Search results

Ah, thank you (smacks forehead)... I will go back and correct it :) KD, that was a lot of calculations! (The conclusions look right, too :)) About crits: I think you're right they shouldn't influence the PA choice. I don't know why I confused myself on that. But since you do seem to take crits...

Cheiromancer had this formula from somewhere: Initially I got it to 'almost' fit my rule of thumb above. The 'almost' was due to silly mistake pointed out by Meds below. Here's how the two come out the same (corrected): My rule of thumb: use PA so that D = AS (where AS is the average number of...

Celebrim, I think you give crits too much credit. The chance to crit gives 'normal weapons' (those with 20/x3 or 19-20/x2 crit types) exactly 10% extra damage assuming that a hit is made and all damage is multiplied and that all threats are hits. (Those with 20/x2 give 5% and those with 20/x4...

Actually, crits may make PA stronger. PA damage is multiplied on crits so you get more that 1-for-1, usually at least 1.1-for-1. I think the main problem in making a general formula is that with multiple attacks, you often have almost sure hits or misses. The almost certain hits against AC 15...

It sounds very reasonable (as in I agree.. at leats until I have thought some more about crits :)) You can think of expected damage as the area of a square with sides equal to your chance to hit and your damage on a hit: ExpDam = Chance * Damage Here Chance is the <number of sides on d20 that...

Shouldn't the effect of meta-magic feats be considered, especially Empower Spell? Even with a conservative version of Improved Bull's Strength (6th level: 2d4+2, the same as a twice-empowered BS), the result is a spell which scales much better with Empower. Once is 3d4+3 vs 2d4+2+(d4+1)/2, twice...

I think we have a winner, at least if simplicity is any concern. I like that idea, no facing or cover or other complicated stuff. (What do you think of giving Medium armor DR 1 and Heavy armor DR 2? The heavier armors seem weak to me with dex destrictions and all.)

It sure does depend on Str and how often you hit. Assuming you have WS, a Str bonus of around +12 and hit about three times out of four, the two are about equal :) (If you're weaker or hit less often, the extra 'plus' is better.) So most likely, you'll be better off with upgrading to +2 (I...

Damages will potentially be higher, making attacks a little more dangerous. Having played Earthdawn where pretty much all rolls are done like this, I can tell you that you should expect increased randomness and more casualties (What?! 42 on a d10??) By the way, you can get the average damage A...

Yes. On your turn, you designate which will be your main weapon; the other/rest will only inflict half strength damage I don't know for sure, but it sounds reasonable. No it doesn't. Just like Flame Blade doesn't. No, they are treated as natural attacks so you need Magic Fang or something like...

Heh, see what I said? Somebody would point it out for me. Thanks :) (Anyway, the main point was that mundane armor is ignored)

...well, somebody ought to :) Wouldn't that line of reasoning also mean that some touch attack spells (Ray of Frost, Melf's, etc.) should add armor (and certainly shields!) to the target's AC? In Tome and Blood it's spelled out that sneak attack damage is of the same type as the 'base' attack...

I actually think I described the intention behind describing Summoning as To me, this basically states that a summoned creature comes out of "nowhere", goes back to "nowhere" and for all practical purposes does not exist outside the period of its summoning. I could very well be wrong about this...

Why not just use the incantatrix? (I'm sure that's misspelled, but you know the PrC from Magic of Faerun which is very similar to the one proposed here :))

I disagree. The creature doesn't die, doesn't remember what has happened, is in no way affected by having been summoned. I'd say Summon Monster has about as many moral implications as Fireball. (Of course, one may use a variant interpretation of Summon Monster where this isn't true. I think such...

I'm jumping into the middle of a long discussion, but I have seen others post something similar to: While I quite like this idea, isn't it a problem that you only provoke AoOs when you act? So when I have Cleave and drop X on an AoO, nobody else will be provoking AoOs because it is is X's turn...

Try to avoid the reduced saves: - Chain Enervation (or and attack spell without save) - Chain (Imp) Invisibility/Bull's Strength/Enlarge (or any buff spell)

You already have accounted for flurrying when you calculated the 6.5 expected damage, so both numbers should be multiplied by 105% only. Which means that it changes nothing qualitative. I think your result (that Flurrying is at-least-as-good) holds for any number of attacks, btw. (is that true...

Somehow I feel misreprented here (your quote missed your own comment in between), but nevermind. Btw, I think it's better to use average damage than maximum. Where do you see that "the standard damage die used to benchmark a spell is a d6"? I see no such thing for arcane spells on DMG page...

Looking at DMG table 3-22, I'd put it at 3rd, I can hardly see how it can be put any higher??? Counting possible criticals and sneak attacks, I don't think ranged attack requirements should be counted as much of a weakness. In some cases it's a benefit: You can (try to) target someone you can't...