Dwarven Fighter Discussion

[Nifft]

I was just turning around on your +2 AC/Tide of Iron post with a "more damage/different power" thing.

Ah, no wonder I was confused: 2 handers don't do +2 damage relative to one-handers.
Warhammer 5.5 vs. Maul 7 = +1.5
Battleaxe 5.5 vs. Greataxe 6.5 = +1
Bastard Sword 5.5 vs. Greatsword 5.5 =
(or Longsword 4.5 vs. Greatsword 5.5 = +1)

Cheers, -- N

 

[Stalker0]

Ah, no wonder I was confused: 2 handers don't do +2 damage relative to one-handers.
Warhammer 5.5 vs. Maul 7 = +1.5
Battleaxe 5.5 vs. Greataxe 6.5 = +1
Bastard Sword 5.5 vs. Greatsword 5.5 =
(or Longsword 4.5 vs. Greatsword 5.5 = +1)

Cheers, -- N

There's a few other factors in there. A greataxe is a high crit weapon, battleaxe is not. And crits in general slide the numbers a bit higher than the average.

Warhammer crit: 10 vs Maul: 12

Its still not a lot, but in a world where +1 damage is worth a feat, every little bit helps.

 

[Nifft]

There's a few other factors in there. (...) Its still not a lot, but in a world where +1 damage is worth a feat, every little bit helps.

I'm just trying to figure out where Old Grumphy's "+2 damage" came from, if not Dwarven Weapon Training.

(Side note: DWT is an awesome feat.)

Cheers, -- N

 

[Mengu]

I think your best damage dealing fighter at first level is going to be human maul fighter. Str 20, Con 14, Dex 10, Int 8, Wis 11, Cha 10, Weapon Focus, Warrior of the Wild.

A few levels later when you have more feats and can afford to be bloodied for half the fight, Dragonborn fighter with Dragonborn Frenzy, Weapon Focus, and Warrior of the Wild will be slightly better. Add a Horned Helm and Bracers of Mighty Striking, and you have a Fighter who is a part time Striker. This sort of Fighter shines brightly in the presence of a Tactical Warlord.

 

[Old Gumphrey]

Warhammer crit: 10 vs Maul: 12

This. I didn't say "average damage". Besides, why is this point being nitpicked so much? 2H deal more damage, period. A 6d6 + 4 Brute Strike hurts more than a 3d10 + 4 one.

 

[ac_noj]

That's 25 damage average vs. 20.5 damage average.

A shield on the other hand will let you take 25% less damage and when you Tide of Iron that monster into your Wizards Flaming Sphere you make up the extra damage.

 

[Old Gumphrey]

All games with shield fighters have allied wizards with Flaming Sphere? And it's always exactly 1 square away from the fighter's target? Interesting. Although, what prevents that wizard from moving the sphere adjacent to the 2H fighter's marked target is beyond me. Probably because if he did that, he'd still be outstripping the shield fighter's damage, and that wouldn't support your argument.

If both fighters miss, the shield guy does nothing, but the 2H guy inflicts 5ish damage. An at-will with what amounts to "Miss: half damage" is pretty amazing, honestly.

2H fighters are good. They are every bit as good as shield fighters. You can't tell me that being able to push someone 1 square and having +2 AC somehow makes a shield fighter superior. If you prefer defensive fighters, go for it. I prefer fighters that cave peoples' skulls in with 15 lb. sledge hammers.

2H vs. shield is an opinion. It's not like we're comparing Careful Strike with Twin Strike (where one option is clearly better). I never claimed 2H was better, I claimed that it was awesome. Just like shield fighters. There is no debate.