless your spellcasting attribute changes. So right now, that rogue has a 40% chance of success, but if you're a level 7 wizard casting Fireball at a level 7 rogue, that rogue now has a 45% chance of success, assuming the rogue has a +0 dexterity modifier, which isn't likely for a rogue.
Basically, as you face tougher and tougher opponents, your spells that allow saves become weaker and weaker. Fireball is one of the worst 3rd level spells that you can use at higher levels. Plus, any spell that allows a reflex save is going to be crap if you're fighting an opponent with evasion. Instead of taking half damage, they'll take nothing.
Ok, let's assume a caster and an opponent, both with a +4 attribute modifier, the caster's attribute in his spellcasting attribute, and the opponent's will be whatever attribute is required to make the save, giving the caster a worst-case scenario. The following will compare the difficulty to save against a spell of each level 1-9 and the save bonus of an opponent at the same level that the caster would gain access to that level of spell.
1st- DC 15, Good Save +6, Bad Save +4
2nd- DC 16, Good Save +7, Bad Save +5
3rd- DC 17, Good Save +8, Bad Saves +5
4th- DC 18, Good Save +9, Bad Saves +6
5th- DC 19, Good Save +10, Bad Saves +7
6th- DC 20, Good Save +11, Bad Saves +7
7th- DC 21, Good Save +12, Bad Saves +8
8th- DC 22, Good Save +13, Bad Saves +9
9th- DC 23, Good Save +14, Bad Saves +9
As you can see, assuming the enemy has at least as good of an attribute modifier in their defensive attribute as you have in your offensive, they have better than a 50% chance of success against your newest spells if you target their best save, and roughly a 40-45% chance of success if you target their bad saves.
Also, consider that many great adventures conclude with an epic battle against an opponent who is usually a few levels higher than you, and your chances of getting that failed save in the adventure's climax drops considerably. It should also be noted that there are more magic items that can improve defenses and saves than there are that increase a spell's save difficulty. With all this stacked against you, using spells that allow saves is pretty pointless.
So, what about using spells that are based on the caster's attack roll? Well, those usually aren't too bad, since they tend to ignore armor, which gives the caster a very good chance to deal some damage, but the problem with these is that they usually only target a single opponent. So you effectively become an archer who runs out of ammo faster than the party's archer.
This leaves us with a type of spell that we haven't addressed yet. Party buffs. These types of spells always work, so long as your allies are within range. No member of the party would turn down a buff, so you don't have to worry about saves, and there's no attack roll required. So, you have to ask yourself, which is more effective: casting a single Fireball that does an average of 17 damage to each target and allows a save for half damage before applying any fire resistance the enemy may have, and allowing opponents with evasion to completely ignore the damage if they succeeded, or casting a Haste that grants all of your allies a +1 bonus to their attack rolls, their defense, their reflex saves, allows them to move farther each round, and allows them to make an extra attack each round, AND these bonuses last for multiple rounds?
Let's take a moment to examine a few spells. Most casters who begin their adventures at level 1 will probably pick Magic Missile as their go-to combat spell, but why? As a first level caster, a Magic Missile will only deal 2-5 damage. The upside is that it always hits, it ignores armor and resistances, but at that low level, that shouldn't be an issue. The downside is that it hits only one target. Assuming you were able to cast 3 of them per day, that's a total of 6-15 damage. What about some other 1st level spells? My personal favorites are Sleep and Color Spray. Sleep is an awesome spell at 1st level, affecting as many as four opponents of equal level. This spell can end a fight or at least remove about half of your opponents from the fight when used correctly. Color Spray has the drawback of being a much shorter range spell, and it only affects as many opponents as you catch in the spray, however it remains useful longer, since Sleep has a maximum level of opponent it can affect, and Color Spray just has reduced effects against more powerful opponents.
Usually around 3rd level spells is when arcane casters really start getting interesting. This is when you get your first few spells that really alter gameplay. The question is, which ones do you want? Fireball or Lightning Bolt are usually the go-to choice for combat, both affecting multiple targets, and both doing appreciable damage. However, these are very poor choices. By the time you get access to these spells, you will be a level 5 character. Both spells will deal 5d6 damage at this level, and both allow a reflex save for half damage. Also, both spells will hurt your allies if they get caught in the area. That means you have to tell the party tank to stand back while you blast the enemies, and once your allies get into melee, you have to resort to other spells. Let's take a look at the damage output of a Fireball cast by a level 5 wizard. 5d6 works out to anywhere from 5-30 damage, with an average of 17 damage. Sure, it does that much damage to multiple targets, but you just burned your most powerful spell to deal about the same amount of damage that the party tank could do with one or two attacks, so unless you hit more than one opponent with it, that was a pretty big waste of power.
So, what kinds of spells are the most effective?
Some players like "save-or-die" spells. These spells are very powerful. If the target fails their save, they're either dead, or darn near close enough that they might as well be. However, there are two major problems with these types of spells. The first is if the enemy makes their save, you just wasted your turn and a spell to do absolutely nothing. Second, if the enemy fails their save, you just invalidated the rest of the party.
I'm going to go a step further and put forth the argument that in D&D 3.5, any spell that allows a save is not worth your time. Let me break it down for you. The difficulty to make a save against a spell is 10 + the spell's level + the caster's primary attribute modifier. So, let's assume you put an 18 into your spellcasting attribute, that means the difficulty to save against your spells is 14 + the spell level. Every character's good save starts at +2 at first level and goes up by 1 at every even numbered level. If your spell were targeting their best save, and assuming they have higher than a +0 attribute modifier, they have at least a +3 bonus to their save, which would give them a 40% chance of passing a save against your 1st level spell, and 5% less for each higher spell level. However, if you're a 5th level wizard, you have 3rd level spells, so let's take a look at that Fireball. A reflex save of 17 is required to take half damage from your fireball. If you're fighting other 5th level opponents, you're looking at a +4 bonus if reflex is their best save or +1 if it's not, plus their dexterity modifier. Even with +0 from dexterity, that gives them a 40% chance of success if reflex is their good save and 25% if it's not. Now, that might sound pretty good, but let's take a look at something. For every 2 levels a character gains, their best save improves by 1, and their bad saves improve at every 3 levels. Your spells do not. Your Fireball will always require a 17 to save unless your spellcasting attribute changes. So right now, that rogue has a 40% chance of success, but if you're a level 7 wizard casting Fireball at a level 7 rogue, that rogue now has a 45% chance of success, assuming the rogue has a +0 dexterity modifier, which isn't likely for a rogue.
Basically, as you face tougher and tougher opponents, your spells that allow saves become weaker and weaker. Fireball is one of the worst 3rd level spells that you can use at higher levels. Plus, any spell that allows a reflex save is going to be crap if you're fighting an opponent with evasion. Instead of taking half damage, they'll take nothing.
Ok, let's assume a caster and an opponent, both with a +4 attribute modifier, the caster's attribute in his spellcasting attribute, and the opponent's will be whatever attribute is required to make the save, giving the caster a worst-case scenario. The following will compare the difficulty to save against a spell of each level 1-9 and the save bonus of an opponent at the same level that the caster would gain access to that level of spell.
1st- DC 15, Good Save +6, Bad Save +4
2nd- DC 16, Good Save +7, Bad Save +5
3rd- DC 17, Good Save +8, Bad Saves +5
4th- DC 18, Good Save +9, Bad Saves +6
5th- DC 19, Good Save +10, Bad Saves +7
6th- DC 20, Good Save +11, Bad Saves +7
7th- DC 21, Good Save +12, Bad Saves +8
8th- DC 22, Good Save +13, Bad Saves +9
9th- DC 23, Good Save +14, Bad Saves +9
As you can see, assuming the enemy has at least as good of an attribute modifier in their defensive attribute as you have in your offensive, they have better than a 50% chance of success against your newest spells if you target their best save, and roughly a 40-45% chance of success if you target their bad saves.
Also, consider that many great adventures conclude with an epic battle against an opponent who is usually a few levels higher than you, and your chances of getting that failed save in the adventure's climax drops considerably. It should also be noted that there are more magic items that can improve defenses and saves than there are that increase a spell's save difficulty. With all this stacked against you, using spells that allow saves is pretty pointless.
So, what about using spells that are based on the caster's attack roll? Well, those usually aren't too bad, since they tend to ignore armor, which gives the caster a very good chance to deal some damage, but the problem with these is that they usually only target a single opponent. So you effectively become an archer who runs out of ammo faster than the party's archer.
This leaves us with a type of spell that we haven't addressed yet. Party buffs. These types of spells always work, so long as your allies are within range. No member of the party would turn down a buff, so you don't have to worry about saves, and there's no attack roll required. So, you have to ask yourself, which is more effective: casting a single Fireball that does an average of 17 damage to each target and allows a save for half damage before applying any fire resistance the enemy may have, and allowing opponents with evasion to completely ignore the damage if they succeeded, or casting a Haste that grants all of your allies a +1 bonus to their attack rolls, their defense, their reflex saves, allows them to move farther each round, and allows them to make an extra attack each round, AND these bonuses last for multiple rounds?
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Playing Your Best (D&D), Lesson 1-2: Specialist Fighters
Last night I talked about some common character builds for Fighters and broke things down by the numbers to help you decide which type of Fighter you think you would most like to play. Today, we're going to get a bit more in-depth with special techniques. The builds examined here are specialists, meaning they do one thing very well, but if they are denied their chance to use this ability, they are only an average fighter.
Chain Fighter
This has to be my favorite low-level Fighter build. The idea behind this build is tripping the opponent. To play this build effectively, you need to become familiar with the rules for tripping. The quickest way to achieve this build is to play a human and put at least a 15 in your dexterity (the higher the better). Your first level feat choice is Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Spiked Chain. Your Fighter bonus feat will be Combat Reflexes, and if you go with a human, your human bonus feat will be either Weapon Finesse: Spiked Chain or Weapon Focus: Spiked Chain.
So, what does this build do? Well, first of all, a spiked chain has a 10ft reach, but it also lets you attack adjacent opponents. It can also be used as a double weapon. It has a base damage of 2d4, so an average damage of 5. It is a two-handed weapon, so attacks with your primary end will get 150% of your strength bonus. You will need the exotic proficiency for this build. Combat Reflexes will allow you to capitalize on your high dexterity by getting extra attacks of opportunity. Weapon Finesse will let you use that dexterity to boost your attack bonus. At level 2, you should use your Fighter bonus feat to take either Weapon Finesse or Weapon Focus, whichever you didn't take at level 1. With your 3rd level feat, you will want Combat Expertise if you have a high enough intelligence, or maybe consider two-weapon fighting. Your level 4 Fighter bonus feat should be Weapon Specialization: Spiked Chain, and your 6th level feat will be Improved Trip and your Fighter bonus feat will be Improved Two-Weapon Fighting.
This build gives you a few options of good feats you can take depending on if you want to focus on building up your damage faster, number of attacks faster, or trip success rate faster.
Combat Reflexes let you make attacks of opportunity against multiple opponents. You can declare trip attempts with your chain instead of a normal attack. Getting up while within an opponent's threatened area provokes attacks of opportunity. You threaten all spaces your weapon can attack into. So, right off the bat, as a level 1 character with exotic proficiency and combat reflexes and assuming a dexterity bonus of +2, you threaten twice as much ground as other level 1 characters, you can make AoO against up to 3 opponents each round. Right off the bat, this means that after you are no longer flat-footed, opponents can't charge you without getting attacked, and anyone you trip will give you a free attack on their turn. If the rest of your party is smart, they will move into melee with tripped opponents so the opponent provokes from multiple characters at once.
Pros: The vast majority of opponents in D&D are humanoids, who are vulnerable to tripping.
Cons: This strategy doesn't work against larger creatures and monsters with four or more legs.
The Bulldozer
What is more effective: charging an opponent to swing for 2d6 damage with your greatsword, or charging that opponent and pushing them back over a cliff? Many opponents are effectively removed from combat if they are pushed over a cliff, and that is what the bulldozer is shooting for.
To build a bulldozer, you need Power Attack and Improved Bull Rush. A level 1 Fighter can take both starting out.
Pros: 1- Even if you aren't in a situation where you can push an opponent out of the fight, the prerequisites for your feats include Power Attack, which also leads you to the most effective damage-dealing melee build discussed last night. 2- Improved Bull Rush is the only feat you really need, after that your other feats can work towards melee combat, such as Cleave, Improved Toughness, Dodge, etc.
Cons: 1- Ineffective against non-humanoids or larger humanoids or dwarves. 2- If your attempt fails, you have effectively wasted your turn this round.
Spiked Shield
For this build, you will need a spiked shield and a one-handed weapon. A shield's spike is considered a weapon, and is technically a separate weapon from the shield, so you could potentially get a +2 Arrow Catching shield with a +2 Holy spike. For this build, you will want Improved Shield Bash and Two-Weapon Fighting. Improved Shield Bash will let you retain your shield's AC bonus when attacking with your spike, and Two-Weapon Fighting will reduce your penalty for attacking with your sword and shield.
One of my friends wanted to try this build with the Two-Weapon Defense feat, which says your off-hand weapon grants a +1 shield bonus to AC. However, after considering it, I realized that shields grant a shield bonus, the feat grants a shield bonus, and as we all know from the Dungeonmaster's Guide, like bonuses don't stack! So, taking Two-Weapon Defense while using a spiked shield is pointless, however the other Two-Weapon feats are still perfectly applicable, and by using a shield and Improved Shield Bash, you don't have to worry about the Two-Weapon Defense feat, and you can still enjoy the defensive abilities of magic shields without sacrificing your offensive power.
There are plenty of other options available for fighter specialists. These are just some of the fun choices you can make using only the Player's Handbook. Let me encourage you to break the mold, try something new, and experiment. If you usually play power-attacking heavy weapon fighters, try a chain fighter or even a bulldozer since the build isn't too different it'll be somewhat familiar. Above all, have fun with whatever choice you make.
Chain Fighter
This has to be my favorite low-level Fighter build. The idea behind this build is tripping the opponent. To play this build effectively, you need to become familiar with the rules for tripping. The quickest way to achieve this build is to play a human and put at least a 15 in your dexterity (the higher the better). Your first level feat choice is Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Spiked Chain. Your Fighter bonus feat will be Combat Reflexes, and if you go with a human, your human bonus feat will be either Weapon Finesse: Spiked Chain or Weapon Focus: Spiked Chain.
So, what does this build do? Well, first of all, a spiked chain has a 10ft reach, but it also lets you attack adjacent opponents. It can also be used as a double weapon. It has a base damage of 2d4, so an average damage of 5. It is a two-handed weapon, so attacks with your primary end will get 150% of your strength bonus. You will need the exotic proficiency for this build. Combat Reflexes will allow you to capitalize on your high dexterity by getting extra attacks of opportunity. Weapon Finesse will let you use that dexterity to boost your attack bonus. At level 2, you should use your Fighter bonus feat to take either Weapon Finesse or Weapon Focus, whichever you didn't take at level 1. With your 3rd level feat, you will want Combat Expertise if you have a high enough intelligence, or maybe consider two-weapon fighting. Your level 4 Fighter bonus feat should be Weapon Specialization: Spiked Chain, and your 6th level feat will be Improved Trip and your Fighter bonus feat will be Improved Two-Weapon Fighting.
This build gives you a few options of good feats you can take depending on if you want to focus on building up your damage faster, number of attacks faster, or trip success rate faster.
Combat Reflexes let you make attacks of opportunity against multiple opponents. You can declare trip attempts with your chain instead of a normal attack. Getting up while within an opponent's threatened area provokes attacks of opportunity. You threaten all spaces your weapon can attack into. So, right off the bat, as a level 1 character with exotic proficiency and combat reflexes and assuming a dexterity bonus of +2, you threaten twice as much ground as other level 1 characters, you can make AoO against up to 3 opponents each round. Right off the bat, this means that after you are no longer flat-footed, opponents can't charge you without getting attacked, and anyone you trip will give you a free attack on their turn. If the rest of your party is smart, they will move into melee with tripped opponents so the opponent provokes from multiple characters at once.
Pros: The vast majority of opponents in D&D are humanoids, who are vulnerable to tripping.
Cons: This strategy doesn't work against larger creatures and monsters with four or more legs.
The Bulldozer
What is more effective: charging an opponent to swing for 2d6 damage with your greatsword, or charging that opponent and pushing them back over a cliff? Many opponents are effectively removed from combat if they are pushed over a cliff, and that is what the bulldozer is shooting for.
To build a bulldozer, you need Power Attack and Improved Bull Rush. A level 1 Fighter can take both starting out.
Pros: 1- Even if you aren't in a situation where you can push an opponent out of the fight, the prerequisites for your feats include Power Attack, which also leads you to the most effective damage-dealing melee build discussed last night. 2- Improved Bull Rush is the only feat you really need, after that your other feats can work towards melee combat, such as Cleave, Improved Toughness, Dodge, etc.
Cons: 1- Ineffective against non-humanoids or larger humanoids or dwarves. 2- If your attempt fails, you have effectively wasted your turn this round.
Spiked Shield
For this build, you will need a spiked shield and a one-handed weapon. A shield's spike is considered a weapon, and is technically a separate weapon from the shield, so you could potentially get a +2 Arrow Catching shield with a +2 Holy spike. For this build, you will want Improved Shield Bash and Two-Weapon Fighting. Improved Shield Bash will let you retain your shield's AC bonus when attacking with your spike, and Two-Weapon Fighting will reduce your penalty for attacking with your sword and shield.
One of my friends wanted to try this build with the Two-Weapon Defense feat, which says your off-hand weapon grants a +1 shield bonus to AC. However, after considering it, I realized that shields grant a shield bonus, the feat grants a shield bonus, and as we all know from the Dungeonmaster's Guide, like bonuses don't stack! So, taking Two-Weapon Defense while using a spiked shield is pointless, however the other Two-Weapon feats are still perfectly applicable, and by using a shield and Improved Shield Bash, you don't have to worry about the Two-Weapon Defense feat, and you can still enjoy the defensive abilities of magic shields without sacrificing your offensive power.
There are plenty of other options available for fighter specialists. These are just some of the fun choices you can make using only the Player's Handbook. Let me encourage you to break the mold, try something new, and experiment. If you usually play power-attacking heavy weapon fighters, try a chain fighter or even a bulldozer since the build isn't too different it'll be somewhat familiar. Above all, have fun with whatever choice you make.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Playing Your Best (D&D), Lesson 1-1: The Fighter
Today's guide will be one of many in a series titled "Playing Your Best." This little series of guides will focus on a single game at a time and will cover various aspects to help you play the "best" character you can from whatever choices you can make.
We're beginning with Dungeons & Dragons because it is the single most popular tabletop rpg around right now, and the one with which I have the most experience.
One thing I want to discuss before we begin is min-maxing. Min-maxing is a technique used by many players, usually power gamers, in which you put your best attribute values into the attributes most "useful" to your character and then place your worst in the attributes you don't care about. While, sadly, this is a valid strategy, and most game systems don't penalyze you for doing so, it is frowned upon by some game masters and actor-type players. These guides aren't going to be guides for optimizing your character build per se, but instead, making smart decisions and how to work as a team to overcome challenges.
The Attributes
Because of the physical nature of fighters, they tend to care about the first three attributes (strength, dexterity, and constitution) more than their mental attributes. This makes them tempting to min-max, but before you put your 18 in strength, 15 in constitution, and dump your other stats, let's look at a few character options.
Ranged vs Melee
In the D&D game mechanics, it is a lot harder to dish out as much damage with ranged attacks as it is with melee attacks. Unfortunately, this is just part of the game mechanics. However, with a few smart decisions, you can build an effective archer.
Before you make your decision, let's look at some numbers. If you want to be a melee fighter, that means you're also going to be a melee target! Not only will you need a high strength for dishing it out, you'll want a high constitution for taking it. Let's face it, in D&D, no matter how high your armor class gets, you're still going to get hit by someone, so you still need those hit points. So, if you plan for melee, already you know you want high strength and constitution. You'll want a decent dexterity to help make it a bit harder for the weaker enemies to hit you so you don't have to worry so much about getting worn down before you reach the bigger threats. However, if you choose to play an archer, your primary attribute becomes dexterity, since it affects how accurate your ranged attacks are. Having a high dexterity means that you not only have a higher attack bonus, but a higher armor class bonus. So, you're killing two birds with one stone. You have your offense and defense in a single attribute. This also means you can wear lighter armor and still have the same armor class as a lower-dexterity fighter with heavier armor, so you save on gold. Also, attacking from range means that if you have melee fighters in your party, they're going to become melee targets before you do, so you can afford to have less hit points than they do as you will likely be taking less damage. So, you only need one high attribute. This means you can put your other good attributes in something like... wisdom maybe? You don't want to be the one keeping watch and failing that listen check, resulting in a party ambush situation. If your primary attribute covers your offense and defense, then you can use your other high attribute values to work on utility coverage. Go with a higher wisdom to help that spot and listen skill, or go with a higher intelligence to counteract the fighter's low base skill points. Maybe even go with charisma to be the spokesman of the party and perhaps boost that diplomacy skill when you need to negotiate or barter.
So, there are some advantages to ranged combat. Are there any other advantages? Well, yes. The other biggest advantage is subtle and you won't see it until later levels, but once you do, it can become your biggest advantage. Your arrows. Specifically, magic arrows. Let's take a look at this scenario:
You are fighting against a demon that's immune to fire. The other fighter in the party already has his flaming sword in hand. Your partner has to use one of his actions to put away his sword and draw another (assuming the quick draw feat, or combine a move and drawn weapon in a single action). This means, your partner can only make a single attack this round, and if he was within an opponent's threatened space, he provoked an attack of oportunity for drawing his weapon. You, however, have a bow with no elemental enhancement. Perhaps your bow is a simple +3 bow. You're carrying a bundle of +1 flaming arrows, which you've been using quite a good bit, but you also have a bundle of +1 frosted arrows. When the demon appears, all you have to do is nock your bow with the other type of arrow, which is a free action. You can still make a full-attack this round, and use a weapon that the demon isn't immune to.
What's the subtle relationship between magic bows and magic arrows? Magic ranged weapons grant their enhancements to any ammo they fire, however, the attack/damage bonus doesn't stack, you just use the better bonus. So, in the above example, with a single bow, you have access to a +3 flaming and a +3 frosted weapon, without ever changing weapons. Also, if you decide you need something else, you can spend the gold to purchase a +2 equivilant weapon (+1 enhancement bonus and other special ability with a +1 equivilant price) and you get 50 arrows of that type that you can fire from your +3 bow, effectively giving you another +4 weapon (+3 enhancement plus the +1 equivilant ability) that you can use 50 times for the price of a +2 weapon!
Are there any other advantages to being an archer? Yes. Let's say a human melee fighter wearing medium armor is standing 110ft away from you. You've both drawn your weapons. You have the higher initiative, so you get to go first. Let's assume your attack bonus and chosen feats let you make three attacks with a full-attack action. You shoot 3 times. Now, your opponent is too far away to charge. Medium armor only allows you to run at x3 speed instead of x4. So, he moves 90ft towards you. He still can't reach you! In the following round, you could make 3 more attacks. Your opponent charges. He gets a single attack as he charges. In round 3, you make a simple 5ft step backwards as a free action, and you can make 3 more attacks! Now, your opponent is close enough to do the same to you, but before he's unleashed a full-attack on you, you've already gotten in 9 shots total, while he's only attacked you once so far. Against an opponent in heavy armor, as many melee fighters will likely wear, his speed is reduced to 20ft base, so he runs even slower, so you're quite likely to land even more attacks before he attacks you even once.
How Can Melee Compete?
For the longest time, my players and I have incorrectly believed that dual-wielders are the best melee damage dealers. Well, after crunching some numbers, we've realized that we were pretty far off. Assuming the proper feats, a single one-handed weapon and a light weapon, your penalty is reduced to as little as -2. One of the most popular one-handed weapons is the longsword. So, we'll use that for this example. We'll assume a short sword for the off-hand weapon. What you have here is a -2 penalty to all of your attacks for a base of 1d8 damage with your primary weapon and 1d6 damage with your secondary. The benefit to this is the one extra attack you get, which is your secondary weapon. So, if you are level 1-5, you get 2 attacks, one primary, one secondary. Let's assume a 5th level fighter with a strength score of 15, about average. This equates to a base attack of +5, strength bonus of +2, then two-handed penalty of -2, for a total of +5 attack bonus. Your primary weapon will deal 1d8+2 damage and your secondary 1d6+1. The average damage rolls are 6.5 and 4.5 (the average for any single die is the average of its highest and lowest values, so 4.5 and 3.5 in this example, modified by the +2 and +1 damage bonus. The secondary gets only +1 damage because your off-hand gets only half your strength bonus to damage). So, you are sacrificing 10% (-2 penalty) to your accuracy for the chance to deal an extra 4.5 damage on average.
What would happen if this same fighter used a two-handed weapon and used power attack instead of two-handed fighting? Let's assume a greatsword to keep a sword in each example. A greatsword deals 2d6 damage. Because you wield it with two hands, you get to add 150% of your strength bonus to damage instead of the normal strength bonus. So, your damage is 2d6+3. Let's assume you use the power attack feat for the same attack penalty that you would have had with two-weapon fighting, so -2. The power attack feat lets you add double your penalty to damage if you use a two-handed weapon. So, you take a 10% accuracy penalty for a +4 damage bonus. You are getting only a single attack, but your total damage 2d6+7, or an average of 14 (7 is the average for 2d6 +7 for the damage bonus). Both fighters have the same +5 attack bonus. The first fighter, if he hits with his first attack, deals 6.5 damage on average, then if he hits with the second, deals 4.5. The second fighter, if he hits, deals 14 damage. This results in an average of 3 more points of damage per hit than the first fighter. Of course, you may argue that fighter 1 has two attacks, so he has two chances of hitting. Well, yes, he does. However, even if both attacks hit, he's dealing less damage overall. Let's take this scenario:
The enemy has an armor class of 16. Now, both fighters need to roll an 11 or higher to hit the opponent. This means that 50% of the time they will hit.
So, in round 1, Fighter A gets 2 attacks, one hits, for 6 damage, the other missed. Fighter B gets 1 attack, it hits, 14 damage.
In round 2, Fighter A gets 2 attacks. He gets lucky and both hit for 11 damage. Fighter B attacks, misses, no damage.
In round 3, Fighter A misses with both attacks!. Fighter B attacks, hits and deals 14 damage again.
In round 4, Fighter A attacks, his first missed, his second hits for 5 damage. Fighter B misses again.
Ok, after 4 rounds, Fighter A has dealt a total of 22 damage, Fighter B, 28 damage.
The above scenario uses a lot of average rolls. Obviously, some oddities will occur, but over many rolls over the course of the entire campaign, the averages eventually work themselves out. You will notice, I allowed each attack to hit exactly twice in this example. Fighter A's longsword landed 2 hits, the shortsword landed 2. I rounded damage down in the first hit, then rounded up with the second hit.
Also, keep in mind that since Fighter B rolls 2 dice, his damage will be more consistent than Fighter A, which isn't shown in the example. It's a fact of probabilities that when you roll a single die, each value has an equal chance of coming up, but when you roll 2d6 your chances of rolling a 7 is a little more than 16%, your chances of rolling a 6 or 8 is 14%, a 5 or 9 is a little more than 11%. So, the chances of rolling between 5 and 9 is ~41% not quite half, but as you can see, you have a much better chance of rolling decent damage, while the single-die roller has equal chance of rolling awesome, decent, or sucky damage. This brings me to my next point...
Which Weapon?
Obviously, from the above example, you will want a two-handed weapon, but which one? Well, the greataxe is a popular choice, but it deals 1d12 damage. The greatsword is an all-round great weapon with 2d6 damage, and is also the only 2-handed martial weapon to roll 2d6 damage. Now, there are a lot of nice options in the 2-handed department, some of them with reach, some with other fun little perks, but let's concentrate on these two for right now. The greataxe is 1d12 damage with an x3 critical, while the greatsword is 2d6 with a 19-20/x2 critical. What does all this mean? Well, when you crunch the numbers, the greataxe has a little more than 8% chance of rolling any single value. This means a 33% chance of rolling 1-4, and a 25% chance of rolling higher than 9.
d12 vs 2d6
Chance of rolling higher than 9
d12: 25%
2d6: 16%
Chance of rolling less than 5
d12: 33%
2d6: 16%
Chance of rolling 5-9
d12: 40%
2d6: ~41%
What can we tell from these numbers? The d12 and the 2d6 both have a good chance of dealing average damage, but the d12 has a better chance of dealing greater damage, but it also has a much greater chance of dealing low damage.
Let's look at the criticals. The greataxe has an x3 critical. The greatsword a 19-20. This means that 5% of your attacks with the axe have a chance of dealing triple damage, while 10% of your attacks with the sword have a chance of dealing double.
What does this mean? Well, overall, it means the sword will score criticals about twice as often as the axe, if wielded by the same fighter. So, assuming average damage, a strength bonus of +2, and a power attack of -2/+4, here's the breakdown:
Axe deals 6.5+7 for 13.5x3 total damage, or 40.5 after a single critical
Sword deals 7+7 for 14x2 total damage, or 28 after a single critical
You'll notice the average damages aren't quite equal. Why? As explained above, the average roll is equal to the average of the high and low values, or 1 and 12 for the d12, while the 2d6 has values of 2 and 12, for a slightly higher average.
Ok, the axe seems to win on criticals... until you remember that the sword will score criticals roughly twice as often as the axe. What does this mean, numbers wise? Well, it means that assuming both weapons score the same number of hits, both will deal the same critical damage over time. Want an explanation?
Axe crits for x3, then doesn't crit for x1. Total damage dealt: average x4
Sword crits for x2, then crits for x2. Total damage dealt: average x4
Now, while you won't actually score criticals that quickly... at least you shouldn't, what this really means that given X attack rolls, the Axe will score criticals X/20 times, while the sword crits X/10 times. So, every crit of the axe is x3 damage, every crit of the sword is x2. Since the sword crits twice as often, you could just as easily work this out in the equation as saying X/10 = 2. Or X/20 = 4. So, when you assume two criticals from the sword are equal to a single critical at x4, this means that in two attacks, the sword did x4 damage, while in the same number of attacks, the axe did x3 with one attack, and normal damage, or x1, with the other attack, so in two attacks, a total of x4!
This means that for the purpose of comparing damage directly, going strictly by averages, you can ignore their criticals and compare average damage, in which case, the sword wins by a slight margin. However, the more total attacks made will increase this margin more and more. As seen in the above example, the sword's average damage was 14, while the axe was 13.5. So, let's say after 10 attacks, the sword is averaging 140 damage, the axe 135. Now, that .5 is starting to make a difference.
Ok, but let's look at it in real terms. How many enemies take 140 damage to kill? Enemies of 10th level and up maybe? Dragons? Demons? By the time you face enemies with that many hit points, you should have access to magic weapons, which we haven't factored into the equations. So, while the equations and averages may be true, let's face it, at low levels, when you are relying purely on your damage rolls and no magical enhancements, your enemies can't really take that much damage. So, let's assume 5 enemies with 20 hit points each. Which fighter defeats them quicker? Well, neither. The sword hits for 14, then again hits for 14, enemy can only take 20, so the other 8 is a waste. How many GMs really care if their NPC is reduced to -8 or -7? They're still defeated. The axe fighter similarly deals 13 then 14, again, 7 damage is wasted. In both scenarios, both fighters deal at least 10 damage per hit. Wait! The axe has just as good of a chance of dealing less than 10!
Ok, look at this:
Chance of rolling 1 or 2 (damage needed with a +3 damage from strength and +4 from power attack to deal less than 10 damage)
d12: 16%
2d6: 3% (actually more like 2.76% or something close)
Also, keep in mind that the sword can't actually deal less than 2 damage! So, all you need is +1 more damage from anything, and suddenly your minimum damage is 10.
Alright, so the axe will roll less than 10 damage 16% of the time. However, we already established that on average, both weapons will need 2 hits anyway, and we also established there was 7 damage leftover from the axe's second attack. So, even if you did 8 damage (minimum of the axe in the above example), you only need to roll a 5 or better on your second damage roll (66% chance) to finish off the opponent.
So, what does this prove? Basically, at lower levels, before magic weapons get involved, the sword wins out against the axe only against opponents who can suvive multiple hits (major villains), and wins out when you want to consitently one-hit enemies that require damage rolls of 5 or higher to one-hit (total of 81-82% chance of rolling 5 or more on 2d6). Otherwise, you'll do just as well with the axe, and maybe better at times since the one critical from the axe may be enough to drop weaker opponents, but you will require a critical plus a second hit with the sword to drop that same opponent.
Now, there are a lot of other variables we could look at, and a lot of other situations, examples, and math we could work through, but that's more about the axe vs the sword, and this guide has already delved enough into that realm. This guide is supposed to be about the fighter himself, so let's take a look at one more option with the fighter.
Shield?
We've discussed being an archer, two-weapons, and the 2-handed weapon, but what about a 1-hand weapon and a shield? This is also a feasible option, but I have seen fewer good feat choices for shield uses. Improved shield bash comes to mind, but that's really the only one. Using a shield is basically sacrificing your off-hand weapon or your chance to use a 2-handed weapon for a little extra armor class, usually +2. Is it worth it? Probably not. One of the best single-handed weapons is the longsword for d8 damage. 4.5 average before any modifiers. A full 2.5 points lower than the greatsword. What do you get? An extra 2 points of armor class? That reduces opponents' accuracy by a total of 10%.
Now, while the shield doesn't look all that favorable yet, let's also consider that there are still a number of good feat choices for your offense, and you can use a one-handed weapon just fine, and eventually you can get a magic shield which can have some fun abilities, so don't discount the shield option just yet.
The Best Fighter?
Now, numbers-wise, the power attacking fighter, and the archer have the advantage, but let's consider some other situations. Is the archer equal to the power attacker while in a dungeon full of narrow cooridors and cramped rooms? Is the power attacker equal when fighting a flying enemy?
What point am I trying to make here? Well, I've crunched some numbers for you, and while it looks like I might be trying to encourage the min-max, I'm actually just trying to show you some choices you can make to make your character more efficient so you don't have to max out certain attributes because you think that's what a fighter is supposed to be. Also, my last point that I'd like to make is that while specializing looks very appealing, when you do that you become a specialist. You become really great at doing things a certain way, but what happens when you can't apply your strength? Let me give you one more example:
In a recent campaign, I had two players playing barbarians. One was a straight barbarian build using a greataxe with power attack, the other took 2 levels of fighter for the bonus feats and barbarian the rest of the way. He also used a greataxe and power attack. Neither character bothered to purchase a ranged weapon with their starting money. All of their feat choices revolved around melee combat. These two could dispatch minions like crazy, but what happened everytime we reached the end of the adventure and faced the big bad guy (boss) who could fly? Suddenly, our biggest power houses were reduced to level 1 efficiency! Guys who were used to hitting for d12 damage had nothing! Even after several adventures, gaining several levels, they were hitting for d12+9 damage, and still hadn't purchased a ranged weapon even after facing at least 3 big baddies that were unreachable with melee attacks. Finally, they bought javelins and throwing axes. From then on, these giants in melee were reduced from d12+9 damage to a measely d6+3 or maybe d6+4 damage when facing a ranged opponent.
Moral of the story: When you focus entirely on a single aspect of your character, you have no one to blame but yourself when your GM makes you face an opponent you have no answer to.
Which fighter should you build? That's up to you. I won't tell you how to make your character. If I did, it wouldn't be your character. You make your fighter however you want. All I've done is provide some information about the effectiveness of different choices. Now, if you want to play a dual-wielding swashbuckler, or a sword and shield fighter, knowing that a greatsword or a longbow would be a more effective choice... then congratulations. You've graduated from power gamer to actor/roleplayer. As a gamemaster, I'd much rather see my players play a character because of the concept as opposed to which character type racks up the numbers faster.
We're beginning with Dungeons & Dragons because it is the single most popular tabletop rpg around right now, and the one with which I have the most experience.
One thing I want to discuss before we begin is min-maxing. Min-maxing is a technique used by many players, usually power gamers, in which you put your best attribute values into the attributes most "useful" to your character and then place your worst in the attributes you don't care about. While, sadly, this is a valid strategy, and most game systems don't penalyze you for doing so, it is frowned upon by some game masters and actor-type players. These guides aren't going to be guides for optimizing your character build per se, but instead, making smart decisions and how to work as a team to overcome challenges.
The Attributes
Because of the physical nature of fighters, they tend to care about the first three attributes (strength, dexterity, and constitution) more than their mental attributes. This makes them tempting to min-max, but before you put your 18 in strength, 15 in constitution, and dump your other stats, let's look at a few character options.
Ranged vs Melee
In the D&D game mechanics, it is a lot harder to dish out as much damage with ranged attacks as it is with melee attacks. Unfortunately, this is just part of the game mechanics. However, with a few smart decisions, you can build an effective archer.
Before you make your decision, let's look at some numbers. If you want to be a melee fighter, that means you're also going to be a melee target! Not only will you need a high strength for dishing it out, you'll want a high constitution for taking it. Let's face it, in D&D, no matter how high your armor class gets, you're still going to get hit by someone, so you still need those hit points. So, if you plan for melee, already you know you want high strength and constitution. You'll want a decent dexterity to help make it a bit harder for the weaker enemies to hit you so you don't have to worry so much about getting worn down before you reach the bigger threats. However, if you choose to play an archer, your primary attribute becomes dexterity, since it affects how accurate your ranged attacks are. Having a high dexterity means that you not only have a higher attack bonus, but a higher armor class bonus. So, you're killing two birds with one stone. You have your offense and defense in a single attribute. This also means you can wear lighter armor and still have the same armor class as a lower-dexterity fighter with heavier armor, so you save on gold. Also, attacking from range means that if you have melee fighters in your party, they're going to become melee targets before you do, so you can afford to have less hit points than they do as you will likely be taking less damage. So, you only need one high attribute. This means you can put your other good attributes in something like... wisdom maybe? You don't want to be the one keeping watch and failing that listen check, resulting in a party ambush situation. If your primary attribute covers your offense and defense, then you can use your other high attribute values to work on utility coverage. Go with a higher wisdom to help that spot and listen skill, or go with a higher intelligence to counteract the fighter's low base skill points. Maybe even go with charisma to be the spokesman of the party and perhaps boost that diplomacy skill when you need to negotiate or barter.
So, there are some advantages to ranged combat. Are there any other advantages? Well, yes. The other biggest advantage is subtle and you won't see it until later levels, but once you do, it can become your biggest advantage. Your arrows. Specifically, magic arrows. Let's take a look at this scenario:
You are fighting against a demon that's immune to fire. The other fighter in the party already has his flaming sword in hand. Your partner has to use one of his actions to put away his sword and draw another (assuming the quick draw feat, or combine a move and drawn weapon in a single action). This means, your partner can only make a single attack this round, and if he was within an opponent's threatened space, he provoked an attack of oportunity for drawing his weapon. You, however, have a bow with no elemental enhancement. Perhaps your bow is a simple +3 bow. You're carrying a bundle of +1 flaming arrows, which you've been using quite a good bit, but you also have a bundle of +1 frosted arrows. When the demon appears, all you have to do is nock your bow with the other type of arrow, which is a free action. You can still make a full-attack this round, and use a weapon that the demon isn't immune to.
What's the subtle relationship between magic bows and magic arrows? Magic ranged weapons grant their enhancements to any ammo they fire, however, the attack/damage bonus doesn't stack, you just use the better bonus. So, in the above example, with a single bow, you have access to a +3 flaming and a +3 frosted weapon, without ever changing weapons. Also, if you decide you need something else, you can spend the gold to purchase a +2 equivilant weapon (+1 enhancement bonus and other special ability with a +1 equivilant price) and you get 50 arrows of that type that you can fire from your +3 bow, effectively giving you another +4 weapon (+3 enhancement plus the +1 equivilant ability) that you can use 50 times for the price of a +2 weapon!
Are there any other advantages to being an archer? Yes. Let's say a human melee fighter wearing medium armor is standing 110ft away from you. You've both drawn your weapons. You have the higher initiative, so you get to go first. Let's assume your attack bonus and chosen feats let you make three attacks with a full-attack action. You shoot 3 times. Now, your opponent is too far away to charge. Medium armor only allows you to run at x3 speed instead of x4. So, he moves 90ft towards you. He still can't reach you! In the following round, you could make 3 more attacks. Your opponent charges. He gets a single attack as he charges. In round 3, you make a simple 5ft step backwards as a free action, and you can make 3 more attacks! Now, your opponent is close enough to do the same to you, but before he's unleashed a full-attack on you, you've already gotten in 9 shots total, while he's only attacked you once so far. Against an opponent in heavy armor, as many melee fighters will likely wear, his speed is reduced to 20ft base, so he runs even slower, so you're quite likely to land even more attacks before he attacks you even once.
How Can Melee Compete?
For the longest time, my players and I have incorrectly believed that dual-wielders are the best melee damage dealers. Well, after crunching some numbers, we've realized that we were pretty far off. Assuming the proper feats, a single one-handed weapon and a light weapon, your penalty is reduced to as little as -2. One of the most popular one-handed weapons is the longsword. So, we'll use that for this example. We'll assume a short sword for the off-hand weapon. What you have here is a -2 penalty to all of your attacks for a base of 1d8 damage with your primary weapon and 1d6 damage with your secondary. The benefit to this is the one extra attack you get, which is your secondary weapon. So, if you are level 1-5, you get 2 attacks, one primary, one secondary. Let's assume a 5th level fighter with a strength score of 15, about average. This equates to a base attack of +5, strength bonus of +2, then two-handed penalty of -2, for a total of +5 attack bonus. Your primary weapon will deal 1d8+2 damage and your secondary 1d6+1. The average damage rolls are 6.5 and 4.5 (the average for any single die is the average of its highest and lowest values, so 4.5 and 3.5 in this example, modified by the +2 and +1 damage bonus. The secondary gets only +1 damage because your off-hand gets only half your strength bonus to damage). So, you are sacrificing 10% (-2 penalty) to your accuracy for the chance to deal an extra 4.5 damage on average.
What would happen if this same fighter used a two-handed weapon and used power attack instead of two-handed fighting? Let's assume a greatsword to keep a sword in each example. A greatsword deals 2d6 damage. Because you wield it with two hands, you get to add 150% of your strength bonus to damage instead of the normal strength bonus. So, your damage is 2d6+3. Let's assume you use the power attack feat for the same attack penalty that you would have had with two-weapon fighting, so -2. The power attack feat lets you add double your penalty to damage if you use a two-handed weapon. So, you take a 10% accuracy penalty for a +4 damage bonus. You are getting only a single attack, but your total damage 2d6+7, or an average of 14 (7 is the average for 2d6 +7 for the damage bonus). Both fighters have the same +5 attack bonus. The first fighter, if he hits with his first attack, deals 6.5 damage on average, then if he hits with the second, deals 4.5. The second fighter, if he hits, deals 14 damage. This results in an average of 3 more points of damage per hit than the first fighter. Of course, you may argue that fighter 1 has two attacks, so he has two chances of hitting. Well, yes, he does. However, even if both attacks hit, he's dealing less damage overall. Let's take this scenario:
The enemy has an armor class of 16. Now, both fighters need to roll an 11 or higher to hit the opponent. This means that 50% of the time they will hit.
So, in round 1, Fighter A gets 2 attacks, one hits, for 6 damage, the other missed. Fighter B gets 1 attack, it hits, 14 damage.
In round 2, Fighter A gets 2 attacks. He gets lucky and both hit for 11 damage. Fighter B attacks, misses, no damage.
In round 3, Fighter A misses with both attacks!. Fighter B attacks, hits and deals 14 damage again.
In round 4, Fighter A attacks, his first missed, his second hits for 5 damage. Fighter B misses again.
Ok, after 4 rounds, Fighter A has dealt a total of 22 damage, Fighter B, 28 damage.
The above scenario uses a lot of average rolls. Obviously, some oddities will occur, but over many rolls over the course of the entire campaign, the averages eventually work themselves out. You will notice, I allowed each attack to hit exactly twice in this example. Fighter A's longsword landed 2 hits, the shortsword landed 2. I rounded damage down in the first hit, then rounded up with the second hit.
Also, keep in mind that since Fighter B rolls 2 dice, his damage will be more consistent than Fighter A, which isn't shown in the example. It's a fact of probabilities that when you roll a single die, each value has an equal chance of coming up, but when you roll 2d6 your chances of rolling a 7 is a little more than 16%, your chances of rolling a 6 or 8 is 14%, a 5 or 9 is a little more than 11%. So, the chances of rolling between 5 and 9 is ~41% not quite half, but as you can see, you have a much better chance of rolling decent damage, while the single-die roller has equal chance of rolling awesome, decent, or sucky damage. This brings me to my next point...
Which Weapon?
Obviously, from the above example, you will want a two-handed weapon, but which one? Well, the greataxe is a popular choice, but it deals 1d12 damage. The greatsword is an all-round great weapon with 2d6 damage, and is also the only 2-handed martial weapon to roll 2d6 damage. Now, there are a lot of nice options in the 2-handed department, some of them with reach, some with other fun little perks, but let's concentrate on these two for right now. The greataxe is 1d12 damage with an x3 critical, while the greatsword is 2d6 with a 19-20/x2 critical. What does all this mean? Well, when you crunch the numbers, the greataxe has a little more than 8% chance of rolling any single value. This means a 33% chance of rolling 1-4, and a 25% chance of rolling higher than 9.
d12 vs 2d6
Chance of rolling higher than 9
d12: 25%
2d6: 16%
Chance of rolling less than 5
d12: 33%
2d6: 16%
Chance of rolling 5-9
d12: 40%
2d6: ~41%
What can we tell from these numbers? The d12 and the 2d6 both have a good chance of dealing average damage, but the d12 has a better chance of dealing greater damage, but it also has a much greater chance of dealing low damage.
Let's look at the criticals. The greataxe has an x3 critical. The greatsword a 19-20. This means that 5% of your attacks with the axe have a chance of dealing triple damage, while 10% of your attacks with the sword have a chance of dealing double.
What does this mean? Well, overall, it means the sword will score criticals about twice as often as the axe, if wielded by the same fighter. So, assuming average damage, a strength bonus of +2, and a power attack of -2/+4, here's the breakdown:
Axe deals 6.5+7 for 13.5x3 total damage, or 40.5 after a single critical
Sword deals 7+7 for 14x2 total damage, or 28 after a single critical
You'll notice the average damages aren't quite equal. Why? As explained above, the average roll is equal to the average of the high and low values, or 1 and 12 for the d12, while the 2d6 has values of 2 and 12, for a slightly higher average.
Ok, the axe seems to win on criticals... until you remember that the sword will score criticals roughly twice as often as the axe. What does this mean, numbers wise? Well, it means that assuming both weapons score the same number of hits, both will deal the same critical damage over time. Want an explanation?
Axe crits for x3, then doesn't crit for x1. Total damage dealt: average x4
Sword crits for x2, then crits for x2. Total damage dealt: average x4
Now, while you won't actually score criticals that quickly... at least you shouldn't, what this really means that given X attack rolls, the Axe will score criticals X/20 times, while the sword crits X/10 times. So, every crit of the axe is x3 damage, every crit of the sword is x2. Since the sword crits twice as often, you could just as easily work this out in the equation as saying X/10 = 2. Or X/20 = 4. So, when you assume two criticals from the sword are equal to a single critical at x4, this means that in two attacks, the sword did x4 damage, while in the same number of attacks, the axe did x3 with one attack, and normal damage, or x1, with the other attack, so in two attacks, a total of x4!
This means that for the purpose of comparing damage directly, going strictly by averages, you can ignore their criticals and compare average damage, in which case, the sword wins by a slight margin. However, the more total attacks made will increase this margin more and more. As seen in the above example, the sword's average damage was 14, while the axe was 13.5. So, let's say after 10 attacks, the sword is averaging 140 damage, the axe 135. Now, that .5 is starting to make a difference.
Ok, but let's look at it in real terms. How many enemies take 140 damage to kill? Enemies of 10th level and up maybe? Dragons? Demons? By the time you face enemies with that many hit points, you should have access to magic weapons, which we haven't factored into the equations. So, while the equations and averages may be true, let's face it, at low levels, when you are relying purely on your damage rolls and no magical enhancements, your enemies can't really take that much damage. So, let's assume 5 enemies with 20 hit points each. Which fighter defeats them quicker? Well, neither. The sword hits for 14, then again hits for 14, enemy can only take 20, so the other 8 is a waste. How many GMs really care if their NPC is reduced to -8 or -7? They're still defeated. The axe fighter similarly deals 13 then 14, again, 7 damage is wasted. In both scenarios, both fighters deal at least 10 damage per hit. Wait! The axe has just as good of a chance of dealing less than 10!
Ok, look at this:
Chance of rolling 1 or 2 (damage needed with a +3 damage from strength and +4 from power attack to deal less than 10 damage)
d12: 16%
2d6: 3% (actually more like 2.76% or something close)
Also, keep in mind that the sword can't actually deal less than 2 damage! So, all you need is +1 more damage from anything, and suddenly your minimum damage is 10.
Alright, so the axe will roll less than 10 damage 16% of the time. However, we already established that on average, both weapons will need 2 hits anyway, and we also established there was 7 damage leftover from the axe's second attack. So, even if you did 8 damage (minimum of the axe in the above example), you only need to roll a 5 or better on your second damage roll (66% chance) to finish off the opponent.
So, what does this prove? Basically, at lower levels, before magic weapons get involved, the sword wins out against the axe only against opponents who can suvive multiple hits (major villains), and wins out when you want to consitently one-hit enemies that require damage rolls of 5 or higher to one-hit (total of 81-82% chance of rolling 5 or more on 2d6). Otherwise, you'll do just as well with the axe, and maybe better at times since the one critical from the axe may be enough to drop weaker opponents, but you will require a critical plus a second hit with the sword to drop that same opponent.
Now, there are a lot of other variables we could look at, and a lot of other situations, examples, and math we could work through, but that's more about the axe vs the sword, and this guide has already delved enough into that realm. This guide is supposed to be about the fighter himself, so let's take a look at one more option with the fighter.
Shield?
We've discussed being an archer, two-weapons, and the 2-handed weapon, but what about a 1-hand weapon and a shield? This is also a feasible option, but I have seen fewer good feat choices for shield uses. Improved shield bash comes to mind, but that's really the only one. Using a shield is basically sacrificing your off-hand weapon or your chance to use a 2-handed weapon for a little extra armor class, usually +2. Is it worth it? Probably not. One of the best single-handed weapons is the longsword for d8 damage. 4.5 average before any modifiers. A full 2.5 points lower than the greatsword. What do you get? An extra 2 points of armor class? That reduces opponents' accuracy by a total of 10%.
Now, while the shield doesn't look all that favorable yet, let's also consider that there are still a number of good feat choices for your offense, and you can use a one-handed weapon just fine, and eventually you can get a magic shield which can have some fun abilities, so don't discount the shield option just yet.
The Best Fighter?
Now, numbers-wise, the power attacking fighter, and the archer have the advantage, but let's consider some other situations. Is the archer equal to the power attacker while in a dungeon full of narrow cooridors and cramped rooms? Is the power attacker equal when fighting a flying enemy?
What point am I trying to make here? Well, I've crunched some numbers for you, and while it looks like I might be trying to encourage the min-max, I'm actually just trying to show you some choices you can make to make your character more efficient so you don't have to max out certain attributes because you think that's what a fighter is supposed to be. Also, my last point that I'd like to make is that while specializing looks very appealing, when you do that you become a specialist. You become really great at doing things a certain way, but what happens when you can't apply your strength? Let me give you one more example:
In a recent campaign, I had two players playing barbarians. One was a straight barbarian build using a greataxe with power attack, the other took 2 levels of fighter for the bonus feats and barbarian the rest of the way. He also used a greataxe and power attack. Neither character bothered to purchase a ranged weapon with their starting money. All of their feat choices revolved around melee combat. These two could dispatch minions like crazy, but what happened everytime we reached the end of the adventure and faced the big bad guy (boss) who could fly? Suddenly, our biggest power houses were reduced to level 1 efficiency! Guys who were used to hitting for d12 damage had nothing! Even after several adventures, gaining several levels, they were hitting for d12+9 damage, and still hadn't purchased a ranged weapon even after facing at least 3 big baddies that were unreachable with melee attacks. Finally, they bought javelins and throwing axes. From then on, these giants in melee were reduced from d12+9 damage to a measely d6+3 or maybe d6+4 damage when facing a ranged opponent.
Moral of the story: When you focus entirely on a single aspect of your character, you have no one to blame but yourself when your GM makes you face an opponent you have no answer to.
Which fighter should you build? That's up to you. I won't tell you how to make your character. If I did, it wouldn't be your character. You make your fighter however you want. All I've done is provide some information about the effectiveness of different choices. Now, if you want to play a dual-wielding swashbuckler, or a sword and shield fighter, knowing that a greatsword or a longbow would be a more effective choice... then congratulations. You've graduated from power gamer to actor/roleplayer. As a gamemaster, I'd much rather see my players play a character because of the concept as opposed to which character type racks up the numbers faster.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
How to be a Better Roleplayer
Ok, so I had a guide for non-roleplayers, so now it's time for a guide for roleplayers, so... if you aren't a roleplayer... um... I dunno, go read a magazine or something... us gamers gotta talk. :)
Today we're going to talk about becoming a better roleplayer. Before we get to that, though, we're going to define a few types of roleplayers and discuss why you might or might not want to be that type of player.
First up, we're going to cover the Casual Gamer. This type goes by various titles, but we're just going to call him Casual. Casual is the guy who came to your game because that's what his friends do, or he had nothing better to do. Casual usually doesn't get too into it, but he at least participates when he should, but he's liable to get distracted.
So, what are Casual's good points? Well, in a combat-oriented game, he provides an extra pair of hands in battle. Where he shines is the fact that Casual usually doesn't care too much about what kind of character he plays, so he doesn't mind picking up whatever character type the group needs to balance it.
Why shouldn't you be Casual? The simple answer is because Casual isn't really following the story, and as soon as he finds something better to do, he'll probably stop showing up altogether. Casual can be inattentive until it's his turn to do something, too.
Next up we'll talk about the Rules Lawyer. Judging from the name, you can probably guess what this guy is. A Rules Lawyer knows the books forwards, backwards, inside out, upside down, can quote stats in his sleep, and won't hesitate to let you know when you're wrong. It is easy for Gamemasters to become Rules Lawyers when they play in someone else's game.
The good? Well, if you ever need to reference an obscure rule, it is often quicker and easier to ask the resident Lawyer than to look it up and read through a page of text to figure out how to handle the die rolls.
Why shouldn't you be a Rules Lawyer? Well, first of all, the GM's word is law, and GMs typically don't like to be contradicted. Also, in some game systems, there are spells and abilities some enemies could have that let them get around certain situations in the rules, and the Rules Lawyer wouldn't be aware of these special situations, so questioning the GM's apparent disregard of the rules in this instance is actually a result of being ignorant of a rule-bending ability the enemy may have that the GM doesn't want to divulge yet.
Alright, let's look at Power Gamers, Min-Maxers, or Munchkins. This type of player likes to build characters that "win". In a combat-oriented game, that means this guy is going to play the party tank or artillery. The name Min-Maxer comes from the tendency to build your character focusing only on a few stats you think are most useful for your win condition and ignoring the other stats. If this means you're playing a tank, you try to maximize your strength and stamina, if you're playing the party sorcerer, you buff whatever stat your magic is dependent on to the exclusion of most others.
Why do we like Power Gamers? Well, honestly, because the fights become a lot easier when you have a character or two built around destroying the enemy as fast as possible.
Why do we not like Power Gamers? Because a Power Gamer builds his character around one task, usually combat, the PG often gets bored when not performing that task, which usually leads the PG to become a Casual Gamer as well. Some PGs will get distracted with their cell phones, perusing through a book or something until they need to do something in combat.
The last group we're going to talk about is Actors. I can't really think of a better name for this group. Actors sit attentively at the table and enjoy interacting with NPCs and solving puzzles and avoiding traps just as much as fighting the bad guys. Actors try to design their characters around a theme or a concept as opposed to trying to max a particular set of stats. That doesn't mean that Actors don't design their characters for combat, but that isn't their sole objective.
What is so great about being an Actor? Actors are attentive to the story and the NPCs. They love the details and like to feel that they're part of an imaginary world. They will participate openly throughout the entire game and usually end up becoming the party leaders because of this.
Why would you not want to be an Actor? Um... really, I can't see a downside to this one. Unfortunately, though, not everyone can be an Actor right off the bat. Some players can jump into their role and get immersed in the story easily, and some end up as one of the other types, but may gravitate towards being an Actor later.
Alright, now that we've covered the different types of players, let's discuss ways you can become a better player.
First of all, respect your GM and your fellow players. When you come to the table, you came to play, and your GM probably put a lot of work into designing his world and writing his story and, if he's anything like me, he wants to share it with you. You should leave all distractions behind. You came to participate in the story. If your cell phone rings, don't answer it, it can probably wait. When you get to a point in the game where the action has slowed down, request a break from your GM and return the missed call. Obviously, if it's from your spouse, fiance, parent, or maybe sibling, if you feel it may be urgent, excuse yourself from the table and take the call in another room. Your GM won't make you miss anything important. Oh, and above all else, don't text during the game! You may be able to pay attention while texting, but your GM won't know that. Texting, in general, not just during a game, sends a message to everyone around you that what you're doing is more important than what they're doing, so don't text while you're with friends.
Second, if you're going to be a Rules Lawyer, be a respectful RL. Don't contradict your GM at the table. If you feel the GM has made a major mistake, and it may happen, despite what they want you to believe, GMs aren't perfect, speak to the GM during a break or after the game. Nothing breaks the flow of the game like having to stop and look up a rule because there's a disagreement between the GM and the RL. Remember, within the GM's game, his word is law. If it turns out he was wrong about a rule, and it didn't drastically affect the game, he may just decide to go ahead and follow the rule correctly in the future, or if the misinterpretation had a major impact, he may decide to rememdy the situation right away.
Third, pay attention, especially during combat. I feel that the GM is well within his rights not to repeat something if you weren't paying attention, especially if you're at the table, and even moreso if the information is regarding an enemy in combat and you're using miniatures on a map.
Fourth, if you're thinking about using a rule that isn't used often, or casting a spell you haven't cast before, look it up before your turn so you don't have to slow down the game while everyone waits for you to make your decision.
Finally, when it comes to combat, tactical planning is the best form of power gaming. You don't have to min-max your character to optimize him or her for combat. Using good tactics can go a long way towards winning a fight. For example, the wizard may be able to deal 15-20 damage with a blast spell to 2-3 enemies in one turn, but he might be able to cast a spell that gives all of his teammates a bonus to attacks or damage that last multiple turns. That one spell could easily add up to much more total damage than that single blast, especially if the enemies have a chance of negating or reducing the damage from the blast. Power Gamers playing tanks would do well to wait until after being buffed by the party caster before taking their turn. Look for chances to gang up on a single opponent and take it down before engaging the other enemies. Try to identify the major threats first. Eliminating easy targets early in combat could prevent them from ganging up on you and becoming a major threat later. Party healers... remember that an ounce of defensive magic can prevent a pound of healing spells.
Today we're going to talk about becoming a better roleplayer. Before we get to that, though, we're going to define a few types of roleplayers and discuss why you might or might not want to be that type of player.
First up, we're going to cover the Casual Gamer. This type goes by various titles, but we're just going to call him Casual. Casual is the guy who came to your game because that's what his friends do, or he had nothing better to do. Casual usually doesn't get too into it, but he at least participates when he should, but he's liable to get distracted.
So, what are Casual's good points? Well, in a combat-oriented game, he provides an extra pair of hands in battle. Where he shines is the fact that Casual usually doesn't care too much about what kind of character he plays, so he doesn't mind picking up whatever character type the group needs to balance it.
Why shouldn't you be Casual? The simple answer is because Casual isn't really following the story, and as soon as he finds something better to do, he'll probably stop showing up altogether. Casual can be inattentive until it's his turn to do something, too.
Next up we'll talk about the Rules Lawyer. Judging from the name, you can probably guess what this guy is. A Rules Lawyer knows the books forwards, backwards, inside out, upside down, can quote stats in his sleep, and won't hesitate to let you know when you're wrong. It is easy for Gamemasters to become Rules Lawyers when they play in someone else's game.
The good? Well, if you ever need to reference an obscure rule, it is often quicker and easier to ask the resident Lawyer than to look it up and read through a page of text to figure out how to handle the die rolls.
Why shouldn't you be a Rules Lawyer? Well, first of all, the GM's word is law, and GMs typically don't like to be contradicted. Also, in some game systems, there are spells and abilities some enemies could have that let them get around certain situations in the rules, and the Rules Lawyer wouldn't be aware of these special situations, so questioning the GM's apparent disregard of the rules in this instance is actually a result of being ignorant of a rule-bending ability the enemy may have that the GM doesn't want to divulge yet.
Alright, let's look at Power Gamers, Min-Maxers, or Munchkins. This type of player likes to build characters that "win". In a combat-oriented game, that means this guy is going to play the party tank or artillery. The name Min-Maxer comes from the tendency to build your character focusing only on a few stats you think are most useful for your win condition and ignoring the other stats. If this means you're playing a tank, you try to maximize your strength and stamina, if you're playing the party sorcerer, you buff whatever stat your magic is dependent on to the exclusion of most others.
Why do we like Power Gamers? Well, honestly, because the fights become a lot easier when you have a character or two built around destroying the enemy as fast as possible.
Why do we not like Power Gamers? Because a Power Gamer builds his character around one task, usually combat, the PG often gets bored when not performing that task, which usually leads the PG to become a Casual Gamer as well. Some PGs will get distracted with their cell phones, perusing through a book or something until they need to do something in combat.
The last group we're going to talk about is Actors. I can't really think of a better name for this group. Actors sit attentively at the table and enjoy interacting with NPCs and solving puzzles and avoiding traps just as much as fighting the bad guys. Actors try to design their characters around a theme or a concept as opposed to trying to max a particular set of stats. That doesn't mean that Actors don't design their characters for combat, but that isn't their sole objective.
What is so great about being an Actor? Actors are attentive to the story and the NPCs. They love the details and like to feel that they're part of an imaginary world. They will participate openly throughout the entire game and usually end up becoming the party leaders because of this.
Why would you not want to be an Actor? Um... really, I can't see a downside to this one. Unfortunately, though, not everyone can be an Actor right off the bat. Some players can jump into their role and get immersed in the story easily, and some end up as one of the other types, but may gravitate towards being an Actor later.
Alright, now that we've covered the different types of players, let's discuss ways you can become a better player.
First of all, respect your GM and your fellow players. When you come to the table, you came to play, and your GM probably put a lot of work into designing his world and writing his story and, if he's anything like me, he wants to share it with you. You should leave all distractions behind. You came to participate in the story. If your cell phone rings, don't answer it, it can probably wait. When you get to a point in the game where the action has slowed down, request a break from your GM and return the missed call. Obviously, if it's from your spouse, fiance, parent, or maybe sibling, if you feel it may be urgent, excuse yourself from the table and take the call in another room. Your GM won't make you miss anything important. Oh, and above all else, don't text during the game! You may be able to pay attention while texting, but your GM won't know that. Texting, in general, not just during a game, sends a message to everyone around you that what you're doing is more important than what they're doing, so don't text while you're with friends.
Second, if you're going to be a Rules Lawyer, be a respectful RL. Don't contradict your GM at the table. If you feel the GM has made a major mistake, and it may happen, despite what they want you to believe, GMs aren't perfect, speak to the GM during a break or after the game. Nothing breaks the flow of the game like having to stop and look up a rule because there's a disagreement between the GM and the RL. Remember, within the GM's game, his word is law. If it turns out he was wrong about a rule, and it didn't drastically affect the game, he may just decide to go ahead and follow the rule correctly in the future, or if the misinterpretation had a major impact, he may decide to rememdy the situation right away.
Third, pay attention, especially during combat. I feel that the GM is well within his rights not to repeat something if you weren't paying attention, especially if you're at the table, and even moreso if the information is regarding an enemy in combat and you're using miniatures on a map.
Fourth, if you're thinking about using a rule that isn't used often, or casting a spell you haven't cast before, look it up before your turn so you don't have to slow down the game while everyone waits for you to make your decision.
Finally, when it comes to combat, tactical planning is the best form of power gaming. You don't have to min-max your character to optimize him or her for combat. Using good tactics can go a long way towards winning a fight. For example, the wizard may be able to deal 15-20 damage with a blast spell to 2-3 enemies in one turn, but he might be able to cast a spell that gives all of his teammates a bonus to attacks or damage that last multiple turns. That one spell could easily add up to much more total damage than that single blast, especially if the enemies have a chance of negating or reducing the damage from the blast. Power Gamers playing tanks would do well to wait until after being buffed by the party caster before taking their turn. Look for chances to gang up on a single opponent and take it down before engaging the other enemies. Try to identify the major threats first. Eliminating easy targets early in combat could prevent them from ganging up on you and becoming a major threat later. Party healers... remember that an ounce of defensive magic can prevent a pound of healing spells.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)