Epic Advice Column

[Upper_Krust]

Hiya mate!

Why is clunkyness a mechanical reason to get rid of something?

Elegant design is always preferable to clunky in terms of mechanics.

A better question might be well why force people to learn a new mechanic. But the simple answer is I am not forcing my revised class on anyone, nor am I adopting it in any of my books...its simply a variant.

 

[WarDragon]

I was thinking of an ability that would let you deal +50% damage per attack sacrificed.

But lets remember this is only an optional Fighter Class, on the website. Its not something I am pushing to change at all, nor is it something I am pushing in the Immortals Handbook. Its simply 'food for thought'.

Is.... this supposed to be an excuse for not thinking it through enough? If so, I'm disappointed in you, Krusty.

I think despite the temporary lag from the BAB reduction using my system, overall it still does deal statistically better damage. So you can't claim at any point damage output will be less, let alone half as much.

Pray tell, how?

Elegant design is always preferable to clunky in terms of mechanics.

Clunky balance is preferable to elegant imbalance.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Howdy WarDragon dude!

Is.... this supposed to be an excuse for not thinking it through enough? If so, I'm disappointed in you, Krusty.

Not at all, simply an excuse for you not to get too heated on the matter.

We don't need another "dante's inferno" erupting over the alignment of Anubis.

Pray tell, how?

Well lets see.

10th-level Standard Fighter, 20 strength, +3 bastard sword

Atk +17/+12, Damage 1d10+8/19-20/x2

10th-level Revised Fighter, 20 strength, +3 bastard sword

Atk +16/+16, Damage 1d10+13/17-20/x2

If we power attack for the exact attack difference, then my revised fighter is 3 damage better off per round and 5 damage per hit better off before criticals are counted.

Conclusion: Revised 10th-level Fighter 13 points better per round and thats before taking into account superior critical hit chances.

15th-level Standard Fighter, 22 strength, +5 bastard sword

Atk +26/+21/16, Damage 1d10+11/19-20/x2

15th-level Revised Fighter, 22 strength, +5 bastard sword

Atk +20/+20/+20, Damage 1d10+18/17-20/x3

If we power attack for the exact difference, the core fighter is 3 points better off per round, although 7 worse off per hit (before we count critical hits).

Conclusion: Revised 15th-level Fighter 18 points better per round and thats before taking into account superior critical hit chance and multiplier.

20th-level Standard Fighter, 25 strength, +5 bastard sword

Atk +32/+27/+22/+17, Damage 1d10+12/19-20/x2

20th-level Revised Fighter, 25 strength, +5 bastard sword

Atk +22/+22/+22/+22 Damage 1d10+22/17-20/x3

If we power attack for the exact difference, the core fighter is 10 points better off per round, although 10 worse off per hit (before we count critical hits).

Conclusion: Revised 20th-level Fighter 30 points better per round and thats before taking into account superior critical hit chance and multiplier.

...the case for the defense* rests.

*which also happens to be higher because of weapon deflect.

Clunky balance is preferable to elegant imbalance.

See me in the courtroom above.

 

[dante58701]

Wouldnt 12 points per age category be better for True Dragons than a mere 6? Otherwise their strength isn't in line with their Size and if you take it away from intellect...that would make them really stupid.

+12 Breakdown
+4 - +2 +2 +2 +2 At Great Wyrm (Colossal) Str 54 Dex 10 Con 32 Int 32 Wis 32 Cha 32

+6 Breakdown
+2 - +1 +1 +1 +1 At Great Wyrm (Colossal) Str 32 Dex 10 Con 21 Int 21 Wis 21 Cha 21

This would be much more in line with the core continuity. Or do you just add size modifiers to compensate as I have been doing (anything less than average Strength just makes no sense).

Additionally, some dragons are vastly more intelligent, wise, and charismatic than a mere +6 per age category would make them.

Ive been doing a lot of checking up on this and your true dragons are greatly underpowered in comparison to the average WOTC True dragon and they don't follow your own rule continuity.

Unless you are not accounting for +1/4 HD in addition to the standard (which would make more sense)

+2 - +1 +1 +1 +1 (+10 miscellaneous) Great Wyrm (Colossal) Strength (?) 34-44 w/Miscellaneous.

Though this would still leave mental issues (as in relatively stupid true dragons by comparison to other true dragons WOTC)

What Ive come to see is that WOTC True Dragons have this breakdown

+2 - +2 +2 +2 +2

At least on average. But their breakdown is also far more erratic, with no set pattern.

I might suggest +12 per Age Category.

This way they aren't getting gyped in the intellect department.

Or what you could do is simply make is vary by species (which, though complicated, might be better in the long run).

Say +1-+12 per Age Category.

Advanced Dragons by WOTC get +2 +2 - +2 +2 +2 which is far more balanced than a mere +6. Though it isnt quite in line with Krustified rules.

I noticed another oddity. Dragon sizes according to WOTC don't included appendages.

 

[dante58701]

Dragons...so complicated with all the conflicting rules.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi dante mate!

Wouldnt 12 points per age category be better for True Dragons than a mere 6?

No it would be vastly overpowered, and it would also require you to revise every set of Dragon stats.

Otherwise their strength isn't in line with their Size and if you take it away from intellect...that would make them really stupid.

+12 Breakdown
+4 - +2 +2 +2 +2 At Great Wyrm (Colossal) Str 54 Dex 10 Con 32 Int 32 Wis 32 Cha 32

+6 Breakdown
+2 - +1 +1 +1 +1 At Great Wyrm (Colossal) Str 32 Dex 10 Con 21 Int 21 Wis 21 Cha 21

You are making an assumption that all dragons start with mere 10's, which isn't the case.

This would be much more in line with the core continuity.

No it wouldn't, go back and look over core continuity.

Or do you just add size modifiers to compensate as I have been doing (anything less than average Strength just makes no sense).

Dragons don't get additional size modifiers because they are included in the bonuses.

Additionally, some dragons are vastly more intelligent, wise, and charismatic than a mere +6 per age category would make them.

Indeed, these are called Epic Dragons.

Ive been doing a lot of checking up on this and your true dragons are greatly underpowered in comparison to the average WOTC True dragon and they don't follow your own rule continuity.

There is no dragon rule continuity, just the closest approximation - which is exactly what I have.

Dragons are not greatly underpowered, they are perfectly balanced at the median range (Green/Bronze), slightly overpowered below that and slightly underpowered above that.

Unless you are not accounting for +1/4 HD in addition to the standard (which would make more sense)

Of course they get this.

+2 - +1 +1 +1 +1 (+10 miscellaneous) Great Wyrm (Colossal) Strength (?) 34-44 w/Miscellaneous.

Though this would still leave mental issues (as in relatively stupid true dragons by comparison to other true dragons WOTC)

It doesn't leave mental issues anywhere - I suspect you simply want to boost dragons for your own nefarious purposes.

What Ive come to see is that WOTC True Dragons have this breakdown

+2 - +2 +2 +2 +2

Incorrect, but feel free to post which indiviual dragon has this breakdown - let alone the AVERAGE!

Even the Gold Dragon doesn't have that progression, it has a +1.4 average (over 6 scores) instead of +1.0.

At least on average. But their breakdown is also far more erratic, with no set pattern.

Exactly, my rules are for creating NEW dragons, not retrofitting old ones.

I might suggest +12 per Age Category.

You can suggest it certainly, but I won't be adopting it, its far, far too great a boost for a true dragon and none of the dragons in the Monster Manual increase at the rate you are suggesting.

This way they aren't getting gyped in the intellect department.

You simply want to boost them too much. If you want such powerful dragoons use epic dragons.

Or what you could do is simply make is vary by species (which, though complicated, might be better in the long run).

Say +1-+12 per Age Category.

Advanced Dragons by WOTC get +2 +2 - +2 +2 +2 which is far more balanced than a mere +6. Though it isnt quite in line with Krustified rules.

Who knows what the heck WotC were thinking at the time.

I noticed another oddity. Dragon sizes according to WOTC don't included appendages.

They don't mention them certainly, whether they were taken into account is anyones guess.

 

[mercucio]

UK, would an incorporeal creature with Improved Weapon Finesse wielding a ghost touch weapon finessable weaopon still apply it's Dexterity bonus to damage?

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey mercucio mate!

UK, would an incorporeal creature with Improved Weapon Finesse wielding a ghost touch weapon finessable weaopon still apply it's Dexterity bonus to damage?

I don't see why not.