Abderrahmane Zagora

Mellored's page

371 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 371 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

N N 959 wrote:


1. What is the bar for "viable," or "effective?" How does Paizo know a theme-based class whose focus is non-combat, has unintended deficiencies in combat?

it is viable and effective as it is now.

The issue is that it is boring.

Quote:


2. What should the expectation be? I'm a 16 INT / 16 WIS Investigator. What effect should I have on combat? What should my DPS be? My total damage contribution? My non-damage contribution?

Seems like everyone wants to trade damage for non-damage.

And there should be some use for Int. Though not requiring it to be 18 at level 1 is probably good.

Quote:
3. What are the metrics for evaluating this class in combat? Is it average DPS? Peak damage? Total negative modifiers applied? Positive Modifiers applied? In MMO's, they typically measure the difference in XP gained per hour with and without a class. What is the analogue for a pen and paper RPG

Metric are how interesting it is to play. Both in combat and out of it.

Balance is easy enough after the fact. As you can easily adjust a die size up or down.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Gust of Wind and Earthquake are the only other 2 I see.


N N 959 wrote:
With a Skill bump every other level, you could bump a lot of the combat functional skill to Master.

Exactly. And it would make sense to lean into that.

Quote:
Quote:
But if we give crafting, lore, and society something to do in combat, then the investigator just improves by virtue of having lots of skills.
So the door is open for that stuff if you want to go that route. How rewarding it will be is going to depend on the player and the campaign.

Or on the feat/feature.

But if the investigators job is to roll skill checks. Then (IMO) they should be able to roll skill checks in combat as well as out of it.
Including the Int checks.


Is there a way for more skills to be used in combat? Stuff like feint, create diversion, and demoralize are all nice.

But if we give crafting, lore, and society something to do in combat, then the investigator just improves by virtue of having lots of skills.

Probably as a skill feat that investigators get for free, but also let's anyone else pick it up.


Also, something like this. Which can let the investigator talk to people more easily, and help buy them time while they investigate.

Societal Sanctuary. 2 actions
Humanoids attempting to attack you must attempt a Will save each time against your societal DC. If you use a hostile action, or clue in, the effect ends and the target is immune for 24 hours.

Critical Success Sanctuary ends, and the target is immune for 24 hours.
Success The creature can attempt its attack and any other attacks against the target this turn.
Failure The creature can't attack the target and wastes the action. It can't attempt further attacks against the target this turn.
Critical Failure The creature wastes the action and can't attempt to attack the target for 24 hours.

Possibly have calm emotion at higher level.


N N 959 wrote:
I was accused of not getting it, and I'll fire back. If you make INT do more, specifically in combat, then you're going to gimp a character for not having an 18 INT. If INT does more, then that limits what the class can achieve in the absence of INT.

I sort of agree.

Not needing to take Int to 18 is good, but I also think being able to so easily dump it is bad. Though I think the main issue with Int in general. It's a dump stat for everyone.

A suggestion...

Societal Sanctuary.
Humanoids attempting to attack you must attempt a Will save against your societal DC. If you use a hostile action, the effect ends and the target is immune for 24 hours.

Critical Success Sanctuary ends, and the target is immune for 24 hours.
Success The creature can attempt its attack and any other attacks against the target this turn.
Failure The creature can't attack the target and wastes the action. It can't attempt further attacks against the target this turn.
Critical Failure The creature wastes the action and can't attempt to attack the target for 24 hours.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wumiao Xue wrote:

I really love this idea.

we can make it simple,make it gives clues points.
Like if you success int check against a creature AC or DC, you get 1+int mod amounts of clue points.
you can use this action more than one time to same creature at your turn.
You need to use defferent skills checks if it is targeting the same creature.

When you get enough clues points equal to that creature's will DC.

You can Big Reveal, give you or one of your allies adventage to strik for a turn, or diadventage for the creature's save against you or your allies' class DC.

And we can have so many feats to mod this.

"Clue Points" seems a bit awkward to me, but it would simplify things.

But I do really like the idea of using different skills. Making perception check, recall knowledge check, medicine check, deception check, diplomacy check etc...

I mean, you got all these skills. You should have a reason to use them all.

Quote:
This might take the form of an increasing attack bonus, or an increasing damage bonus, or an increasing debuff (or increasing number of debuffs). Alternatively, one might allow investigators to get benefits from prolonged study by increasing the number of these effects (each round allows them to either add a damage bonus, or an attack bonus, or a debuff).

Yea. I do think investigator would make more sense as a support class would be better. Possibly, each skill check gains it's own bonus, which you can hand out....

Perception Investigation: 1 action
Critical Success: You gain +2 AC against the target, and gain 2 clues.
Success: +1 AC, and gain 1 clue.
Critical Failure: You cannot use this against that target for 1 minutes.

Knowledge Investigation: 1 action
Critical Success: You gain +2 to non-attack rolls against the target. Including your other Investigation checks. Gain 2 clues
Success: +1, 1 clue.
Critical Failure: You cannot use this against that target for 1 minutes.
(Empiricists get +1 on failure, +2 on success, and 3 on crit).

Medical Investigation: 1 action (feat, medic)
Critical Success: You gain +1d8 damage against the target, and gain 2 clues.
Success: gain +1d4 damage, and gain 1 clue.
Critical Failure: You cannot use this against that target for 1 minutes.
(Medical's improves this to d6 and d10).

Deception Investigation: 1 action (feat)
Critical Success: You gain +2 AC to hit the target, and gain 2 clues
Success: +1 to hit, and gain 1 clue
Critical Failure: You cannot use this against that target for 1 minutes.

Diplomacy Investigation: 1 action (feat)
Critical Success: You gain +2 to saving throws against the target, and gain 2 clues.
Success: +1 saving throws, and gain 1 clue
Critical Failure: You cannot use this against that target for 1 minutes.

Clue In: 1 action
Spend clues to share your Investigation with your allies. You can spend any number of clues as part of the same actions, but you need to spend 1 clue per ally per Investigation you share. So sharing Perception and Medical investigations with 2 allies, would cost 4 clues.

Big Reveal: Free action.
Trigger: you just rolled against a target of your investigation.
Spend 3 clues, increase success by 1 degree.

That seems pretty good. A reason to use all your skills. Given enough time, you can rack up serious serious bonuses against a target. And several decisions on how to use your clues you built up. Do you spend more actions giving out bonuses as soon as you can? Do you spend extra rounds studying to save actions? Or do you keep all the clues to yourself for your own big burst?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

IMO the investigator is not different enough from a rogue, and needs something new and unique.

And when I imagine one, I think of the Sherlock movie. Where Sherlock would spend time planning his attacks, before making a move. Thus I imagine a mechanic that does similar. Where you spend actions/turns thinking and building up a bonus, before a big hit. Something like...

Investigate Attack: 1 action.
Ranger 60'
You imagine yourself making an attack against a creature, making sure you will succeed before committing to it. Make an attack roll using Int and your weapon proficiency. You do not need to be in weapon range, and do not actually attack, as this is just in your mind. The bonus from Investigate Attack is cumulative with other uses of Investigate Attack, up to a maximum of your Int modifier. Allowing you to keep refining your plan until it is perfect.

Critical Success: When you make your next strike against the target before the end of your turn, do not roll a d20. It is automatically a critical success. If you do not strike this turn, you gain a +3 circumstance bonus to your next strike against the target within the next hour.
Success: You gain a +2 circumstance bonus.
Failure: +1 bonus.

If you use this against a creature who is not actively fighting, and are relying on secondary clues such as their stance and wear patterns on their armor, you outcome is a degree worse.

I also imagine something similar for out of combat. Where you can "gather clues" towards your case, until you have enough for a "big reveal".


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes, and no.

Yes, this version should just be a rogue racket. There is not enough to make it different.

No, there should still be an investigator class. It just needs to have more unique features. IMO, it should play more like a bard, or a 4e warlord. With more focus on getting and giving out "clues" (possibly similar to swashbuckler) to others, and less damage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

33% more spells seems pretty stand out to me.
As much as +2 to hit makes the fighter stand out anyways.

Simple, sure, but effective. Which fits the the base game, not the "advanced" players guide.


So at the moment, I am thinking we do need an bonus, but probably not a +3.

Maybe a +1 at level 10, and +2 at level 20.


tivadar27 wrote:
Okay, first off, again, "requiring" true strike in this equation isn't fair to the Druid or Cleric blasters out there. Yes, they can get it with some work, but we shouldn't focus builds around it.

There does not appear to be any primal spell attacks.

Though there may be in the future.


It depends on how many evil creatures you are fighting. Remember that persistent damage will trigger a weakness a second time, and your first strike has a greater chance to hit than your second, or even third (for blade + strike turns).

But without evil enemies, it's not great.

Picking up some spells is always good. I would go for occult and get bless, blur (maybe Dark Vision) and haste.


Squiggit wrote:
Mellored wrote:


But again, look at how it chances from level 1.
Right, but that shows spell attacks going from being significantly ahead to only slightly ahead, not 'falling behind'.

Yea, but at level 1, you choose between +3 to hit, or 1/2 damage on a miss. Seems like a decent trade-off.

At level 20, you choose between +0, or half damage on a miss.


shroudb wrote:

You can buff your attack roll but not your spell DC (true strike, heroism, bless, inspire, etc)

That already brings attack rolls to be a usually better option when comparing moderate AC to moderate Saves.

If it also had a +item bonus on top of it, the difference would grow even further, maybe even to the point if Attack roll being better than even targeting weak saves.

True strike is arcane and divine. But is for 1 attack. Great for polar ray, but kind of a waste for produce flame.

Heroism is divine and occult. But to get the +3 you need to cast it at 9th level. That seems a bit extreme.

Bless, inspire, and guidance are suck at +1... doesn't really keep you on par.

I see nothing that is primal.... though I don't see any primal spell attacks either... So i guess that doesn't matter.

I guess it depends on how easy flat-footed becomes.


Using a staff for the item bonus would be fine. Maybe even handwraps.

Kelseus wrote:

Spell attack rolls are lower b/c on a successful hit you do so much more damage. The chance is low b/c the payoff is high. Polar Ray does 10d8 and causes target to be drained 2. A Fighter is getting at best 3d8+1d6 (flaming etc rune) + 5 Str? It seems like a 10% reduction is chance to hit is a fair trade off for 45 average damage instead of 22, oh and a debuff.

Spell attack rolls are lower because on a success they hit that much harder.

it's not about materials vs casters. (Not this thread anyways).

It's about AC spells vs save spells.

Polar ray vs finger of death. Or produce flames vs chill touch. At high level, one of those us -2/3 to the other.

I am not suggesting a bonus to saves spells.


Squiggit wrote:
Mellored wrote:
I am comparing moderate AC vs moderate save.
Looking at the table, a level 21 monster (since you said it was a scaling issue might as well look at the top) has a moderate AC of 45 and a middle save of 35.

Compare that to level 1.

Quote:
A level 20 spellcaster with legendary proficiency hits the monster on a 10, 55% of the time. The monster saves on a 10, 55% of the time.

Fair point.

But again, look at how it chances from level 1.


Squiggit wrote:

Whether or not a spell attack roll falls behind a spell save depends entirely on how good the opponent's save is.

Saying the attack roll is always -2/3 behind isn't true unless you're always targeting a weak save.

I am comparing moderate AC vs moderate save.

And there is also polar ray, tangled creepers, chilling darkness, and spiritual weapon as slot attack spells. Possibly more.

Not enough to make a +item attack spell wand a must have. Though maybe making the attack spells a bit more powerful will also work.

But a fair point about true strike. But you can also give penalties to other saves with clumsy or what not.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So looking at the monster builder document, monster AC scales faster than saves (2 or 3 point difference).

This mostly works out since weapons get a +item bonus, while spells do not.

But there are a few spells that target AC. Like ray of frost and polar ray. Meaning that fall -2/3 behind their save counterpart.

So should there be a +item bonus to spell attacks?


So 2d6 persistent damage...

Is that rolling 2d6 each time, or roll once and that's how much you take each turn?


Squiggit wrote:
Quote:
So over 20 levels, AC attack are 2 points behind spells later. Given you get +3 weapons, weapon attacks are actually 1 point ahead, but AC spells fall behind.

If and only if you're attacking weak save.

Looking at the numbers you provided for level 21, using 46 AC as the baseline the save-granting spell is -6/-3/+0/+3/+7 compared to the attack spell. That's pretty close to symmetrical.

46 is the "high" AC. Moderate is 45. Saves have a extra "terrible" column for the low end, but it should rarely be used.

So -4/-1/+2.

Quote:
Given that we're talking about very specific cantrips, the option to choose which save you target doesn't really factor in. So it's more like EA is better against enemies with low reflex, worse against enemies with high reflex and about the same (in terms of accuracy) against enemies with average reflex. Discounting, of course, EA's failure effect since that's kind of beyond the point of this comparison.

It's more notable that ray of frost/produce flames, at high level, are -2 to hit compared to electric arc.

Seems like a hold over from when they had +item to spells, but remove it just for the saves, but made no extra adjustments for the spell targeting AC.

And yea, that's on average. And not including flat footed.


Squiggit wrote:
Mellored wrote:


But monster AC scales faster than monster saves.
Does it? Just jumping around the Bestiary a bit:

From https://paizo.com/products/btq021ct?Gamemastery-Guide-Monster-and-Hazard-Cr eation

TABLE 2–5: ARMOR CLASS
1 19 16 15 13
...
21 49 46 45 43
= 30/30/30/30 point difference between 1 and 20.

TABLE 2–6: SAVING THROWS
1 +11 +10 +7 +4 +2
...
21 +41 +38 +35 +32 +28
= 30/28/28/28/26 point difference.

So over 20 levels, AC attack are 2 points behind spells later. Given you get +3 weapons, weapon attacks are actually 1 point ahead, but AC spells fall behind.

Which also means my martial vs caster calculations are a little off. I assume flat scaling for both.


It may be for future things. Just in case.

Ranger, for instance, has only 1 feat that uses it.


Unicore wrote:
I am not that great with the math, but does produce flame not jump up quite a bit when paired with a rogue’s 4th level ability to add sneak attack? That + the lowered AC of flat footed, and an increased odds of getting a critical hit have to boost it considerably.

Yes, sneak attack would adds a lot.

But monster AC scales faster than monster saves. To make up for item bonus to attack, that spells don't get. So the flat footed is +2 at lower level, but makes for the same accuracy at higher level. Though I guess flat footed is easier go gain at high level, so call it a wash.

Still at level 20, it should beat electric arc against single target.... by 27%.


I don't think there is any RAW rule that says people have 2 arms, but I think most take that as a given.

As for the kraken, my answer is "enough" limbs to grab everyone in the party and still strike.


Normal.
o
\#>=|XX0
/\

Extended.
o
\#>=|/\/\/\0
/\

Retracts.
o
\#>=|XX0
/\

Best drawing yet. :-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1-(35% * 35%) = 0.8775

87.75%


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think i will just go with "mutageneist don't take drawbacks from mutagenes", and medium armor.

It's not like they will outclass any other melee combatant.


Zwordsman wrote:

Makes sense.

It just feels weird I suppose? Is there another archetype example that has a simliar "ancestry makes this dedication do almost nothing" ?

weapon familiarity and fighter.

Pretty much all the racial weapons are a bit better than what a fighter gives you.


Zwordsman wrote:
Is there a compelling reason why the ancestry feat gives better than the dedication?

Is there a compelling reason why ancestry feats should be weaker?


Arachnofiend wrote:
My question is, what the hell do Mountain Stance Monks do about flying enemies now? You can't switch to Wild Winds Stance without tanking your AC, and even if you did your hit rate is awful because you built around the assumption that you don't need dexterity.

The same thing any Str based character does. Also, Finesse weapons can still be used with Str. So your unarmed hit rate is the same either way.

Also does it say anywhere that "requirement" is more than just the initial condition?


Pretty easy to homebrew a bag of infinite shurikens. With whatever runes you want on it.


N N 959 wrote:

i must not understand how shields work. I GM'd the lvl 5 Origins of the Open Road which uses the lvl 5 pregens. Valeros has a steel shield which says this:

Valeros Pregen wrote:
ou interpose your shield between yourself and the attack, reducing the damage by 3. You and your shield each take any remaining damage, possibly breaking or destroying the shield (the shield gains the broken condition after taking 6 or more damage and is destroyed once it’s taken 12 damage

Well...any creature that can do 15 or more points in an attack would completely destroy Valeros' shield and that just happens to be nearly every creature in the adventure. What's more, with some of the harder encounters Valeros got critically hit. Had he used his shield to block it, he still takes all but 3 points.

Obviously if you can get special material weapons, blocking becomes more viable, but at level 5, he's still using a steel shield.

You have it right, most shields will break if used for blocking anything but the lightest hits. You mainly use them for the +2 AC, and work best against small hits, not crits.

Though a steel shield should have Hardness 5; HP (BT) 20 (10). (15 damage to break, 25 to destroy). That should let him block 1 hit, then repair it later.

Seems like put in the stats for the wooden one, which has Hardness 3; HP (BT) 12 (6). (9 to damage, 15 damage to destroy)


Styrix wrote:
How likely are critical successes with Recall Knowledge? It doesn't seem very helpful until 10th level, and even then, I'm not so sure. Isn't it a one-time +1 bonus to a couple things? Is a sometimes +1 really that valuable at that level?

Not likely to roll a crit.

At level 10, it becomes pretty decent. Combine all 4 feats and it's very good.

Quote:
I'm hearing the need for more healing. I don't know the system very well. Is healing, especially self healing, something the Monk will be able to do? Are druids any good at healing, especially healing animal companions? What would be better for healing, MC Cleric, or Field Medic? I'm not sure I want to dedicate too many feats just to healing, but I think it could work within the theme of the character.

You really want at least 1 person to take medicine, as that will be your primary way of healing without burning all the druid spells.

And since the Druid can already do some healing, probably better to spread it out between you and the monk. Thus if the druid drops, one of you can get them back up.

There is also the Natural Medicine feat.

Quote:
Another thought about animal companions. If the druid and ranger both have animal companions, are there any spells or abilities that would affect them both? We're also thinking about animal companions because we have a small party, only 3 PCs.

Magic Fang is nice at low levels. There are a few other buffs as well, but are probably best put on the monk.

Debuffs like fear and goblin pox help everyone.
And Monster Hunter works for them (though i'd still wait till later).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Is there any way to get an enemy to drink a mutagen?

If you could feed them a cognitive mutagen...


Once or twice a fight, assuming you have crafting to repair them.

Sturdy shields can go two or three times a fight.


Yes, you can ride a bear, but then you can't use running reload.

The other thing you might want to take is snares. Those can be pretty good.


Seems like the only limit is using raise sheild. So divine wall would work.

It is not exactly overpowered.


I see no rule or reason to not allow it for all unarmed attacks.


Zwordsman wrote:
I wonder if there would be any problem in making a Braclet that transfered properties to thrown items.

I don't see any issue with it.

Gloves of Returning (level 3, invested).
When you throw something while wearing these gloves it comes right back to your hand. This is similar to the effect of the Returning rune, allowing you to make multiple attacks with the same thrown weapon. You can choose to have the item not return.

Though personally, I prefer the image of a never ending bandoleer over returning gloves.

Endless Bandoleer (level 4, invested). This item provides you with a never ending supply of summoned weapons. The type of weapon is chosen when the endless bandoleer is created. You can add runes to the bandoleer as if it was a weapon of that type, and those runes apply to the weapons you draw from it.

Activate Free Action: You draw a weapons of the set type, with the attached runes. These weapons disappear shortly after you let go of them, though they last long enough for a thrown weapon to strike.

And some extra flavors...
Elemental Endless Bandoleer (level 5, invested). This is the same as an Endless Bandoleer, but the weapons created are made of fire/cold/lighting, and the damage they deal is the same.

Weapon Master's Bandoleer (level 5, invested). This is the same as an Endless Bandoleer, but you gains the following.

Activate 1 action: You chance what type of weapon the bandoleer can summon, and draw a weapon of that type.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Mellored wrote:

My biggest issue with it is that you are vulnerable one level, then completely immune the next.

I think a more stepped down approach would be better. Like higher level creatures get 1 degree of success better.

... Isn't that exactly how it works?

Yes...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My biggest issue with it is that you are vulnerable one level, then completely immune the next.

I think a more stepped down approach would be better. Like higher level creatures get 1 degree of success better.


Seems more pertinent to PC's than for monsters. Since PC DC's scale, a level 20 wizard could use a level 1 sleep spell to win a against the BBEG.

But you still don't want a large pack of ghouls perma-stunning high level PC's either. Even if they rarely hit, they could keep a PC out pretty easily.

Not my favorite solution to be honest.


Here are the monster rules Link


SuperBidi wrote:
I agree with you. I was trying to see what I could do with it, but I don't find it good enough compared to a more classical ranged attack.

Well you can use Wis instead of Dex, as well as a full ability mod, and 1 handed. That is something.

Hmm... Are spell attacks behind weapon attacks? Are they missing an item bonus?


Straying a bit off topic... but here's more math...

Ranger: Precision vs Flurry
3 attacks with a Composite Shortbow.

level 5:

Precision:
50% hit, 15% crit + 35% hit, 5% crit + 15% hit, 5% crit
(.5 + .15*2)+(.35 + .05 *2)+(.15+.05*2) = 1.5
2d8+2 * 1.5 = 16.5
Deadly 1d10*(.15+.05+.05) = 1.375
+ 1d8 * 1-(.5 * .65 * .85)=3.256875
+ 1d8 * .15 * 2 = 1.35 (crit with precision)
+ 1d8 * .35 * .05 * 2 = 0.1575 (miss then crit)
+ 1d8 * .35 * .6 * .05 *2 = 0.0945 (miss twice, then crit)
= 22.732

Flurry
50% hit, 15% crit + 45% hit, 5% crit + 35% hit, 5% crit
(.5 + .15*2)+(.45 + .05 *2)+(.35+.05*2) = 1.8
2d8+2 * 1.8 = 19.8
Deadly 1d10*(.15+.05+.05) = 1.375
= 21.175

Precision is 7% ahead. Though 4 attacks flurry would win.


graystone wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
yeah if i'm being perfectly honest, i can't think of many fights where you have the joy of staying 35+ ft from the actions.
That's game dependent. If every encounter is 30' or less, then every encounter is melee and any range is meaningless... 60' gets you the option to move in and out and take cover ect where 30' it's much less of an option and it more likely for you to get into situations that are unfavorable like foes flanking you staying 35'+ is far different than staying unflanked.

There is a difference between starting 60' away, and staying 60' away.

Getting an extra round to damage an enemy, even if it's low damage, is still good.

And rangers don't do 1d6+1+1d8.

...I should compare hunter's edge to flurry...


It is pretty much always a critical failure and critical success.

Unless your fighting something well outside your level with a lot of bonuses/penalties.


Mellored wrote:
K1 wrote:
But trust me, a 10% extra Normal hit and 10% extra critical hit is too much.
I'll trust my math. Unless I made a mistake somewhere.

I made a mistake somewhere.

I forgot to add the barbs weapon specialization.
I will also add in 1d6 damage from a rune, cause why not.

Fighter vs Barb:

level 4 doesn't change.
Fighter
50% chance to hit, 25% chance to crit + 45% chance to hit, 5% crit.
(.5 + .25*2)+(.45 + .05 *2) = 1.55
2d12+4 = 17 * 1.55
=26.35
Barbarian
50% hit, 15% crit + 35% hit, 5% crit
(.5 + .15*2)+(.35 + .05 *2) = 1.25
2d12+4+4 = 21 * 1.25
= 26.25

To toss Giant barb
2d12+4+6 = 22 * 1.25
=27.5

Level 15.

Fighter
50% chance to hit, 25% chance to crit + 45% chance to hit, 5% crit.
(.5 + .25*2)+(.45 + .05 *2) = 1.55
3d12+5+8+1d6 = 36 * 1.55
=50.375

Dragon Barbarian
50% hit, 15% crit + 35% hit, 5% crit
(.5 + .15*2)+(.35 + .05 *2) = 1.25
3d12+5+6+16+1d6 = 50 * 1.25
= 62.5

giant.
3d12+5+6+18+1d6 = 52 * 1.25
=65


So barbs do more damage than fighters at high levels.
Not how the defense scales.


Claxon wrote:

I'm not sure if that's true or not, I thought the attack bonus of the fighter outweighed anything else the other classes have.

What makes the Dragon Barbarian tie with the fighter?

Fighters get +2 to hit and +1/2 damage (higher weapon specialization).

Dragon Barbs get +4/8/16 to damage.
And giant get's +2 damage over dragon.
*Assuming they are raging, of course.

math:

level 4.
Fighter
50% chance to hit, 25% chance to crit + 45% chance to hit, 5% crit.
(.5 + .25*2)+(.45 + .05 *2) = 1.55
2d12+4 = 17 * 1.55
=26.35

Barbarian
50% hit, 15% crit + 35% hit, 5% crit
(.5 + .15*2)+(.35 + .05 *2) = 1.25
2d12+4+4 = 21 * 1.25
= 26.25

Giant
2d12+4+6 = 22 * 1.25
=27.5

Level 15.

Fighter
50% chance to hit, 25% chance to crit + 45% chance to hit, 5% crit.
(.5 + .25*2)+(.45 + .05 *2) = 1.55
3d12+5+8 = 32.5 * 1.55
=50.375

Dragon Barbarian
50% hit, 15% crit + 35% hit, 5% crit
(.5 + .15*2)+(.35 + .05 *2) = 1.25
3d12+5+6+16 = 46.5 * 1.25
= 58.125

To toss giants into the mix.
3d12+5+6+18 = 48.5 * 1.25
=60.625

1 to 50 of 371 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>