Great weapon fighter is a "trap"? Forked Thread: I don't optimize.

[RigaMortus2]

Why the distaste for optimizers? If you don't like to optimize, then don't do it. If someone is having fun playing D&D by trying to optimize their character, then let them. What makes you think your way of playing is better than anyone else?

As someone else mentioned in another thread, there certainly are certain degrees of optimization. In fact, you'd have to go out of your way to build a character that isn't optimized in some fashion.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

The argument could be made that a great weapon fighter does the defender roll better by drawing more attacks because he does more damage and weaker defenses (though still good defenses and more HP/surges than most chars).

 

[Krensus]

Why the distaste for optimizers? If you don't like to optimize, then don't do it. If someone is having fun playing D&D by trying to optimize their character, then let them. What makes you think your way of playing is better than anyone else?

QFT. I enjoy playing a min/max style of character and juicing out every advantage I can. Maybe that makes me a munchkin, but it's what I like. Every character is optimized in some way, otherwise we could just roll a dice to decide class, race, powers, and feats. Some people take it to extremes and analyze their effectiveness, and I don't think there should be the disdain for them that's obviously present in several threads here.

 

[FadedC]

Part of the problem is just that a superior version of a longsword exists, but there are no superior 2 handed weapons (other then the very specialized spiked chain). If this is changed in the martial handbook it will help make 2-handed fighters better. Though in my opinion, sword and shield will still be better.

 

[Ginnel]

Why the distaste for optimizers? If you don't like to optimize, then don't do it. If someone is having fun playing D&D by trying to optimize their character, then let them. What makes you think your way of playing is better than anyone else?

As someone else mentioned in another thread, there certainly are certain degrees of optimization. In fact, you'd have to go out of your way to build a character that isn't optimized in some fashion.

Have a look at my above post as to why I dislike optimising, the pressure of having to keep up with the optimisers, otherwise it brings a difficulty in making encounters which are challenging to the optimiser but won't kill the weaker party members.

This is part of the reason I enjoy 4th Edition with its more equal/balanced approach, its hard to attain Defences or attack rolls which are 10 or more above a fellow party members.

Your second point yes it is hard to build a non optimised character you'd have to go out of your way by picking irrelevent stats for the class/multiclass you are playing, picking powers/skills/feats that don't work for you can always be changed through retraining.

 

[r0gershrubber]

As I see it, other than having different powers available, the real difference between S&B and 2H is the absence of a shield and increasing your damage by about 1 point. Although I suspect the AC bump is slightly more attractive, it's not a big deal. What matters more, IMO, are the powers you plan to use.

The bastard sword is irrelevant, because either build gains a point of damage using it since it is versatile. On the other hand, the only real reason to use the greatsword over a two-handed longsword is that the critical hit damage is slightly higher; the average damage is the same otherwise.

(Unless I misunderstand how Fighter Weapon Talent works; I assume it is based on how a weapon is wielded rather than which class it falls in.)

 

[renau1g]

QFT. I enjoy playing a min/max style of character and juicing out every advantage I can. Maybe that makes me a munchkin, but it's what I like. Every character is optimized in some way, otherwise we could just roll a dice to decide class, race, powers, and feats. Some people take it to extremes and analyze their effectiveness, and I don't think there should be the disdain for them that's obviously present in several threads here.

Good for you, would you like a cookie... (just kidding, at least you admit it)

As for optimized, etc. if you want to play optimized, min-maxed go for it, I don't think the others are saying you can't play like that, it's just that every character will be the same... same spells, same abilities, same gear, you get the idea. And for most people that gets stale, but if that's how you get enjoyment from D&D (by 'beating' the game) then I (& others) shouldn't tell you thats wrong.

However, the OP suggesting that he had an idea for a character, but that it might not be as min/maxed (assumption!) as the single weapon fighter , is something I'm not impressed with. As others have said D&D is about having fun and enjoying your PC. If your character is missing every attack, that's probably not fun (which is why I won't make a gnome barbarian with an 8 to STR). Also, if you talk to your DM and you really like a build, work something out, house rule some feats, etc. that let you take OA's at reach, or mark enemies you hit from 10'. I don't think any of the classes in 4e are gimped (from what I've seen), the way you could gimp a 3.5e character by multi-classing poorly (one of my player's wanted a MC wizard/fighter/monk/bard/druid.....I managed to convince him that he should have a little more focus)

 

[Andur]

A reach weapon is overall better than sword and board for a fighter when it comes to choice. Simply put a reach fighter gets a greater degree of choice on who he marks. He also gets more flexibility with the many attacks he gets that have Secondary Target: Any enemy adjacent to the Primary Target.

Since reach weapons are equally effective for adjacent squares as one handed weapons and you also get the additional option of another square of range with any non Burst powers, the tradeoff is about right.

 

[FadedC]

The bastard sword is irrelevant, because either build gains a point of damage using it since it is versatile. On the other hand, the only real reason to use the greatsword over a two-handed longsword is that the critical hit damage is slightly higher; the average damage is the same otherwise.

Well that's not quite accurate because many attacks do multiple weapon dice, but versatile weapons only get +1 damage total on these. As a result it's usually much better to be doing d10 then do be doing d8+1. This is what makes the bastard sword feat a much better deal for 1 handed users.

 

[Puggins]

3/ Power Attack used to be taken by everyone, and made two-handed weapons very dangerous. Now, it just sucks, and should never be taken by anyone.

... Really? I disagree.

Say you're playing a 12th level fighter, Str20, +3 weapon, weapon focus.

Basic Damage with Great Maul: 2d6 + 5 + 3 + 2 = 2d6 +10

With Power Attack:

For all at-wills and other 1[w] attacks:
If you normally need a 9+ to hit, you hit 17% less often and deal 24% more damage.
If you normally need an 11+ to hit, you hit 20% less often and deal 24% more damage.
If you normally need a 13+ to hit, you hit 25% less often and deal 24% more damage.

For all 2[w] attacks:
You're now doing 17% more damage instead of 24%

So you more or less break even on a 13+ and you're doing more damage on anything less than that, meaning that Power Attack will be quite effective against Brutes and fairly effective against anyone who isn't a soldier. If you have a warlord in the party, Power Attack becomes standard most of the time.

Seems to me that power attack is an upgrade to your 1[w] attacks and becomes very desirable if you start getting bonuses to hit. I fail to see how this is useless.