|
What I want to know is why these honey-trap-esque abilities are known as Timmys/Timmies?
It's a reference to Wizards classification of three types of Magic: The Gathering Card Game players. Timmy was the player who was attracted to big cool cards with expensive costs and less long-term value than they appeared to have.
Since (or maybe in conjunction) with Monte Cook's article saying the 3rd Edition designers were "inspired" by Timmy cards during the design process, people have taken to calling the popular (but possibly inferior) options as Timmy options.
Interestingly, the original Timmy was a reference to power-gaming, the desire to win and win big in the short term, with no concern for long-term success. It seems to have been misinterpreted to mean "stupid choices that are intentionally in the game to misdirect bad players".
Well, from reading the article, it seems that Timmy had positive points as well. He was very social and played for fun and if he won big, he won BIG. :)
Yes. Attack the Giant's Will save, then make the death official while he cannot respond.
Which is another funny point. You should always aim your saves at enemy weaknesses. Let's consider how this works.
Fortitude saves: The creatures with low saves in this category relatively speaking are enemy wizards, aka the foes that are about the most dangerous you will face and therefore need to be taken out quickly. Fortitude effects do that for the most part.
Reflex saves: The creatures with low saves in this category relatively speaking are the big clumsy enemies. In other words, big dumb melee brutes. These are also the ones with the highest HP, which when you consider Reflex effects are just minor to moderate damage...
Will saves. The creatures with low saves in this category? Big dumb melee brutes. Will effects tend to take them out of the fight.
In summary, Fortitude effects take out dangerous casters quickly. Will effects take out dangerous non casters quickly. Reflex effects do nothing unique or useful as they are far inferior against either of the above.
Clerics and Druids get good saves in both the categories that matter, which is part of the reason why they're so good.
I use the term 'Timmy trap' to refer to things that look cool/interesting, but are not very effective. Sword and Board is such a trap, because it's easy to imagine yourself as Sir Arthur or whatever, and that's fine for low level humans vs low level humans. Except D&D has more than 3 levels, and more races than humans. A little extrapolation reveals the flaw. There's also Spike (play to win, using successful tactics) and Johnny (play to look cool, likes tactics with long setups and great effects if they work even though said tactics are far inferior and less reliable than the Spike tactics).
Coup de grace takes a full round action. You're better off full attacking most likely, and PAing away since his AC fell through the floor as soon as he was rendered helpless.
By the way, you probably won't need two tries, though there is a small chance the first won't work. 50%-75% chance to be negated is still better than 0%.
|
|
Coup de grace takes a full round action. You're better off full attacking most likely, and PAing away since his AC fell through the floor as soon as he was rendered helpless.
By the way, you probably won't need two tries, though there is a small chance the first won't work. 50%-75% chance to be negated is still better than 0%.
Coup de grace is always the better option. I've killed enough PCs with it to know that.
Coup de grace is always the better option. I've killed enough PCs with it to know that.Coup de grace takes a full round action. You're better off full attacking most likely, and PAing away since his AC fell through the floor as soon as he was rendered helpless.
By the way, you probably won't need two tries, though there is a small chance the first won't work. 50%-75% chance to be negated is still better than 0%.
False. Action Economy and the interruptable nature renders it a Timmy trap. It also doesn't work against anything immune to precision.
|
|
False. Action Economy and the interruptable nature renders it a Timmy trap. It also doesn't work against anything immune to precision.Coup de grace is always the better option. I've killed enough PCs with it to know that.Coup de grace takes a full round action. You're better off full attacking most likely, and PAing away since his AC fell through the floor as soon as he was rendered helpless.
By the way, you probably won't need two tries, though there is a small chance the first won't work. 50%-75% chance to be negated is still better than 0%.
"Interruptable": is highly situational.
"Action economy": iterative attacks are the same action as coup de grace."precision immunity": I made no suggestion it wasn't, clearly you do not coup de grace certain creatures. Just like you don't fireball certain creatures, or cast hold person on a dragon, etc.
Let's look at a ghoul (a monster that commonly gets coup de grace attempts): they could use their full attack, dealing an average of 7 damage (with a small chance of critical hits) and force DC 12 fortitude saves for disease and paralysis on each attack.
Or they could coup de grace, dealing 8 damage and forcing one set of DC 12 saves, plus a DC 18 Fort save or death. Now, at CR 1, the characters facing a ghoul are more likely going to fail such a saving throw than make it.
On the other end of the scale, the pit fiend deals an average of 70 damage with a full attack, or can deal coup de grace of an average of 44 damage and force an average save of DC 49. Survivable, but not guaranteed.
Fortitude saves:
Reflex saves:
Will saves.
In summary, Fortitude effects take out dangerous casters quickly. Will effects take out dangerous non casters quickly. Reflex effects do nothing unique or useful as they are far inferior against either of the above.
Clerics and Druids get good saves in both the categories that matter, which is part of the reason why they're so good.
And Direct-Damage Reflex-Save Targeting spells are good against all Casters in general,
when used as a delayed action provoking a signifigant Concentration Check... ???
Whereas even if the blasts hits, they would almost certainly lose their spell.
Unfortunately, that hasn't been true since 2e. Concentration/Spellcraft checks are so easy to make that it's almost laughable -- I've never yet seen a high-level caster lose a spell from taking damage in 3e/3.5e/PF.
"Interruptable": is highly situational.
"Action economy": iterative attacks are the same action as coup de grace.
"precision immunity": I made no suggestion it wasn't, clearly you do not coup de grace certain creatures. Just like you don't fireball certain creatures, or cast hold person on a dragon, etc.Let's look at a ghoul (a monster that commonly gets coup de grace attempts): they could use their full attack, dealing an average of 7 damage (with a small chance of critical hits) and force DC 12 fortitude saves for disease and paralysis on each attack.
Or they could coup de grace, dealing 8 damage and forcing one set of DC 12 saves, plus a DC 18 Fort save or death. Now, at CR 1, the characters facing a ghoul are more likely going to fail such a saving throw than make it.
On the other end of the scale, the pit fiend deals an average of 70 damage with a full attack, or can deal coup de grace of an average of 44 damage and force an average save of DC 49. Survivable, but not guaranteed.
If anyone is near them, they get a free shot to try to interrupt it. Hint: Most creatures that will attempt this tactic have no ranks in Concentration.
Hitting twice is as good as a CdG without the conditional effect and interruption, and since helpless creatures take huge AC penalties they are quite easily hit.
Precision damage immunity is not always obvious.
Reflex damage effects are crap regardless. The mage will easily pass, take half damage, and make his check anyways. It has to be no save, and high damage. In other words, Orb of xxx. That's your better counterspell option. You're still better off giving it a SoD/S to the face, but if you're actually going to burn actions on counterspelling do it right. Otherwise Immediate action that ****, so it's worth your time directly.
A Fort SoD has about the same chance of working on a caster as they do of failing a Reflex save, however instead of just taking some minor to moderate damage they die outright. Because of this, the SoD person will perform a lot better than that, thereby creating a bigger margin between them.
|
|
CoL: Do you not see the incongruency inherent in your own argument?
You argue that SoDs are the best option for casters because they work more often and are instant or near-instant death, whereas Reflex targetting spells are inferior because they do hit point damage.
Then you argue that iterative attacks are the better option for melee characters, for precisely the opposite reason. Coup de grace = auto-hit, auto-crit, save-or-die. Multiple attacks = possible miss, possibility of more damage if you roll well on attack and damage rolls.
So which is it?
EDIT: You're talking in circles again. Your arguments don't prove that coup de grace is the inferior option, only that you think it is because you get attacked for performing one. Helpless penalties do not equate to an auto-hit. Coup de grace does.
There is no inconsistency. CdG is a very, very weak SoD that doesn't work at all against the things you care about most, is interrupted very easily... And against anything it will work on, a single full attack vs the enemies' drastically lowered AC will just tear them apart without getting interrupted.
Casters get good SoDs and crap for DD. Melees get utter **** for SoDs (barring ToB) and somewhat better DD. SoD > DD still, but melees are still better off beating the crap out of it.
|
|
There is no inconsistency. CdG is a very, very weak SoD that doesn't work at all against the things you care about most, is interrupted very easily... And against anything it will work on, a single full attack vs the enemies' drastically lowered AC will just tear them apart without getting interrupted.
If a 1st level fighter deals 2d6+6 damage with a greatsword, that is an average DC 36 Fort save. Much higher than any plausible spell for any character. That is not "weak". For a barbarian with a greataxe dealing 1d12+10, that's a DC 59 Fort save. Goodbye epic-level opponent.
Bringing up situational conditions doesn't help your argument - the entire game is built that way. The fact is, if you have an opportunity to coup de grace, it is mathematically the more successful option.
An character with a good Fort save would have to be fairly high level in order to reliably make the save I mention above (DC 36).
There is no inconsistency. CdG is a very, very weak SoD that doesn't work at all against the things you care about most, is interrupted very easily... And against anything it will work on, a single full attack vs the enemies' drastically lowered AC will just tear them apart without getting interrupted.If a 1st level fighter deals 2d6+6 damage with a greatsword, that is an average DC 36 Fort save. Much higher than any plausible spell for any character. That is not "weak". For a barbarian with a greataxe dealing 1d12+10, that's a DC 59 Fort save. Goodbye epic-level opponent.
Bringing up situational conditions doesn't help your argument - the entire game is built that way. The fact is, if you have an opportunity to coup de grace, it is mathematically the more successful option.
An character with a good Fort save would have to be fairly high level in order to reliably make the save I mention above (DC 36).
If a first level Fighter does 2d6+6 with his greatsword, he hits AC 1 + armor + shield etc on a 2 and auto kills as a standard action instead of a full round, thereby allowing him to also move. CdG still fails. Same for a Barbarian doing 1d12+10, except more so. CR 1 average? 12.24 HP. More likely you're facing a couple orcs or kobolds or something, who have less. This is ignoring the fact that if CR 1 stuff is helpless, it's because they got Color Sprayed and are as good as dead anyways. Doing anything a Commoner can do is never bragworthy.
Your example contains two situations where you do exactly the same thing but one takes longer and is interruptable. The faster, safer way (mine) is superior in every possible way. Action Economy.
By the way, everything Epic is immune to precision (and a bunch of other stuff, but precision first). That also grants immunity to that, assuming you get them Helpless in the first place. So your point is really quite moot and does nothing but deceive the gullible.
|
|
If a first level Fighter does 2d6+6 with his greatsword, he hits AC 1 + armor + shield etc on a 2 and auto kills as a standard action instead of a full round, thereby allowing him to also move. CdG still fails. Same for a Barbarian doing 1d12+10, except more so. CR 1 average? 12.24 HP. More likely you're facing a couple orcs or kobolds or something, who have less. This is ignoring the fact that if CR 1 stuff is helpless, it's because they got Color Sprayed and are as good as dead anyways. Doing anything a Commoner can do is never bragworthy.
You are assuming 1st level character is fighting other CR 1 creatures all the time. They can reasonably expect to fight up to CR 6.
Your example contains two situations where you do exactly the same thing but one takes longer and is interruptable. The faster, safer way (mine) is superior in every possible way. Action Economy.
And one all but guarantees death while the other only drains hit points. You yourself argue this all the time while talking about spells.
By the way, everything Epic is immune to precision (and a bunch of other stuff, but precision first). That also grants immunity to that, assuming you get them Helpless in the first place. So your point is really quite moot and does nothing but deceive the gullible.
I'm reading over my Epic Level Handbook right now, and I fail to see where it says Epic Levels grant immunity to critical hits. My point was not deception in the least. A 20th level character has virtually no chance to make a save over DC 40. An epic creature, without immunity to critical hits (again, circumstantial) also has difficulty.
And an up to CR 6 would destroy them, or at least not be rendered helpless by some level ones.
A melee full attack against a creature with a base AC of 1 is going to kill them. See: Power Attack. The correct statement I made regarding HP damage is that it is not worth it to cast damage dealing spells as 1d6 a level is nowhere near enemy HP. Assuming a competent melee is doing the full attacking vs the PA bait target, his damage output is considerably higher than 1d6/level.
Anyone can have precision immunity for 36k, and that's not even the most efficient way. Since Epic anythings get 10 times more wealth automatically they can pretty much have any non epic loot they want. This is non epic loot. Remember, if you're strong enough to threaten the gods you're smart enough to work out that Money is Power. That's what Epic is about after all.
By the way, here's a level 20 character with a bad Fortitude save.
6 base + 5 Con (standard) + 6 resistance + 5 morale + 1 competence + 1 circumstance + 10 luck = +34. I'm sure I'm forgetting something. Of course the point is moot since every self respecting level 20 is immune to precision anyways, assuming they can still be caught helpless in the first place. So stacking different bonus types to saves is not necessary.
|
|
By the way, here's a level 20 character with a bad Fortitude save.6 base + 5 Con (standard) + 6 resistance + 5 morale + 1 competence + 1 circumstance + 10 luck = +34. I'm sure I'm forgetting something. Of course the point is moot since every self respecting level 20 is immune to precision anyways, assuming they can still be caught helpless in the first place. So stacking different bonus types to saves is not necessary.
That still fails against DC 59 except a natural 20. Even a "good" save would need 19 with those stats. Not all characters can wear armor to gain heavy fortification, but I'm guessing you are doing something obscure like enchanting a shirt.
This is a small proportion of the challenges any character might face. In general using a coup de grace is a good option, at all levels of play.
You: "A 20th level character has virtually no chance to make a save over DC 40."
Me: No. Here is how you turn a bad save character into one with a +34 modifier: *stuff* A +34 passes a DC 'over 40' a very high percentage of the time.
Heavy Fortification is less than 5% of level 20 WBL. It's damn cheap for what it does. Who can't use it again?
Arcane casters can still manage it, because it's very simple to render arcane spell failure 0%, and armor check penalty 0 meaning they lose absolutely nothing by doing so.
That only leaves Monks as potentially out. Ignoring the fact they suck anyways, enchanting Bracers of Armor with up to +5 of special properties is legal. They have to pay out the ass to stay on par, but then what else is new?
In general, coup de grace is too conditional to ever be worth it compared to other, less exacting options. It's like Sneak Attack, except worse.
Jal, you're obviously confused. Don't you roll up your characters at 20th level and play them from there? If not, you clearly have no business discussing these issues.
(P.S. Discussing strategies for 20th level fighters is nearly pointless, because we can probably all agree that fighters are mostly useless after 8th level or so anyway.)
Jal, you're obviously confused. Don't you roll up your characters at 20th level and play them from there? If not, you clearly have no business discussing these issues.
(P.S. Discussing strategies for 20th level fighters is nearly pointless, because we can probably all agree that fighters are mostly useless after 8th level or so anyway.)
Strawman, and useless trolling. I have covered multiple levels, including the low levels (where one hit will just kill them anyways). A full round interruptable and conditional action just requires too much to be in your favor to be worth it.
Multi-classing is not fine. Personal opinion aside, one cannot make a fighter-mage as is without being seriously lower in power than the straight classes. This. Is. Not. Fine.
I totally disagree. I for one have no interest in a game where you can "have it all." Specializing in one field should make you better at it, period.
If you want uber powerful characters, might I suggest 4th ed?
Multi-classing is not fine. Personal opinion aside, one cannot make a fighter-mage as is without being seriously lower in power than the straight classes. This. Is. Not. Fine.
I totally disagree. I for one have no interest in a game where you can "have it all." Specializing in one field should make you better at it, period.
If you want uber powerful characters, might I suggest 4th ed?
A fighter/mage, if made right (hint: It's not Fighter 10/Wizard 10) will be superior to a fighter but inferior to a mage. The latter inferiority is due to loss of caster levels.
4.0 is for uber weak characters. Level 30 there is level 10 in 3.x. It's also for auto attacking for low double digit damage vs mobs with low four digit HP aka Combat Takes Forever. Well it's actually more like daily (do 50 damage), encounter, encounter (do about 30 each) then auto attack for low double digits.
In short, you are both wrong.