+1 To-hit or +2 to damage

+1 To Hit or +2 to Damage

  • +1 To hit

    Votes: 160 53.5%
  • +2 To damage

    Votes: 139 46.5%


log in or register to remove this ad


Can't I have both?

+1 attack bonus. Don't know how many times that I have seen a character miss by one at a critical moment. Also I like the additional attack bonus so that I can turn it into a Dodge bonus (IMO the most important aspect of AC) if I see fit.

However, damage reduction is something to consider. I'd still take the attack bonus.
 


As I prefer finesse builds with multiple attacks, I'd go with the damage.

Hehe, that's exactly the reason I went with the +1 attack. I like roguey finesse TWF builds, which means I typically have lots of damage ability (assuming I'm in position, have surprise, or can do Flick of the Wrist or feint). My BAB, however, SUCKS compared to the fightery sorts in the group; 3/4 base - TWF - usually a level lost due to multiclassing (DAMN my DM who won't allow fractional BAB! :p ).

I can't think of how many times I've had flanking & whiffed... & whiffed... & whiffed... while the fighter just kept hacking away & eventually killed it. *sigh*
 

Another point: Sometimes you are not trying to damage someone when you hit.

An assassin just wants a chance at the death attack.
Some fighters are trying for a disarm.
And many spell ray attacks are "save or it sucks to be you".
There are magic items (that shield of devouring, whatever it is, that just kills an opponent it hits) that have effects dependant on hitting, but do not do damage as such, and thus do not benefit from damage as such.

All of these would be tactics that benefit from +1 TH, but not from +2 DA.
 


Kind of depends on the situation for me. For low level TWFers, the -2 to hit hurts, so I like the +1 to hit. When I'm higher level and know I'm going to hit, the +2 damage is indeed more fulfilling... especially when you crit with a x3 weapon. ;)
 



Remove ads

Top