Now, that they actually have a meaningful defensive advantage they need a taunt ability, otherwise enemies will happily ignore the least threatening party member who in theory at least is hardest to kill in favor of everyone else meaning you have failed utterly to do your job as a tank.
Rather than a mind-affecting taunt, as discussed elsewhere, I'd like to see fighters be able to take immediate-action moves that allow them to intecept (and interrupt) enemies' movement. That avoids the whole mind-affecting/MSD save DC issue.
Similar problem with the fireball. It totally makes sense, but do you add shield bonus to Reflex? No, there are too many cases where a shield would help you move quick (traps, etc.). But maybe you say that, no it doesn't help you dodge, per se, but you are able to bat away whatever you were trying to dodge. But what about pits?
I'd change the descriptive text, but not the underlying mechanic.
Except that even if they move in the way, unless it's a 5' hallway there's nothing stopping them from going around. And if they can make the proper check, there's nothing stopping them from going right through his space either.
1. Except that even if they move in the way, unless it's a 5' hallway there's nothing stopping them from going around.
2. And if they can make the proper check, there's nothing stopping them from going right through his space either.
1. Yes; the ability would need to specifically spell out that you block further movement on their part -- as the feat I wrote for this did.
2. Acrobatics certainly becomes more valuable in this regard -- but Perception is already the King of All Skills, and I see no reason we shouldn't elevate others to the same lofty perch -- it's getting a bit rarefied up there.
The other alternative would be to try and overrun/bull rush past the fighter, but given his usual high CMB, number of feats, and high base DC (15 instead of 10), that's a more difficult proposition.
(Also, another of the fighter feats I wrote lets you "save up" iterative attacks for use when you use this maneuever. There's less point in blocking movement if you can't also attack.)
Um, Tumble has already been pretty good. It's right up there with Perception and Use Magic Device. Acrobatics is Tumble, + something else. You sound as if this were a new thing.
Um, Tumble has already been pretty good. It's right up there with Perception and Use Magic Device. Acrobatics is Tumble, + something else. You sound as if this were a new thing.
It gains an additional use: avoid automatic blocking by fighter. That's fine with me. Perception already has so many uses; Acrobatics can, too. And Craft and Knowledge and Climb and all the rest should, too, for that matter, but now we're opening a whole different can of worms...
The point is, there's an alternative to a "taunt" mechanism, which I dislike because of (a) its attendant "skill tax" (Intimidate); (b) its logical (but lame) Cha-based DC; and (c) the fact that it relies on irrational decisions on the part of those affected, rather than on actions on the part of the "blocker."
Um, Tumble has already been pretty good. It's right up there with Perception and Use Magic Device. Acrobatics is Tumble, + something else. You sound as if this were a new thing.It gains an additional use: avoid automatic blocking by fighter. That's fine with me. Perception already has so many uses; Acrobatics can, too. And Craft and Knowledge and Climb and all the rest should, too, for that matter, but now we're opening a whole different can of worms...
The point is, there's an alternative to a "taunt" mechanism, which I dislike because of (a) its attendant "skill tax" (Intimidate); (b) its logical (but lame) Cha-based DC; and (c) the fact that it relies on irrational decisions on the part of those affected, rather than on actions on the part of the "blocker."
I don't understand what you're talking about. Moving through an enemy space = DC 25 before or after PF. DC 15 if you have to move around instead. That's not new. Keep in mind, I still can't load the damn thing. If you mean something else and just aren't being clear, nevermind.
Start at 12 Dex. Add +4 item. Hell, add +6 item. How about that?It doesn't, but who is going to cripple themselves with the current heavy armor if they have half a say in the matter?Adamantine full plate (+8 AC, +1 Max Dex, -5 Armor Check, Spd 20 ft*/15 ft*, Weight 50 lbs, Hardness 20, DR 3/-, Cost 16,500 gp)
Mithral full plate (+8 AC, +3 Max Dex, -3 Armor Check, Spd 20 ft/15 ft, Weight 25 lbs, Hardness 15, Cost 10,500 gp)
*- Running speed is x3 instead of x4
12 Dex with a +4 Dex item (16/+3):
Adamantine full plate--AC 19, flat-footed 18, touch 11 (plus enhancement, deflection, and/or natural armor; note that a cleric can boost enhancement and deflection bonuses with magic vestment and shield of faith spells), DR 3/-
Mithral full plate--AC 21, flat-footed 18, touch 13 (again plus enhancement, deflection, and/or natural armor)
Is DR 3/- worth giving up +2 AC/touch AC and being able to run a bit faster? For some concepts/builds it can be, IMO.
For a 12 Dex character with a +6 Dex item (18/+4),
Only if your (modified) Dex is under 18 or over 21 should you consider anything [other than a mithral breastplate] (or if you are prohibited/penalized for wearing it).
Fighters focusing on max damage in melee are Combat Reflexes Spiked Chain builds.
I see a lot of heavy-armor, falchion/greatsword/polearm fighters, also. Spiked chain builds tend to lag a bit on damage potential because of the Exotic Weapon feat requirement, modest base damage, and the poor critical threat/multiplier; they're better at area control/disabling/versatility.
DR 3 is very minor since we aren't talking about level 3 here, but a point much later on. 2 AC and touch AC is also minor, but more significant. Especially when you consider a PAer is doing 4 more damage to you with every hit, therefore you still come out behind. Regardless, Medium armor has what is known as the Monk flaw - it is too inbetween, and too unfocused to be remotely useful compared to either of the extremes. Light armors lose near no protection and don't lose speed when moving. Heavy armors give greater protection while applying the same speed penalty.
Edit: Heavy armor means you're too slow to get into melee range. Falchions and Greatswords mean you lose vs reach aka mid and high level opponents. Put another way, you amplify the already existing failure you have by default to deal with enemies of your level. Polearms grant the reach, but since you don't threaten adjacent you're still rather easily messed with. Spiked chains lose 2 damage compared to greatswords. Except tripped enemies lose 4 AC, and therefore take 8 more damage from any attack at level 4 or higher. Even at level 1, the damage is equal and you are attacking something with 3 less AC. Focusing on critical hits in any way aside from Blood in the Water is a trap tactic. In other words, it is a waste of resources to focus on that since precision damage is so situational and you need more options, not less.
PF removed the only options Fighters ever had so the point is moot save for academic purposes, but there you go.
Um, Natural Spell?
I don't understand what you're talking about. Moving through an enemy space = DC 25 before or after PF. DC 15 if you have to move around instead. That's not new.
The DCs are different in PF Beta:
Moving through an enemy space = 20 + opponent's BABTumbling past an enemy = 15 + opponent's BAB
Ok, how is that automatic blocking?
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Druids could always cast spells in WS. They just had to use Silent Spell (unless they turned into an elemental, since they can talk) and Still Spell. Plus Eschew Materials for your ordinary components.From the druid section of the SRD.
A druid loses her ability to speak while in animal form because she is limited to the sounds that a normal, untrained animal can make, but she can communicate normally with other animals of the same general grouping as her new form. (The normal sound a wild parrot makes is a squawk, so changing to this form does not permit speech.)
No those feats won't do it for the druid. I am houseruling wild shape out of any future campaigns so the druids can be a wildshaping combatant or a spellcaster, just not both at the same time.
Why won't those feats do it for the druid? When you apply Silent Spell, you remove the verbal component. It doesn't just make the speech inaudible or allow you cast within a silence spell; speech is actually no longer necessary to cast the spell. Therefore, the druid's inability to talk is a moot point.
Likewise the druid's inability to have hands for somatic components is eliminated by Still Spell, which eliminates the need for somatic components.
Check the book; it's right there. "A stilled spell can be cast with no somatic components" (PF 95), "A silent spell can be cast with no verbal components" (PF 94). Compare to the normal requirements for components on PF 160.
That said, I approve of your house rule.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Um, Natural Spell?
The post was in response to my old post saying I hope they nix or nerf Natural Spell and that it was superfluous in any case, since druids could accomplish the same effect with an entirely reasonable 'tax' by making them use Silent Spell, Still Spell, and Eschew Materials to be able to cast spells while in wild shape.
Natural Spell = bad (and by bad I mean entirely too good, and therefore BAD!)
3 feats, +2 spell levels of adjustment, and prediction. Eh. Well in any case, that explains it.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
3 feats, +2 spell levels of adjustment, and prediction. Eh. Well in any case, that explains it.
Eh indeed. Seems like a simple enough already-in-the-rules path to nerfdom for the "always on wildshaped druid=too awesome" problem.
Perhaps "Natural Spell," since we are presumably keeping a feat of that name, could do everything it usually does, but you could only use it:
1. Once per day.
2. N times per day, say 1/day per 4 levels (like Stunning Fist).
3. Once each time you wild shape. Sort of a "get out of jail free card" you can spend once each time you WS to cast any prepared spell without having to cock it up with metamagic.
DR 3 is very minor since we aren't talking about level 3 here, but a point much later on. 2 AC and touch AC is also minor, but more significant. Especially when you consider a PAer is doing 4 more damage to you with every hit, therefore you still come out behind.
DR 3/- means you have to worry less about all normal attacks, including archers. Sure, taking 3 less hp per blow in return for a +10% increase in your chance of being hit isn't the best choice for all characters, but it can be the difference between lasting for one more attack at mid to high levels for some characters/builds.
Edit: Heavy armor means you're too slow to get into melee range.
Boots of striding and springing (+10 ft to land movement) have a market price of 5,500 gp. Winged boots allow flight at potentially greater speeds.
Focusing on critical hits in any way aside from Blood in the Water is a trap tactic.
Criticals affect the majority of foes that most adventurers face, so it's usually worth factoring into damage calculations. A higher critical chance/modifier can also make a keen acid/fire/frost/shocking burst/thundering weapon potentially worthwhile, instead of a waste of resources; falchions (18-20/x2, 15-20 keen) are very useful for this.
Getting hit 10% more often means you take more hits, and more damage anyways. Vs the damage dealing foes you care about you are taking a net loss because they are doing 1 more damage to you per hit.
Speed boosting items don't make up for the fact you are behind on all forms of movement including, and especially flight. This is critical. It doesn't even matter how good you are at melee if you can never get into melee because you are too damn slow.
Incorrect. Even under the most optimal of conditions you crit 28.5% of the time for 5.5 damage. That's 1.5675 damage, or less than half of what you get with plain Flaming/Frost/whatever. Even if Keen and Improved Critical stacked giving you 45% chance to threaten, and you confirm on a 2 that is 2.35125 damaged which is still a third less than plain flaming/frost/etc which gives 3.5. If you have a * 3 or * 4 weapon the burst damage is doubled or tripled, but you only crit on one number (two with either/or, three with both) which means the end math is exactly the same. They at least aren't precision damage dependent, but they still simply fail to be worthwhile uses of an enchantment slot and your limited resources. Even so, the plain flaming/frost/etc enchantments fail at the cost/benefit check because the damage is too low, and of the wrong types to matter. The bursts are inferior versions of these that cost exactly the same. Naturally, they come out worse.
Oh and did I mention the flaming/frost/etc enchantments intrude upon the Action Economy? Yup. Standard action to turn the thing on. Fine if you know a fight is coming and don't mind walking around with an obvious glowing weapon. Not fine if combat occurs without warning. When anything intrudes upon the Action Economy, it is automatically required to be much better to be worth using. That means if it isn't an always on or free action ability it needs to be at least as good as your other Standard/Move/Swift action options or it's never worth considering. 1d6 damage at any level you could actually have a +2 or better weapon does not qualify.
The keen enhancement and the Improved Critical feat really should stack. You may wish to disallow it for scimitar masters, but it's really not that game-breaking at all.
The keen enhancement and the Improved Critical feat really should stack. You may wish to disallow it for scimitar masters, but it's really not that game-breaking at all.
Let them have it. They still won't compare to reach users because they always take a free hit on the way in.
Only reason they don't stack is because of a double fix. Vorpal was on a critical before, which means you got it 45% of the time. 60%, with a bladed gauntlet. 3.5 adjusted it to natural 20 only which fixed that, but then they overdid it via making those two not stack which didn't accomplish anything except making another technique subpar at best. Much later, WotC introduced something that makes criticals worthwhile, but even so you won't get too much out of it because combats are fast, and it takes time to build up.
I think the point is that the benefit should outweigh the drawback and plate users should actually be the best protected instead of so much clunky canned lunchmeat. And yes, they also taste good with ketchup. Nine out of ten dragons agree. The tenth didn't chew his food and is having intestinal surgery to repair the internal damage done.
That one is the big one. Seriously, a guy in heavy armor can have good AC with only mediocre dex. A dex AC character needs to invest a lot of points in dexterity, which is probably not something a* fighter is going to do (who needs strength and con anyway).2: You assume that Dexteirty is always going to be a high stat. One of the big advantages of armour is that you get a good bonus to armour class even if you have little dexterity.
*- Change the "a" to "every" and you're correct.
Also, take a look here to see an analysis on whether mithral or adamantine full plate is better protection against attacks. Short answer: It depends on the hit probabilities and average damage per attack.
The keen enhancement and the Improved Critical feat really should stack. You may wish to disallow it for scimitar masters, but it's really not that game-breaking at all.Let them have it. They still won't compare to reach users because they always take a free hit* on the way in.
Only reason they don't stack is because of a double fix. Vorpal was on a critical before, which means you got it 45% of the time. 60%, with a bladed gauntlet. 3.5 adjusted it to natural 20 only which fixed that, but then they overdid it via making those two not stack which didn't accomplish anything except making another technique subpar at best.
*- That should read "free attack," not "free hit." As long as tanks have 13 Dex and are willing to invest in two feats (Dodge and Mobility), they can get a +5 AC bonus against that AoO from the reach user.
The big balance issue was Improved Critical (falchion) stacking with a +x keen [energy] burst thundering falchion being used by a Power Attacking melee character. With a threat range of 12-20 (10-20 with the Weapon Master PrC from Sword and Fist), you'd have high-level characters doing massive damage (critical + energy + burst + thundering + Power Attack) around 1 hit in 3 or better.
By getting rid of the stacking (as well as the Weapon Master PrC), 3.5 reduced the Power Attacking, wide critical range two-handed weapon user to the point where other techniques could compete.
I think the point is that the benefit should outweigh the drawback and plate users should actually be the best protected instead of so much clunky canned lunchmeat. And yes, they also taste good with ketchup. Nine out of ten dragons agree. The tenth didn't chew his food and is having intestinal surgery to repair the internal damage done.
Mithral full plate (+8 armor, +3 Dex) grants the best total AC benefit of any core armor type (+11). Normal/adamantine full plate (+8 armor, +1 Dex; +9 total) is only slightly behind a mithral breastplate (+5 armor, +5 Dex; +10 total) or a mithral chain shirt (+4 armor, +6 Dex; +10 total) for a much lower investment in Dex. Seems to me that the trade-offs are already there.
The keen enhancement and the Improved Critical feat really should stack. You may wish to disallow it for scimitar masters, but it's really not that game-breaking at all.Let them have it. They still won't compare to reach users because they always take a free hit* on the way in.
Only reason they don't stack is because of a double fix. Vorpal was on a critical before, which means you got it 45% of the time. 60%, with a bladed gauntlet. 3.5 adjusted it to natural 20 only which fixed that, but then they overdid it via making those two not stack which didn't accomplish anything except making another technique subpar at best.
*- That should read "free attack," not "free hit." As long as tanks have 13 Dex and are willing to invest in two feats (Dodge and Mobility), they can get a +5 AC bonus against that AoO from the reach user.
The big balance issue was Improved Critical (falchion) stacking with a +x keen [energy] burst thundering falchion being used by a Power Attacking melee character. With a threat range of 12-20 (10-20 with the Weapon Master PrC from Sword and Fist), you'd have high-level characters doing massive damage (critical + energy + burst + thundering + Power Attack) around 1 hit in 3 or better.
By getting rid of the stacking (as well as the Weapon Master PrC), 3.5 reduced the Power Attacking, wide critical range two-handed weapon user to the point where other techniques could compete.
Offensive stats scale much faster than defensive stats. He still gets hit, he's just set two feats on fire for no damn good reason and is at a constant disadvantage throughout the battle as a result of his suboptimal (non reach) weapon choice.
The burst enchantments had nothing to do with it. Even on a crit range 9 points wide, 45% to threaten and (ideal conditions) 95% to confirm means you do 1d10 (5.5) 42.75% of the time. That's 2.3485 damage, or about a third less than plain old Flaming for 1d6 (3.5) which is in and of itself a suboptimal enchantment. Even if you critted on 12 numbers, 57% of 5.5 is 3.135 which is still inferior to plain Flaming's 3.5, always. You would need to auto hit (2 or better), and have a crit range of 7-20 at the least just to make whatever burst better than the plain version of it, and still more to be worth taking overall. Not happening. The only reason was Vorpal's auto kill on a successful critical.
Weapon Master only works if you are holding a masterwork weapon. You cannot combine it with any magical abilities whatsoever. Weapon Master also requires setting 5 feats on fire (Combat Reflexes is worth the slot, Dodge, Mobility, Weapon Focus, Whirlwind Attack, and Expertise are not, though that last one might be worth it as a prerequisite).
The technique you suggest was simply a trap.
I think the point is that the benefit should outweigh the drawback and plate users should actually be the best protected instead of so much clunky canned lunchmeat. And yes, they also taste good with ketchup. Nine out of ten dragons agree. The tenth didn't chew his food and is having intestinal surgery to repair the internal damage done.Mithral full plate (+8 armor, +3 Dex) grants the best total AC benefit of any core armor type (+11). Normal/adamantine full plate (+8 armor, +1 Dex; +9 total) is only slightly behind a mithral breastplate (+5 armor, +5 Dex; +10 total) or a mithral chain shirt (+4 armor, +6 Dex; +10 total) for a much lower investment in Dex. Seems to me that the trade-offs are already there.
1 AC for a third of your speed, and lower initiative (Dex = Initiative). I'll take being actually able to get to my enemies to try to stab them in the face please, and thanks.
Even if you only have 12 Dex, 3 AC for a third of your speed = Speed still wins by a landslide.
|
Except that even if they move in the way, unless it's a 5' hallway there's nothing stopping them from going around. And if they can make the proper check, there's nothing stopping them from going right through his space either.
sometimes you can stop people in their tracks imagine doing that with a shield.
If you're suggesting giving shield users that ability as an Immediate action I'd agree, as it takes a little bit of the failure out of them. Otherwise, I have no idea what you are talking about (and you don't get a bunny with a pancake on its head).
*- That should read "free attack," not "free hit." As long as tanks have 13 Dex and are willing to invest in two feats (Dodge and Mobility), they can get a +5 AC bonus against that AoO from the reach user.Offensive stats scale much faster than defensive stats. He still gets hit, he's just set two feats on fire for no damn good reason and is at a constant disadvantage throughout the battle as a result of his suboptimal (non reach) weapon choice.
If the reach user has an attack bonus high enough to make a 25% reduction in the hit chance "no damn good reason," then the encounter has much bigger problems than the tank not having a reach weapon. He's pretty much screwed no matter what armor he's wearing.
The big balance issue was Improved Critical (falchion) stacking with a +x keen [energy] burst thundering falchion being used by a Power Attacking melee character. With a threat range of 12-20 (10-20 with the Weapon Master PrC from Sword and Fist), you'd have high-level characters doing massive damage (critical + energy + burst + thundering + Power Attack) around 1 hit in 3 or better.
By getting rid of the stacking (as well as the Weapon Master PrC), 3.5 reduced the Power Attacking, wide critical range two-handed weapon user to the point where other techniques could compete.
The burst enchantments had nothing to do with it. Even on a crit range 9 points wide, 45% to threaten and (ideal conditions) 95% to confirm means you do 1d10 (5.5) 42.75% of the time. That's 2.3485 damage, or about a third less than plain old Flaming for 1d6 (3.5) which is in and of itself a suboptimal enchantment. Even if you critted on 12 numbers, 57% of 5.5 is 3.135 which is still inferior to plain Flaming's 3.5, always. You would need to auto hit (2 or better), and have a crit range of 7-20 at the least just to make whatever burst better than the plain version of it, and still more to be worth taking overall. Not happening. The only reason was Vorpal's auto kill on a successful critical.
Weapon Master only works if you are holding a masterwork weapon. You cannot combine it with any magical abilities whatsoever.
The +1d10 burst damage is in addition to the normal +1d6 of energy damage of the same type. Would you rather have a +1 bane (dragons) frost burst keen falchion or a +1 bane (dragons) flaming frost mighty cleaving spiked chain when fighting a red dragon? I can guarantee the first will do more average damage per hit.
If the only reason was because of vorpal weapons, then why the change when 3.5 vorpal weapons only auto-kill on a natural 20, instead of any critical?
You're confusing the 3.0 Weapon Master with the 1st Ed Oriental Adventures kensai (which did have a restriction against using magic weapons). Since enchanted weapons in 3.0 are masterwork already (3.0 DMG, pg. 183 "All magic weapons are also masterwork weapons"), that meets the "masterwork version of your weapon" requirement. (Sword and Fist, pg. 39)
Weapon Master also requires setting 5 feats on fire (Combat Reflexes is worth the slot, Dodge, Mobility, Weapon Focus, Whirlwind Attack, and Expertise are not, though that last one might be worth it as a prerequisite).
Seven, actually: Combat Reflexes, Dodge, Expertise, Mobility, Spring Attack (required for Whirlwind Attack), Weapon Focus, and Whirlwind Attack, which any fighter 6 can have (humans can even throw in Improved Initiative, Power Attack, or Weapon Specialization). Is a human fighter 6 with 16 Str, 13 Dex, 12 Con, 14 Int, 10 Wis, 8 Cha (elite array), Combat Reflexes, Dodge, Mobility, Expertise, Mobility, Power Attack, Spring Attack, Weapon Focus (Falchion), and Whirlwind Attack horribly sub-par when compared to another 3.0 human fighter 6? If so, post a 3.0 human fighter 6 build that outclasses it. Or show us how a human fighter 6/weapon master 7 (18 Str, 13 Dex, 12 Con, 14 Int, 10 Wis, 8 Cha) with the feats for the fighter 6 plus Improved Critical (Falchion), Improved Initiative, and Weapon Specialization (Falchion) is weak--taking into account the Ki Damage 7x/day, Increased Multiplier 3x/day, Superior Weapon Focus, and Ki Critical class abilities--compared to some other 13th level (elite array) melee character.
1 AC for a third of your speed, and lower initiative (Dex = Initiative). I'll take being actually able to get to my enemies to try to stab them in the face please, and thanks.
Even if you only have 12 Dex, 3 AC for a third of your speed = Speed still wins by a landslide..
The Dex bonus restriction of armor [b]only[/i] affects AC. A character with an effective 18 Dex in mithral full plate has an AC of 21+ and initiative bonus of +4, while a character with an effective 18 Dex in a mithral breastplate has an AC of 19+ and an initiative bonus of +4. Granted, the breastplate wearer also has 10 ft more ground movement and an extra 6,300 gp.
So, basically the loss of 10 ft of movement is a dealbreaker for you. I guess you don't ever play a dwarf, gnome, or halfling...
1 AC for a third of your speed, and lower initiative (Dex = Initiative). I'll take being actually able to get to my enemies to try to stab them in the face please, and thanks.
Even if you only have 12 Dex, 3 AC for a third of your speed = Speed still wins by a landslide...
The Dex bonus restriction of armor only affects AC. A character with an effective 18 Dex in mithral full plate has an AC of 21+ and initiative bonus of +4, while a character with an effective 18 Dex in a mithral breastplate has an AC of 19+ and an initiative bonus of +4. Granted, the breastplate wearer also has 10 ft more ground movement and an extra 6,300 gp.
So, basically the loss of 10 ft of movement is a dealbreaker for you. I guess you don't ever play a dwarf, gnome, or halfling...
You've just proven my point. If you have higher dex than the minimums, there's even less of a point to heavy armors since then, you lose even less for what matters. And no. Gnomes annoy me simply by existing, halflings aren't much of an improvement (and both automatically fail as melee classes), dwarves don't have any particular mechanical flaws aside from the speed hit, but I don't like them.
If the reach user has an attack bonus high enough to make a 25% reduction in the hit chance "no damn good reason," then the encounter has much bigger problems than the tank not having a reach weapon. He's pretty much screwed no matter what armor he's wearing.
Again, offense scales faster than defense. Welcome to every fight past about level 9 or so. He still hits you on his first attack with a 2. The second probably isn't auto hit material, but your second attack is irrelevant to taking AoOs.
The +1d10 burst damage is in addition to the normal +1d6 of energy damage of the same type. Would you rather have a +1 bane (dragons) frost burst keen falchion or a +1 bane (dragons) flaming frost mighty cleaving spiked chain when fighting a red dragon? I can guarantee the first will do more average damage per hit.
If the only reason was because of vorpal weapons, then why the change when 3.5 vorpal weapons only auto-kill on a natural 20, instead of any critical?
You're confusing the 3.0 Weapon Master with the 1st Ed Oriental Adventures kensai (which did have a restriction against using magic weapons). Since enchanted weapons in 3.0 are masterwork already (3.0 DMG, pg. 183 "All magic weapons are also masterwork weapons"), that meets the "masterwork version of your weapon" requirement. (Sword and Fist, pg. 39)
1: Read the post properly before responding to it. Flaming burst was being compared to another flat 1d6 as it averages far less than that barring extremely large critical ranges.
2: Do not set up specific examples to attempt to justify highly situational weapons. It is just as likely you fight a white dragon which shuts down the other end of the enchantments. It is statistically irrelevant.
3: If you are going to set up an example of two weapons being compared, try making them actually worth considering instead of both having taken nothing but random junk properties. My choice would be neither of the above, then smack myself for not realizing well ahead of time that my DM was working against me by giving me such crappy weapons.
4: Bane is only worth it if you fight dragons more than 50% of the time, which is to say essentially never. Too situational. Now if you can get it temporarily, sure why not? But it's not worth any permanent resources.
5: It's called a double fix and it occurs very often when the developers aren't communicating well. One fixes it by making Vorpal natural 20 only. Another fixes it by making Keen and Improved Critical not stack. They don't talk to each other so they end up overcompensating as a result. Your statement also presumes they knew what they were doing, when WotC actually has a pretty strong reputation for incompetence, especially in the playtesting department. 3.0 druid? They didn't notice the animal companion was superior to the Fighter in every way until after the 3.0 PHBs were off to the presses. They had to try to ninja a fix into the DMG. 3.5 rolls around, and they only manage to bork the Druid slightly less. You'd think they'd learn after getting fooled by that once at least.
6: Read the entire entry for Weapon Master very clearly.
Seven, actually: Combat Reflexes, Dodge, Expertise, Mobility, Spring Attack (required for Whirlwind Attack), Weapon Focus, and Whirlwind Attack, which any fighter 6 can have (humans can even throw in Improved Initiative, Power Attack, or Weapon Specialization). Is a human fighter 6 with 16 Str, 13 Dex, 12 Con, 14 Int, 10 Wis, 8 Cha (elite array), Combat Reflexes, Dodge, Mobility, Expertise, Mobility, Power Attack, Spring Attack, Weapon Focus (Falchion), and Whirlwind Attack horribly sub-par when compared to another 3.0 human fighter 6? If so, post a 3.0 human fighter 6 build that outclasses it. Or show us how a human fighter 6/weapon master 7 (18 Str, 13 Dex, 12 Con, 14 Int, 10 Wis, 8 Cha) with the feats for the fighter 6 plus Improved Critical (Falchion), Improved Initiative, and Weapon Specialization (Falchion) is weak--taking into account the Ki Damage 7x/day, Increased Multiplier 3x/day, Superior Weapon Focus, and Ki Critical class abilities--compared to some other 13th level (elite array) melee character.
Let's see...
Dodge = utter and complete suck, waste of a feat slot.
Mobility = slightly less suck, still a waste of a feat slot.
Spring Attack = only half decent at best, mostly due to the fact Fighters have a clause in there that states if they ever move faster than 0.568 miles per hour they automatically become completely useless. 0.568 miles per hour is 5 feet per 6 seconds by the way and is an amusing way to refer to their requiring full attacks to be remotely relevant.
Weapon Focus = only half decent at best.
Expertise = only useful for getting Improved Trip, and any other good feats that require it. Useless in and of itself.
Power Attack = one of the two worthwhile feats here.
Combat Reflexes = the other one of the two worthwhile feats here.
Want to make a Fighter 6 better, and 'take fewer Fighter levels so you can get real class abilities' isn't an option? Try getting more than 2 out of 7 right. No, I won't tell you how. There's about 7 feats in the entire core book that are actually worth taking for you. They aren't hard to find. Your higher level version has set 2 feats on fire (Improved Initiative is the third of the core feats worth touching) which would make it very easy to find improvements, except you are already dead out of options if you are stuck with core (and shouldn't have played a Fighter, since you don't have nearly enough useful feats to choose from). Lastly, 25 PB ensures anyone not a member of the Big 5 (Cleric, Druid, Wizard, Artificer, Archivist) is automatically even more useless and not even worth considering no matter what you do. If you want the Fighter to be useful so as to make your points not automatically moot, assume the baseline for a somewhat more balanced comparison. That is 32 PB, by the way.
You've just proven my point. If you have higher dex than the minimums, there's even less of a point to heavy armors since then, you lose even less for what matters. And no. Gnomes annoy me simply by existing, halflings aren't much of an improvement (and both automatically fail as melee classes), dwarves don't have any particular mechanical flaws aside from the speed hit, but I don't like them.1 AC for a third of your speed, and lower initiative (Dex = Initiative). I'll take being actually able to get to my enemies to try to stab them in the face please, and thanks.
Even if you only have 12 Dex, 3 AC for a third of your speed = Speed still wins by a landslide...
The Dex bonus restriction of armor only affects AC. A character with an effective 18 Dex in mithral full plate has an AC of 21+ and initiative bonus of +4, while a character with an effective 18 Dex in a mithral breastplate has an AC of 19+ and an initiative bonus of +4. Granted, the breastplate wearer also has 10 ft more ground movement and an extra 6,300 gp.
So, basically the loss of 10 ft of movement is a dealbreaker for you. I guess you don't ever play a dwarf, gnome, or halfling...
What point? That relative AC is meaningless compared to relative movement rates? That's an opinion, so don't state it as an objective fact.
If the reach user has an attack bonus high enough to make a 25% reduction in the hit chance "no damn good reason," then the encounter has much bigger problems than the tank not having a reach weapon. He's pretty much screwed no matter what armor he's wearing.Again, offense scales faster than defense. Welcome to every fight past about level 9 or so. He still hits you on his first attack with a 2. The second probably isn't auto hit material, but your second attack is irrelevant to taking AoOs.
The second iterative attack is at a bonus of five less than the first, exactly the amount gained from Dodge and Mobility against the AoO. If the opposition has that high of an attack bonus, then DR becomes a much bigger benefit. Since your opponent is going to hit you on such a high percentage of attacks, reducing the damage done is a good strategy. See this analysis for a breakdown of the protective benefits of mithral and adamantine full plate. If talking about a mithral breastplate/chain shirt (max. +10 AC) vs. adamantine full plate (max. +9 AC), then the protective benefit of adamantine full plate is even better (hit % vs. mithral/adamantine - avg. damage per hit):
5%/10% - 6
10%/15% - 9
15%/20% - 12
20%/25% - 15
25%/30% - 18
30%/35% - 21
35%/40% - 24
40%/45% - 27
45%/50% - 30
50%/55% - 33
55%/60% - 36
60%/65% - 39
65%/70% - 42
70%/75% - 45
75%/80% - 48
80%/85% - 51
85%/90% - 54
90%/95% - 57
The protective benefit of a mithral breastplate/chain shirt is equal to that of adamantine full plate for the given hit percentages and average damage per hit. If the average damage per hit is less, then adamantine full plate is statistically better; if the average damage is more, than a mithral breastplate/chain shirt is statistically better. If your opponents are doing more than an average of 50 points of damage per hit with a high enough attack bonus to hit you 80-95% of the time, then you have more problems than reach vs. non-reach or 10 ft of movement.
1: Read the post properly before responding to it. Flaming burst was being compared to another flat 1d6 as it averages far less than that barring extremely large critical ranges.
+2.3 vs. +3.5 is far less? You are also forgetting that criticals increase base weapon damage. Weapons with large critical ranges or increased multiples do more damage on average than weapons with small critical ranges (assuming the same base damage). When stacking the extra energy damage from the burst, the multiplied base damage was considered in the item cost. If the average damage increase from a burst was equal to that of a second energy ability, then large critical range/high multiple burst weapons would be objectively superior to non-burst weapons, even with multiple energy abilities.
2: Do not set up specific examples to attempt to justify highly situational weapons. It is just as likely you fight a white dragon which shuts down the other end of the enchantments. It is statistically irrelevant.
No, it is campaign dependent. Considering your lack of concrete examples to back up your assertions, crying foul when someone uses a (fairly common) scenario to illustrate your claim of "critical boosting feats/enchantments are a trap" as a false premise doesn't help your case.
3: If you are going to set up an example of two weapons being compared, try making them actually worth considering instead of both having taken nothing but random junk properties. My choice would be neither of the above, then smack myself for not realizing well ahead of time that my DM was working against me by giving me such crappy weapons.
So, what +5 equivalent weapon would you be using? How does it stack up against other +5 equivalent weapons in various situations?
4: Bane is only worth it if you fight dragons more than 50% of the time, which is to say essentially never. Too situational. Now if you can get it temporarily, sure why not? But it's not worth any permanent resources.
Again, it depends on the campaign. If dragons, half-dragons, etc. are a central component of the campain (i.e., Red Hand of Doom), then a bane (dragons) weapon would be a good investment, right?
5: It's called a double fix and it occurs very often when the developers aren't communicating well. One fixes it by making Vorpal natural 20 only. Another fixes it by making Keen and Improved Critical not stack. They don't talk to each other so they end up overcompensating as a result. Your statement also presumes they knew what they were doing, when WotC actually has a pretty strong reputation for incompetence, especially in the playtesting department. 3.0 druid? They didn't notice the animal companion was superior to the Fighter in every way until after the 3.0 PHBs were off to the presses. They had to try to ninja a fix into the DMG. 3.5 rolls around, and they only manage to bork the Druid slightly less. You'd think they'd learn after getting fooled by that once at least.
Assuming you're correct and that was an oversight, why was it never corrected in errata or other means? Your premise may make sense for a rushed publication, but if it wasn't addressed in the 5+ years since 3.5 came out (3 years after 3.0), then assuming it's an overlooked mistake is pretty unlikely, IMO.
6: Read the entire entry for Weapon Master very clearly.
I did. There is nothing that prohibits using magical weapons. "The only material requirement for the class is a masterwork version of your weapon." Since magical weapons are masterwork weapons, that meets the requirement.
Dodge = utter and complete suck, waste of a feat slot.
Mobility = slightly less suck, still a waste of a feat slot.
Spring Attack = only half decent at best, mostly due to the fact Fighters have a clause in there that states if they ever move faster than 0.568 miles per hour they automatically become completely useless. 0.568 miles per hour is 5 feet per 6 seconds by the way and is an amusing way to refer to their requiring full attacks to be remotely relevant.
Weapon Focus = only half decent at best.
Expertise = only useful for getting Improved Trip, and any other good feats that require it. Useless in and of itself.
Power Attack = one of the two worthwhile feats here.
Combat Reflexes = the other one of the two worthwhile feats here.Want to make a Fighter 6 better, and 'take fewer Fighter levels so you can get real class abilities' isn't an option? Try getting more than 2 out of 7 right. No, I won't tell you how. There's about 7 feats in the entire core book that are actually worth taking for you. They aren't hard to find. Your higher level version has set 2 feats on fire (Improved Initiative is the third of the core feats worth touching) which would make it very easy to find improvements, except you are already dead out of options if you are stuck with core (and shouldn't have played a Fighter, since you don't have nearly enough useful feats to choose from). Lastly, 25 PB ensures anyone not a member of the Big 5 (Cleric, Druid, Wizard, Artificer, Archivist) is automatically even more useless and not even worth considering no matter what you do. If you want the Fighter to be useful so as to make your points not automatically moot, assume the baseline for a somewhat more balanced comparison. That is 32 PB, by the way.
Dodge becomes much less useful once you advance past low levels, but it can be helpful early on. Mobility, when added to Dodge, can make an AoO the equivalent of a second iterative attack. Spring Attack gives you the ability to move into melee, attack an opponent, and move back out of melee range without drawing an AoO; if opponent's have such high attack bonuses that Dodge + Mobility is mostly useless, then preventing their AoO and making them move more than a 5 ft step (so that they can't full attack, either) may be a worthwhile tactic. Weapon Focus is useful early on and as a prerequisite (much like Dodge). Expertise, considering your statement on attack bonuses advancing faster than AC, is more useful (trade +5 from your attack bonus for +5 to AC; add Dodge for +6 and Mobility for +10 vs. an AoO) than you think.
What you are failing to consider is that not every DM/player/group plays in the same style, in the same setting, or using all the supplements. Sure, anyone can come up with a 32-point buy combat monster using various splatbooks. Actually, using two feats (Heavy Armor Optimization and Greater Heavy Armor Optimization) and a PrC (Battlesmith) in Races of Stone, I can make a 3.5 dwarf fighter 8/battlesmith 4 with a better AC, plus DR, from adamantine full plate (+8 armor + 1 Dex + 2 feats + 2 battlesmith class feature) than any other armored character can achieve. However, unless you provide examples to back up your assertions as to the combat effectiveness of specific options, changing the subject (fighters aren't as combat effective as spellcasters) instead of answering the question (how does a 3.0 human fighter 6 or human fighter 6/weapon master 7 stack up against other 3.0 6th level or 13th level melee characters) does not show that you are correct.
3.0 Human Fighter 6 (elite array)
16 Str, 13 Dex, 12 Con, 14 Int, 10 Wis, 8 Cha
Skills: Craft (Armorsmithing) 6, Craft (Blacksmithing) 4, Craft (Weaponsmithing) 6, Handle Animal 5, Intimidate 4.0, Listen 2.0, Ride 6, Spot 2.0, Swim 2
Feats: Combat Reflexes, Dodge, Expertise, Mobility, Power Attack, Spring Attack, Weapon Focus (Falchion), Whirlwind Attack
Combat: 55 hp (avg.), +9/+4 melee (+10/+5 falchion) or +7/+2 ranged, Fort +6, Ref +3, Will +2, Init +1
3.0 Human Fighter 6/Weapon Master 7 (elite array)
18 Str, 13 Dex, 12 Con, 14 Int, 10 Wis, 8 Cha
Skills: Craft (Armorsmithing) 6, Craft (Blacksmithing) 4, Craft (Weaponsmithing) 6, Handle Animal 5, Intimidate 13, Listen 10, Ride 6, Sense Motive 10, Spot 10, Swim 2
Feats: Combat Reflexes, Dodge, Expertise, Improved Critical (Falchion), Improved Initiative, Mobility, Power Attack, Spring Attack, Weapon Focus (Falchion), Whirlwind Attack
Combat: 89 hp (avg.), +17/+12/+7 melee (+19/+14/+9 falchion) or +14/+9/+4 ranged, Fort +8, Ref +8, Will +4, Init +5
|
|
..."armor system revamp"
I'm most certainly in favor of your suggestions on shields and helmets. Especially helmets! At the very least helmets (and/or the armors where the description says it comes with a helmet) should give you a +x to your AC for critical threats.
But generally speaking I agree with your armor arguments. Maybe not as much with your case for light armor or Mage Armor, but definitely for beefing up the Medium & Heavy armors.
I'm also in favor of eliminating the speed penalties entirely for Medium armor (unless it would make you encumbered to a medium load), and would say that heavy armor should only give you a 5-ft penalty to speed.
What point? That relative AC is meaningless compared to relative movement rates? That's an opinion, so don't state it as an objective fact.
That is an objective fact. You already have mobility issues because most stuff is faster than your 30' move butt. Reducing your speed to 20 means an even lower ability to close to melee, therefore you cannot do anything at all and your AC doesn't matter because it's even easier for the enemies to go around you and go after the real threat instead of attacking you. Your defenses are irrelevant if you are not being attacked.
The second iterative attack is at a bonus of five less than the first, exactly the amount gained from Dodge and Mobility against the AoO. If the opposition has that high of an attack bonus, then DR becomes a much bigger benefit. *math based on false premise follows*
No. Mithril gets you +2 AC. Adamantine gets you DR 3. Except if your AC is 2 less, you get PAed for 2 more while still being auto hit and therefore take 4 more damage every hit. End result? Not only are you slower with adamantine, you're still taking more damage by 1 point every hit. This gets worse with any PA multipliers. Adamantine = get less for more. No thanks.
+2.3 vs. +3.5 is far less? You are also forgetting that criticals increase base weapon damage. Weapons with large critical ranges or increased multiples do more damage on average than weapons with small critical ranges (assuming the same base damage). When stacking the extra energy damage from the burst, the multiplied base damage was considered in the item cost. If the average damage increase from a burst was equal to that of a second energy ability, then large critical range/high multiple burst weapons would be objectively superior to non-burst weapons, even with multiple energy abilities.
It's a third less. When you're a third weaker than something that is already inadequate, you are more inadequate. No way around it. The rest of your statement makes no sense. It sounds like a false premise, but I can't decipher what you're saying there to be certain. Currently, it is impossible for burst anything to be better than a plain elemental which itself sucks unless you have a 7-20/x2, 14-20/x3, or 16-20/x4 weapon or better. It is impossible to get any and all of the above. The best you can do with Improved Critical + Keen stacking is 12-20/x2, 18-20/x3, or 18-20/x4.
No, it is campaign dependent. Considering your lack of concrete examples to back up your assertions, crying foul when someone uses a (fairly common) scenario to illustrate your claim of "critical boosting feats/enchantments are a trap" as a false premise doesn't help your case.
Be more specific. Are you saying over half the fights in an entire campaign are going to be against a red dragon? And that said fights will also have lots of weak enemies who also are dragons so that cleave isn't a waste of a feat? And that you will fight enemies weak to the same element and yet never patch that weakness over half the time? Doesn't sound very common at all to me. It sounds like you set up a very poorly designed scenario where you have a crap option and another crap option to create a False Dilemma to support your argument. Except it didn't work because I saw right through the poor attempt.
So, what +5 equivalent weapon would you be using? How does it stack up against other +5 equivalent weapons in various situations?
+1 Bloodstone Collision Vicious *insert reach weapon here*.
Collision simply adds 5 damage to every hit for +2. Consistent, reliable results. And no need to set a round on fire turning it on only to have it negated by minor energy resistance.
Vicious does 2d6 to the target and 1d6 to the user.
Bloodstone is like Spell Storing, except it can only hold the spell Vampiric Touch and it automatically Empowers any Vampiric Touch put in it.
Since the party is in the low to mid teens to have such a weapon that means I'm getting about 9d6 added to one attack as a free action once per encounter and an equal amount as temp HP, which helps to mitigate that Vicious backlash. Since my guy can actually kill things and contribute to his team he won't have an issue getting the arcanist to throw him a few third level spell bones. If for some reason it were an issue, get a wand and let him use it on you. Still cheaper. For the same reason he also has a Greater Magic Weapon which allows him to get more useful special properties instead of having to waste resources on bland and weak enhancement bonuses.
About the only variation that could even hope to compare to that in anything more than some marginal tiny niche that may or may not ever come up and certainly doesn't come anywhere near justifying such a large permanent resource expenditure is taking Spell Storing instead of Bloodstone. The Vampiric Touch will be a third weaker due to the lack of Empowered, but it can also hold any number of other things that are third level or lower such as Shocking Grasp (very cheap damage and accuracy boost), Ray of Enfeeblement (very cheap reliable debuff) or many others. In other words, it's a question of do you always want a damage buffer (meant both ways as in more damage, and shield against damage), or would you sometimes want other things.
Vicious is the most cost efficient reliable damage booster there is. The backlash can be annoying but is easily mitigated via one of several means (another option is a Crystal of Life Drinking, though that only works for 50 HP a day).
Collision is second place. It's down by a good margin, but there's also no drawback to its use. You'll need both of these to keep up.
Stuff like Bane, elemental enchantments, and other highly situational stuff is not worth burning permanent resources on. It can be worth temporary resources if you know such things are coming up via having say... the party Artificer give these properties out via infusions. Then if you know you'll fight demons you get Evil Outsider Bane an hour beforehand. If you know you'll fight fire vulnerable stuff that lacks the resources to patch that weakness load up on fire. (if they can patch their weakness, you're still better off with the consistent permanent options)
Again, it depends on the campaign. If dragons, half-dragons, etc. are a central component of the campain (i.e., Red Hand of Doom), then a bane (dragons) weapon would be a good investment, right?
I am familiar with that adventure. Several issues with that.
1: Dragons do play a big role. But not that big. It's maybe a third of the fights at best. You need over half for Bane to be worth it. The rest is hobgoblins, magical beasts, etc.
2: The entire adventure is on a strict timetable. Unless you are blatantly metagaming you won't know about this in advance (and even if you did, you aren't getting an 8,3xx gold weapon off of 9,000 total WBL). You aren't getting it during as you don't have 6 days to sit around crafting.
Assuming you're correct and that was an oversight, why was it never corrected in errata or other means? Your premise may make sense for a rushed publication, but if it wasn't addressed in the 5+ years since 3.5 came out (3 years after 3.0), then assuming it's an overlooked mistake is pretty unlikely, IMO.
Do you know how many horribly broken errors have not been corrected? You speak as though they actually know their stuff and errata in a timely and responsible manner.
Dodge becomes much less useful once you advance past low levels, but it can be helpful early on. Mobility, when added to Dodge, can make an AoO the equivalent of a second iterative attack. Spring Attack gives you the ability to move into melee, attack an opponent, and move back out of melee range without drawing an AoO; if opponent's have such high attack bonuses that Dodge + Mobility is mostly useless, then preventing their AoO and making them move more than a 5 ft step (so that they can't full attack, either) may be a worthwhile tactic. Weapon Focus is useful early on and as a prerequisite (much like Dodge). Expertise, considering your statement on attack bonuses advancing faster than AC, is more useful (trade +5 from your attack bonus for +5 to AC; add Dodge for +6 and Mobility for +10 vs. an AoO) than you think.
What you are failing to consider is that not every DM/player/group plays in the same style, in the same setting, or using all the supplements. Sure, anyone can come up with a 32-point buy combat monster using various splatbooks. Actually, using two feats (Heavy Armor Optimization and Greater Heavy Armor Optimization) and a PrC (Battlesmith) in Races of Stone, I can make a 3.5 dwarf fighter 8/battlesmith 4 with a better AC, plus DR, from adamantine full plate (+8 armor + 1 Dex + 2 feats + 2 battlesmith class feature) than any other armored character can achieve. However, unless you provide examples to back up your assertions as to the combat effectiveness of specific options, changing the subject (fighters aren't as combat effective as spellcasters) instead of answering the question (how does a 3.0 human fighter 6 or human fighter 6/weapon master 7 stack up against other 3.0 6th level or 13th level melee characters) does not show that you are correct.
3.0 Human Fighter 6 (elite array)
16 Str, 13 Dex, 12 Con, 14 Int, 10 Wis, 8 Cha
Skills: Craft (Armorsmithing) 6, Craft (Blacksmithing) 4, Craft (Weaponsmithing) 6, Handle Animal 5, Intimidate 4.0, Listen 2.0, Ride 6, Spot 2.0, Swim 2
Feats: Combat Reflexes, Dodge, Expertise, Mobility, Power Attack, Spring Attack, Weapon Focus (Falchion), Whirlwind Attack
Combat: 55 hp (avg.), +9/+4 melee (+10/+5 falchion) or +7/+2 ranged, Fort +6, Ref +3, Will +2, Init +13.0 Human Fighter 6/Weapon Master 7 (elite array)
18 Str, 13 Dex, 12 Con, 14 Int, 10 Wis, 8 Cha
Skills: Craft (Armorsmithing) 6, Craft (Blacksmithing) 4, Craft (Weaponsmithing) 6, Handle Animal 5, Intimidate 13, Listen 10, Ride 6, Sense Motive 10, Spot 10, Swim 2
Feats: Combat Reflexes, Dodge, Expertise, Improved Critical (Falchion), Improved Initiative, Mobility, Power Attack, Spring Attack, Weapon Focus (Falchion), Whirlwind Attack
Combat: 89 hp (avg.), +17/+12/+7 melee (+19/+14/+9 falchion) or +14/+9/+4 ranged, Fort +8, Ref +8, Will +4, Init +5
Dodge is a permanent resource for what you yourself admit is a temporary and deprecating gain. Mobility... just get Tumble to +14 (one more reason not to wear anything that slows you). Spring Attack = attack once. Your move is essentially cut in half if you are moving in, attacking, then moving away. It's pretty damn likely they can still 5' step and full attack you unless you have a lot of move speed boosters in there. 30 foot move? You're 15' away. Anything Large or larger, or Small or larger with a reach weapon laughs at you. That's just about every credible melee right there.
Weapon Focus is meh at level 1 and goes down from there.
Turtling aka Combat Expertise is not a valid tactic. Let's not go there, I really don't need another Crusader of Logic vs Aelryinth debate.
Armor Optimization feats are setting resources on fire, in addition to misusing the word Optimization as it implies taking these feats is a good and effective choice.
I'm not touching your post because you keep mentioning 3.0 which is even less pro melee than 3.5. I see no need to waste my time writing a long essay to prove that A is in fact greater than C yet again when it is blatantly obvious this is the case. Especially given the poor quality of both of those builds even within those oppressive parameters.
By the way, even with 32 PB it still takes a black belt in opt fu to even make a melee relevant much less a 'combat monster'. With 25 it's flat out impossible (you need 13 Dex and 13 Int just to do something besides auto attack, more Dex to advance slightly beyond basic competency and still need Str and Con high to do your job, with a bit of Wisdom too so you get auto negated slightly less often). With the so called elite array this is more true (you just flat out do not get enough decent or better stats to go around).
What point? That relative AC is meaningless compared to relative movement rates? That's an opinion, so don't state it as an objective fact.That is an objective fact. You already have mobility issues because most stuff is faster than your 30' move butt. Reducing your speed to 20 means an even lower ability to close to melee, therefore you cannot do anything at all and your AC doesn't matter because it's even easier for the enemies to go around you and go after the real threat instead of attacking you. Your defenses are irrelevant if you are not being attacked.
"Most?" Looking through the 3.5 MM, there are more creatures with speeds of 30 ft or less than over 30 ft, unless you count flyers (in which case, your ground speed is pretty much meaningless, anyway). If you spend most of your time in wide spaces and/or don't use terrain effectively, then you will have problems if you are at a speed disadvantage. A 5,500 gp magic item, boots of striding and springing, can bring your speed in medum/heavy armor back up to 30 ft. A custom version without the +5 to Jump checks, longstrider boots, are only 2,000 gp; boots of expeditious retreat, granting +30 ft to base land speed, are only 4,000 gp and result in a speed of 40 ft in medium/heavy armor (50 ft for a dwarf, 35 ft for a gnome or halfling).
The second iterative attack is at a bonus of five less than the first, exactly the amount gained from Dodge and Mobility against the AoO. If the opposition has that high of an attack bonus, then DR becomes a much bigger benefit. *math based on false premise follows*No. Mithril gets you +2 AC. Adamantine gets you DR 3. Except if your AC is 2 less, you get PAed for 2 more while still being auto hit and therefore take 4 more damage every hit. End result? Not only are you slower with adamantine, you're still taking more damage by 1 point every hit. This gets worse with any PA multipliers. Adamantine = get less for more. No thanks.
So every opponent uses Power Attack with a two-handed weapon and automatically adjusts the Power Attack to take into account the character's actual AC? Can you say "separation between character and player/DM knowledge?" The "false premise" that you deride is that all opponents don't use the same attack style and act on game mechanics that they would not have immediate and obvious knowledge of (or can everyone in your campaigns tell the difference between polished steel, mithral, and silver-washed adamantine or determine the metal a black, blue, green, or red enameled armor is made of at a glance, without even a skill check?). Besides, the +2 AC vs. DR 3/- only applies to mithral full plate (which you don't use because medium armor reduces speed) vs. adamantine full plate; comparing protective values of a mithral breastplate or chain shirt (+10 to AC) to adamantine full plate (+9 to AC, DR 3/-) in the same fashion shows that you do gain more from the trade (+2 damage against DR 3/-).
+2.3 vs. +3.5 is far less? You are also forgetting that criticals increase base weapon damage. Weapons with large critical ranges or increased multiples do more damage on average than weapons with small critical ranges (assuming the same base damage). When stacking the extra energy damage from the burst, the multiplied base damage was considered in the item cost. If the average damage increase from a burst was equal to that of a second energy ability, then large critical range/high multiple burst weapons would be objectively superior to non-burst weapons, even with multiple energy abilities.[It's a third less. When you're a third weaker than something that is already inadequate, you are more inadequate. No way around it. The rest of your statement makes no sense. It sounds like a false premise, but I can't decipher what you're saying there to be certain. Currently, it is impossible for burst anything to be better than a plain elemental which itself sucks unless you have a 7-20/x2, 14-20/x3, or 16-20/x4 weapon or better. It is impossible to get any and all of the above. The best you can do with Improved Critical + Keen stacking is 12-20/x2, 18-20/x3, or 18-20/x4.
Let's compare the actual average probable damage in 3.5 for keen elemental burst weapons and a weapon that grants +2d6 damage on every hit, assuming the base damage is 2d4 (hit % -- 15-20/x2 / 17-20/x2 / 19-20/x3 / 19-20/x4 // 20/x2 +2d6):
5% -- 0.45125* / 045125* / 0.4775* / 0.50375* // 0.6125*
10% -- 0.955* / 0.955* / 1.06* / 1.165* // 1.225
15% -- 1.51125* / 1.51125* / 1.59 / 1.7475 // 1.8375
20% -- 2.12* / 2.12* / 2.12 / 2.33 // 2.45
25% -- 2.78125* / 2.65 / 2.65 / 2.9125 // 3.0625
30% -- 3.495* / 3.18 / 3.18 / 3.495 // 3.675
35% -- 4.0775 / 3.71 / 3.71 / 4.0775 // 4.2875
40% -- 4.66 / 4.24 / 4.24 / 4.66 // 4.9
45% -- 5.2425 / 4.77 / 4.77 / 5.2425 // 5.5125
50% -- 5.825 / 5.3 / 5.3 / 5.825 // 6.125
55% -- 6.4075, 5.83, 5.83, 6.4075 // 6.7375
60% -- 6.99 / 6.36 / 6.36 / 6.99 // 7.35
65% -- 7.5725 / 6.89 / 6.89 / 7.5725 // 7.9625
70% -- 8.155 / 7.42 / 7.42 / 8.155 // 8.575
75% -- 8.7375 / 7.95 / 7.95 / 8.7375 // 9.1875
80% -- 9.32/ 8.48 / 8.48 / 9.32 // 9.8
85% -- 9.9025 / 9.01 / 9.01 / 9.9025 // 10.4125
90% -- 10.485 / 9.54 / 9.54 / 10.485 // 11.025
95% -- 11.0675 / 10.07 / 10.07 / 11.0675 // 11.6375
*-taking into account that every hit is automatically a critical threat
Note that this only includes weapon damage. If the damage from critical hits is calculated with "all your usual bonuses," as stated on pg. 140 of the PHB, then the average probable damage from a 18-20/x2 or 20/x4 keen elemental burst weapon will exceed the average probable damage from a 20/x2 +2d6 weapon with as little as +3 from Str and/or magic. This is a trap in what way? I will grant that the 19-20/x2 and 20/x3 weapons are poor choices for this purpose and could be considered a trap. Allowing Improved Critical and keen to stack would allow 19-20/x2 and 20/x3 weapons to become as effective as 18-20/x2 and 20/x4 weapons without stacking; it would also allow 18-20/x2 and 20/x4 keen elemental burst weapons to do more average probable damage than 20/x2 +2d6 weapons, even before including the effect of normal damage bonuses from Str and magic (13.225 per hit vs. 12.25 per hit). There was a reason why keen elemental burst falchions and scythes were popular in 3.0, when Improved Critical and keen stacked...
+1 Bloodstone Collision Vicious *insert reach weapon here*.
Collision simply adds 5 damage to every hit for +2. Consistent, reliable results. And no need to set a round on fire turning it on only to have it negated by minor energy resistance.Vicious does 2d6 to the target and 1d6 to the user.
Bloodstone is like Spell Storing, except it can only hold the spell Vampiric Touch and it automatically Empowers any Vampiric Touch put in it.
Unless collision damage is multiplied on a critical hit, it's weaker in damage potential than elemental burst (12.7 per hit with a +2 collision guisarme vs. 12.95 per hit with a +1 keen elemental burst falchion or scythe). Since you can't turn off vicious, doing 1d6 damage to yourself every time you hit something is a risky choice that wastes healing resources and can easily get you killed; I'll pass. Bloodstone is pretty much only useful on one attack per day (unless you can convince a spellcaster to replace it after every fight, burning through their available 3rd level spell slots); also, you better hope that your target is alive and doesn't have SR.
By the way, even with 32 PB it still takes a black belt in opt fu to even make a melee relevant much less a 'combat monster'. With 25 it's flat out impossible (you need 13 Dex and 13 Int just to do something besides auto attack, more Dex to advance slightly beyond basic competency and still need Str and Con high to do your job, with a bit of Wisdom too so you get auto negated slightly less often). With the so called elite array this is more true (you just flat out do not get enough decent or better stats to go around).
So, according to you, it's impossible to make an effective melee character with less than a 32 point buy and a bunch of splatbooks. I guess it depend on what you mean by "effective," since there are many people who do play melee characters in 25 or 28 point buy, "core only" campaigns in which they are relevant in combat. They will require more support from the party spellcasters (for buff spells) and use more consumable magic, but it's definitely possible.
Unless collision damage is multiplied on a critical hit, it's weaker in damage potential than elemental burst (12.7 per hit with a +2 collision guisarme vs. 12.95 per hit with a +1 keen elemental burst falchion or scythe). Since you can't turn off vicious, doing 1d6 damage to yourself every time you hit something is a risky choice that wastes healing resources and can easily get you killed; I'll pass. Bloodstone is pretty much only useful on one attack per day (unless you can convince a spellcaster to replace it after every fight, burning through their available 3rd level spell slots); also, you better hope that your target is alive and doesn't have SR.
After posting my criticism, I realized that I didn't provide an alternative. My preference would be a +1 souldrinking falchion for an evil character (probably with Improved Critical) or a +1 holy keen thundering falchion for a good character.
Souldrinking is a +4 enchantment from Book of Vile Darkness that bestows a negative level on each hit; a critical bestows two negative levels as well as granting the wielder +1d8 temporary hp and a +2 enhancement bonus to Str for one hour.
Way too much stuff. Multi quote tag just doesn't work on this forum due to horrible formatting. The damn thing eating my post doesn't help.
Let's see... I see mentions of custom items which are thereby invalid due to inapplicability.
I see apples to oranges comparisons that don't turn out like you say because taking 1 less a hit vs a proper light armor is not a net gain over being much slower.
I see a huge column of numbers without proper context I'm not going to try to make sense out of.
Collision, like all straight damage is multiplied normally. Bonus dice are never multiplied. I don't even want to know how you came up with some elemental burst weapon doing far more a hit than it actually does, but the math again makes no sense.
I don't know, and don't want to know how you came up with those other things doing far more damage than they actually do.
As a melee, you are going to be a resource sink. This way, invested resources yield a proper return, encouraging further investment. In other words, you can do something meaningful with those spells getting cast on you. See, when you can turn around and take that resource and use it well, it's called teamwork. Working together, ya know? When it's more like caster sinks resources into making you not suck, and you suck slightly less for it (but still suck) it's more like three elite soldiers and a civilian on the battlefield. Get that guy out of there, don't babysit him.
If you drop below 32 PB for any reason, you can no longer support your own extreme Multiple Attribute Dependency. You need at least 16 Str and 14 Con just to do your job, 13 Dex and 13 Int to do something besides hit the thing with the other thing which you will also need to do to have any hope of remaining relevant, and Wisdom as high as possible so you don't get auto negated by Will saves. That's every stat except Charisma.
In core, you do not have the options to be relevant. You cannot get them. They are not there. So in addition to it being impossible for you to be effective at your role, a single class feature could do that role better, if said role were needed in the first place (it isn't).
Go outside core, you can at least fix problem one and kind of fix problem two (if you suck less, it's harder for an animal companion to be called a replacement for you even though the AC will always have multiple advantages over you).
I probably missed some stuff due to the damn thing continuously eating my posts. Break it down into smaller pieces if you want a better response, I'm not playing multi quote tag with this bad formatting.
Edit: Well, one more thing. PAing two handers are the standard. We are talking about things meant to do damage right? So why are we assuming they suck at doing damage?
Let's see... I see mentions of custom items which are thereby invalid due to inapplicability.
The items were created strictly by the magical item creation rules in the DMG (without abusing them like the "continuous shield spell effect" that completely ignores the AC bonus (other) line). Boots of striding and springing: +5 skill bonus (5 x 5 x 100 gp = 2,500 gp), continuous longstrider (1 x 1 x 2,000 gp with no adjustment for 1 hr/level duration = 2,000 gp x 1.5 for additional ability = 3,000 gp), total 5,500 gp. Continuous longstrider by itself is 2,000 gp. Continuous expeditious retreat is (1 x 1 x 2,000 gp x 2 for 1 min/level duration) = 4,000 gp.
I see apples to oranges comparisons that don't turn out like you say because taking 1 less a hit vs a proper light armor is not a net gain over being much slower.
A dwarf in adamantine full plate wearing boots of expeditious retreat (speed 50 ft) is hardly "much slower" than a elf/half-elf/half-orc/human in light armor wearing the same boots (speed 60 ft). Even restricting the discussion to boots of striding and springing, 30 ft to 40 ft is still only a minor advantage, IMO. When I can have a dwarf fighter 12/battlesmith 4/dwarven defender 4 with an AC of 49 and DR 3/- (counting Heavy Armor Expertise from the dwarf fighter 8 substitution level, Heavy Armor Optimization, Greater Heavy Armor Optimization, Flesh of My Flesh +2 from battlesmith levels, +2 AC from dwarven defender levels, +5 adamantine full plate, +5 heavy steel shield, ring of protection +5, amulet of natural armor +5, and a dusty rose prism Ioun stone; 10 + 8 armor + 5 armor enhancement + 1 Dex + 1 untyped + 2 competence + 2 sacred + 2 dodge + 2 shield + 5 shield enhancement + 5 deflection + 5 natural armor + 1 insight = 49), without even resorting to cheese tactics like Improved Shield Bash, Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting, Two-Weapon Fighting and +5 defending shield spikes (which results in AC 54), is 10 ft of movement still "much slower?"
I see a huge column of numbers without proper context I'm not going to try to make sense out of.
It shows the average damage per attack from various critical ranges and multiples of a keen elemental burst weapon that does 2d4 damage, counting no other damage bonuses, compared to a 20/x2 weapon (also 2d4) with a straight +2d6 damage.
Collision, like all straight damage is multiplied normally. Bonus dice are never multiplied. I don't even want to know how you came up with some elemental burst weapon doing far more a hit than it actually does, but the math again makes no sense.
Re: collision, what book is it in and what is the exact wording of the description? Just because it's straight modifier instead of dice doesn't necessarily mean it's multiplied on a critical hit, since the wording is "usual" damage modifiers are multiplied while "extra" damage is not. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm not familiar with the ability.
Re: elemental burst, "In addition to the extra [elemental] damage from the [elemental] ability...a[n] [elemental] burst weapon deals an extra 1d10 points of [elemental] damage on a successful critical hit." So, on a critical hit, an elemental burst weapon does (weapon damage x 2) + 1d6 + 1d10; a x3 critical weapon does (weapon damage x 3) + 1d6 + 2d10; a x4 critical weapon does (weapon damage x 4) + 1d6 + 3d10.
A 2d4 18-20/x2 keen elemental burst weapon does an average of 8.5 (2.5 + 2.5 + 3.5) points of damage on a normal hit and 19 (2.5 + 2.5 + 2.5 + 2.5 + 3.5 + 5.5) points of damage on a critical hit. A 2d4 20/x4 keen elemental burst weapon does an average of 8.5 points of damage on a normal hit and 40 ((2.5 x 8) + 3.5 + (5.5 x 3)) points of damage on a critical hit. A 2d4 20/x2 weapon with a +2d6 damage ability will do an average of 12 ((2.5 x 2) + (3.5 x 2)) points of damage on a normal hit and 17 ((2.5 x 4) + (3.5 x 2)) points of damage on a critical hit. At a 5% hit probability (only hit on a 20, automatic threat), a hit from a 20/x2 weapon with +2d6 damage will do 12 points of damage 19 times out of 20 and 17 1 time out of 20, since a second 20 is required to confirm ((12 x 19) + 17) / 20 = 12.25 average damage per hit; at 5% hit probability, that's 0.6125 average probable damage. At 10% hit probability, half the hits will not be a critical threat and the threats will be confirmed 1 time in 10, so average damage per hit is ((12 x 10) + (12 x 9) + 17) / 20 = 12.25; this means the average probable damage is 1.225. The average damage per hit remains stable outside of the critical threat range, so only the hit probability changes the average probable damage. At 10% hit probability (all hits being critical threats), a 20/x4 keen elemental burst weapon will hit for 8.5 points of damage 9 times in 10 and 40 points of damage 1 time in 10 for ((8.5 x 9) + 40) / 10 = 11.65 average damage per hit. At 15% hit probability, a 20/x4 keen elemental burst weapon will threaten 2 hits in 3 with a 15% chance to confirm for (((20 + 17 + 17) x 8.5) + ((3 + 3) x 40)) / 60 = 11.65 average damage per hit. At 30% hit probability (all hits being critical threats), a 18-20/x2 keen elemental burst weapon will hit for 8.5 points of damage 7 times in 10 and 19 points of damage 3 times in 10 for ((8.5 x 7) + (19 x 3)) / 10 = 11.65 average damage per hit.
With +3 to damage, a 2d4 keen elemental burst 18-20/x2 or 20/x4 weapon will do 15.55 average damage per hit, compared to 15.4 for a 2d4 + 2d6 damage 20/x2 weapon. At +5 to damage, a 2d4 keen elemental burst 18-20/x2 or 20/x4 weapon will do 18.15 average damage per hit, compared to 18 for a 2d4 + 2d6 damage 20/x3 weapon. The same numbers hold for an elemental burst weapon with Improved Critical.
If you drop below 32 PB for any reason, you can no longer support your own extreme Multiple Attribute Dependency. You need at least 16 Str and 14 Con just to do your job, 13 Dex and 13 Int to do something besides hit the thing with the other thing which you will also need to do to have any hope of remaining relevant, and Wisdom as high as possible so you don't get auto negated by Will saves. That's every stat except Charisma.
25 Point Buy (Dwarf): 15 Str (8), 13 Dex (5), 14 Con (4, +2), 12 Int (4), 12 Wis (4), 6 Cha (0, -2); switch Dex and Int to open up Expertise instead of Dodge (or use an advancement or permanent stat booster to open both); invest in a Wis enhancement item (or use a "hand-me-down" from the party cleric/druid); with a +2 against all spells and spell-like effects, you could make a case for 16 Str and 10 Wis.
28 Point Buy (Dwarf): 15 Str (8), 14 Dex (6), 16 Con (6, +2), 12 Int (4), 12 Wis (4), 6 Cha (0, -2); again, 16 Str and 10 Wis is an option.
25 Point Buy (Elf): 14 Str (6), 16 Dex (6, +2), 12 Con (6, -2), 13 Int (5), 10 Wis (2), 8 Cha (0); take Toughness (and/or Improved Toughness if expanding beyond core); with a +2 racial bonus against Enchantment spells and spell-like effects, you can afford a slightly lower Wis, but also invest in a Wis enhancement item.
28 Point Buy (Elf): 15 Str (8), 16 Dex (6, +2), 12 Con (6, -2), 14 Int (6), 10 Wis (2), 8 Cha (0)
Edit: Well, one more thing. PAing two handers are the standard. We are talking about things meant to do damage right? So why are we assuming they suck at doing damage?
Well, if we can't assume a single type of opponent shows up at least 50% of the time (i.e., bane weapons), why should we assume even 50% of foes wielding two-handed weapons? After all, even at high level, you're going to face ranged attacks, natural weapons, etc. and not just Power Attacking bruisers. All attacks have the potential to do damage and it all adds up. Ignoring all but one type of attack means you don't actually consider the overall effectiveness of a particular type of armor, just like basing your entire strategy on the effectiveness of a single spell effect (like vampiric touch, which has no effect on constructs or undead or if it fails to penetrate SR) can leave you in deep do-do when it doesn't work.
And... they're invalid due to inapplicability. Know how many DMs allow custom anything? Not many, because you can break it in half without even trying. Your boots are custom items. Therefore they do not exist in 95% of games. Their benefit does not matter, because you aren't getting it.
Your dwarf just set a lot of gold on fire, is still hit just as easily, beaten down hard by the non AC stuff (which is everything you care about), and beaten by walking briskly now. You aren't a tank. You're mobile difficult terrain.
More wall of text and wrong numbers. Hint: You only compare the bonus damage to the other bonus damage. Anything else is obfuscating the issue.
Collision: 'When you wield such a weapon you deal an extra 5 points of damage with each hit.'
You're comparing an Elf to a Dwarf, who wasted a feat on Toughness. I'm not touching that one, that's how wrong it is.
There are many different creature types. There are not that many ways to hurt things, especially when you rule out the trap options. After all, one handed weapons just aren't valid. Light weapons are only useful as a means of delivering Sneak Attack. Arrows aren't much different than light weapons in that they are only useful for delivering precision damage such as Skirmish from a Swift Hunter as without these things the damage output is trivial.
Have a look at the roughly humanoid creatures sometime. Most of them have worked out two handers are best. Giants, Orcs, you name it. You're smarter than an Orc, right?
Natural weapons are the only things that can kind of come close, but do you really want to be slow vs the big monsters aka everything with a natural attack routine that matters?
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
And... they're invalid due to inapplicability. Know how many DMs allow custom anything? Not many, because you can break it in half without even trying. Your boots are custom items. Therefore they do not exist in 95% of games. Their benefit does not matter, because you aren't getting it.
Point of Rules: Custom items are allowed, and the SRD gives rules for their creation.
You're the one who insists on rules as written, remember?
And, the last time I checked, this thread was discussing a series of hypotethical questions. Under those circumstances, without a particular DM to centend with, it makes sense to examine what the rules allow. I'm not sure what "invalid, because some DM's houserule it otherwise" even means in that context.
Point of datum: I not only allow, but encurage PC's to design custom items in my campaign. There are few things in a D&D campaign that make a PC smile, like walking into a strange town and having the bards recognize them by their unique equipment.
Your dwarf just set a lot of gold on fire, is still hit just as easily, beaten down hard by the non AC stuff (which is everything you care about), ...
But the discussion here is about AC, not the "non-AC stuff".
The rest of your post makes implicit assumptions about Character Level, which I find dubious. Read through it again, thinking about 2nd - 4th Level characters, and listen to whether your claims about arrows doing trivial damage sound plausible.
"So I have this great idea for a character. He's going to summon Pazazu to start an infinite wish loop and get + infinity all stats. No really. RAW."
...
2nd-4th level characters are invalid in a discussion of mithril chain shirts vs adamantine full plates on the grounds they cannot possibly obtain the latter (and not even the former for the lower end of that). Your example is irrelevant save to illustrate how in a round about twisted away other archers are invalid as a means of doing damage due to the fact your damage barely scales at all. If it weren't for that accuracy thing, two peon archers would be as good as one good one. Except there's about a few thousand peons in the world for every one 'super archer'. I use that word in quotes because the real super archers are the ones who are either abusing Polymorph and Splitting like hell, or the more reasonable Swift Hunters.
The non AC stuff does matter, because how many things attack your AC at that level that you care about? Touch AC sure.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
RAW allows Pun-Pun. And infinite cash. Next.
An excellent reason to ignore the rules whenever they're inconvenient.
Except that, actually, they don't allow those scams.
"Pun Pun" doesn't work with the rules as written
Infinite wealth schemes always, always, always assume that the schemers can get away with buying vast amounts of things, assume that they sell unlimited quantities in other places, and assume that nobody's ever thought of this before or tries to interfere.
Taking the ladder/pole scheme as an example, it assumes that there are an infinite number of ladders, it assumes an infinite market for 10-foot poles, and it assumes that 10' poles with a bunch of rung-holes are market quality.
So, the rules-as-wrenched-out-of-shape, with generous dollops of assumptions, allow those.
I don't see what that has to do with designing magic items, which the SRD specifically addresses. The 3.5 rules provide feat prerequisites, monetary costs, and time requirements.
The point is that while both are legal, both are so often blocked at the door it might as well be scratched out of the rulebook.
I know a guy who tried to argue a bunch of custom items which supposedly made Fighters worth a damn. This included a single item that produced an Anti Magic Field, thereby shutting down his own stuff and cost 120% of his WBL.
This person's name was Aelryinth. You really don't want to go the Aelryinth path. Even the CO boards only mention custom items in TO discussion. That's Theoretical Optimization. Custom items are in the same category as Pun-Pun, guys throwing rocks for a billion D6 damage, infinite action loops...
Just think about that one a moment.
|
|
Speed as Encumbrance only:
Exactly, it doesn't make any sense to give characters two separate overlapping penalties based on armor type AND load. I would be sympathetic to the Medium Encumbrance Speed being changed to only -5', though the Medium Run multiplier should then be reduced to match the Heavy one .Armor Check Penalty (STR/DEX skills, as well as Arcane Failure), DOES make a certain sense to track separately/on top off Speed/Load Encumbrance... As well, Arcane Failure (besides converting to d20) should be based on the Armor/Load Check Penalty, not Armor TYPE: In the current scenario, as long as no ARMOR is being worn, a character carrying a donkey on their back can cast Somatic Spells without any problem! Equally, even though Armor Training/ Masterwork Armor reduces the Dexerity Skill Check penalties, it doesn't help the Arcane Failure for Somatic Spells at all, which doesn't make much sense.
I like some of your suggestions.
Link spell failure to dex penalty at -5%/dex penalty...makes perfect sense.
I also like linking movement to the encumberance.
The non AC stuff does matter, because how many things attack your AC at that level that you care about? Touch AC sure.
In which case why does the armor matter at all? Because the difference between the touch AC of the dwarf fighter 12/battlesmith 4/dwarven defender 4 above and a typical mithral chain shirt wearing 20th level character is 10 + 1 Dex + 2 Dodge + 5 deflection + 1 insight = 19 vs. 10 + 6 Dex + 5 deflection + 1 insight = 22. By your own argument (see above regarding Dodge + Mobility), +3 AC is meaningless as they will both only be missed on a 1.
Your argument has also been that relative normal AC is meaningless since the typical encounter will be an auto-hit situation and Power Attack will compensate for heavy adamantine DR 3/-. You need to show that typical CR 20-24 encounter would be able to auto-hit an AC 49 (or 54 if going for cheese). Angel, Solar (CR 23) attack +35; Demon, Balor (CR 20) attack +33 or +31/+31; Devil, Pit Fiend (CR 20) attack +30; Dragon, Black Wyrm (CR 20) attack +42; Dragon, Black Great Wyrm (CR 22) attack +46; Dragon, Blue Ancient (CR 21) attack +41; Dragon, Blue Wyrm (CR 23) attack +45; Dragon, Green Ancient (CR 21) attack +40; Dragon, Green Wyrm (CR 22) attack +44; Dragon, Green Great Wyrm (CR 24) attack +48; Dragon, Red Old (CR 20) attack +36; Dragon, Red Very Old (CR 21) attack +40; Dragon, Red Ancient (CR 23) attack +44; Dragon, Red Wyrm (CR 24) +48; Dragon, White Great Wyrm (CR 21) attack +36; Cloud Giant Blackguard 10 (CR 23) attack +40 (using the stats in Dragon #93); Tarrasque (CR 20) attack +57; Titan (CR 21) attack +37. Apart from the Tarrasque and a few dragons, it looks like an AC of 49 is not an auto-hit (and only the Tarrasque auto-hits 54). If you're going to use NPCs, I'd be real curious in how you can stack enough attack bonuses on top of +20 to +22 BAB to result in an auto-hit situation vs. AC 49.
For the Power Attack compensation, show how a 20th level full BAB melee character wearing light armor can have an AC greater than 49.
Back up your arguments.
More wall of text and wrong numbers. Hint: You only compare the bonus damage to the other bonus damage. Anything else is obfuscating the issue.
No, you compare average damage potential. How much damage is likely to be done with each attack/blow? How much total damage is likely to be done over 100 attacks/hits? Because that is the determining factor of your success or failure.
BTW, what is the full text on the collision ability and which book is it from?
The point is that while both are legal, both are so often blocked at the door it might as well be scratched out of the rulebook.
So an item that adds a +30 ft enhancement bonus to base movement is so horribly game breaking than no DM in their right mind should ever allow it... In your opinion.