Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tormyr" data-source="post: 6583219" data-attributes="member: 6776887">The thing is, the "trap" choices really are not that bad. The club does 2.5 (1d4) vs 4.5 (1d8) damage for a longsword.  A level 20 fighter who hit 4 times would do 10 vs 18 damage.  When the fighter has a strength of 20, the damage is 30 (4d4 + 20) vs. 38 (4d8 +20). The monsters a level 20 fighter is going to run up against are going to generally laugh at 8 damage a round.  Sure it will add up, but it certainly is not that bad, and the damage modifier overshadows the difference between the two weapons.How is the club fighter vs. the sword and board even a valid comparison? Of course the club fighter is worse, but the real reason the fighter with the club is worse than the fighter with the longsword and shield is that the first fighter did not bother to bring a shield for no good reason. If the first fighter has a shield, then the damage differential is roughly 8. This will be slightly more for crits and slightly less for misses.After watching the Paladin at our table do 30 damage in a turn against a Huge creature with his dagger, I realized that the weapon does not matter so much.  The damage output is really all about the class abilities and feats.In the end, the "trap" choices would generally not be chosen anyway even if all the weapons did the same amount of damage. Fighters generally use martial weapons in pretty much any story. Barbarians generally use something that hits "hard" (translated: is big). The rogue uses light/finesse weapons. The tropes gravitate toward the "best" or almost "best" choice as it is. How many fighters would run around with a club as their main weapon anyway?So are the "trap" options not quite as good? Yes. Is the difference enough to make a marked difference? Not really.</blockquote>

Verification