Need help! Creating a spare character: Axe Fighter theme

[Alzrius]

In your experience, are 12th level Str based fighters with a base Str score of 10 (before racial modifiers) and no magic weapon common?

You really don't understand the concept of an example with everything extraneous done away with so its easier to understand, do you?

This character will deal 11,5 and 10,5 damage, for effective attacks of +11/+6/+1, 22 damage.

11.5 rounded down is 11, and 10.5 rounded down is 10. Hence, the first three attacks will do an average of 11 points each, and the second set of three attacks will do 10 points each. Assuming they all hit, that's an average of 63 points of damage in one round.

What has the fighters's race got to do with anything? Let's give this fighter the same Str as the other one - we want "all things to be equal" right? That makes +17/+12/+7, for 13,5 damage.

The fighter's race has everything to do with it, as that was part of the package I suggested as being a good character build.

The idea of all things being equal means that you eliminate everything extra to just focus on the variables that makes a difference across everything you're comparing. In this case, race is one of them; orcs have a higher Strength, and ergo, are a better choice. I don't see what's so hard to comprehend about this.

Again, let's make all things equal. Str 14. And let's be reasonable and have him make the smart choice and dual-wield short swords instead.

+15/+10/+5, 18 damage

Assuming the stats are the same, an orc will always have a higher Strength, so the human's score, for purposes of this comparison is 10, not 14; how else do you showcase why the orc is a better choice for this build?

Irrelevant, as we're not trying to find out if Str 14 fighters tend to be better than Str 10 fighters. Race has nothing to do with it.

Race has everything to do with it; it's part of the package. I suggested an orc that wields two small greataxes, not just any race of fighter.

Since you've now revealed that you posted the Str 10 fighters for no discernable reason

All that's been revealed is that you still show a lack of understanding of the character build I was showcasing.

As it stands, that alone is enough to still render your example obselete. Even taking into account a human using two short swords, it still doesn't compete with the fact that an orc's higher Strength than a human makes orc a better choice, making the character I suggested quite optimal.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

OK...Not quite as hefty as the Minotaur:

Bugbear- Strength, Con & Dex bonuses (+4, +2+2, respectively) offset only by a Cha penalty! Darkvision! +3Natural armor! LA+1, +3d8HD. Oddly, though, the favored class is Rogue. Hmmmm.

Lizardfolk- lots of fun if you go for that kind of thing. Natural Armor, Natural weapons, Hold Breath, +1LA, +2d8 HD, Favored class Druid. They make interesting Dragon Disciples, BTW.

Half-Dragons- you know 'em & you either love 'em or hate 'em. +3LA

Woodling Template (MM2 p198) LA +3, has several immunities, natural attacks, spell like abilities, and natural armor.

BTW- Immovable Rods are FUN!

 

[Storyteller01]

BTW- Immovable Rods are FUN!

Yep. And per that PrC... well... let's just say you'll never look at two bar gymnasts the same way again.

 

[Nightfall]

Story,

I'll see what I can do man and thanks again


Danny,

I did consider Bugbears and I still might. But a templated orc is starting to sound good. Half dragons...not so much in Eberron. Lizardfolk I might but only if I do Blackscale. I'll keep looking at other sources too.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Templates, eh? Howzabout:

Spellwarped- MM3 p 163 +3LA. Natural Armor, + 4Str & Con, +2Dex, Int +4, Spell resistance & a spell absorbtion ability the PC can use to increase certain stats (like Str), HP, Speed and other attributes.

 

[Iku Rex]

You really don't understand the concept of an example with everything extraneous done away with so its easier to understand, do you?

Oh, but I do. However, I also understand that average damage per hit isn't "extraneous". Do you understand that?

11.5 rounded down is 11, and 10.5 rounded down is 10. Hence, the first three attacks will do an average of 11 points each, and the second set of three attacks will do 10 points each. Assuming they all hit, that's an average of 63 points of damage in one round.

The 0.5 comes from the average of 12345678910 . At no point do you "round down" anything.

And like I have told you repeatedly now, "assuming they all hit" is not a helpful assumption.

The fighter's race has everything to do with it, as that was part of the package I suggested as being a good character build.

I said to you that wielding two Small greataxes was "not a good idea". You disagreed. I told you why it was a bad idea. You disagreed. I seconded your suggestion to play an orc though.(Reminder.)
What made you think I didn't believe that Str 14 fighters can do more damage than Str 10 fighters?

Here's quote from the post where you first introduced your examples (the paragraph starting with the "lesson to be learned" from the examples) :

It's almost always favorable to trade base attack bonus for increase damage and/or number of attacks per round, because attack penalties are easily recouped from other bonuses, whereas greater damage and attacks/round results in a much higher average damage dealt over the course of the round.

I take it you've changed your mind?

Since you make no attempt to refute my posted proofs, or even acknowledge them, I'll assume that you now agree that:

a) Wielding two Small greataxes is a bad idea (like I said) and
b) Attack bonuses are, as a rule, more valuable than equivalent damage bonuses (like I said).

Good. Glad to have that settled.

In return I'll "agree" that (like I said) orcs make good fighters.

Assuming the stats are the same, an orc will always have a higher Strength, so the human's score, for purposes of this comparison is 10, not 14; how else do you showcase why the orc is a better choice for this build?

I am trying to understand how you think. When you posted examples in the post where you loudly disagreed with my explanation for why wielding two Small greataxes was a bad idea, you intended to show that Str 14 orcs can deal more damage than Str 10 humans. Even with a sub-optimal choice of weapons and fighting style. Is that accurate?

As it stands, that alone is enough to still render your example obselete. Even taking into account a human using two short swords, it still doesn't compete with the fact that an orc's higher Strength than a human makes orc a better choice, making the character I suggested quite optimal.

Where is all this "human" talk coming from? Your "orc build" is inferior to an "orc build" with a two-handed greataxe wielder and an "orc build" with a two-weapon handaxe wielder. That's not my idea of "quite optimal", which is what I made clear in my very first reply to you.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Here's a response that is *ahem* back on point.

Have you considered taking levels in the Dervish PrCl? It requires WF in "a slashing weapon" (something ALL axe-type weapons are), and eventually allows the use of the Scimitar as a light weapon. If you're aiming for a 2WF build, this has some nice wrinkles to it.

 

[Alzrius]

Oh, but I do. However, I also understand that average damage per hit isn't "extraneous".

I didn't say average damage per hit is extraneous, though its very telling that you did.

The 0.5 comes from the average of 12345678910 . At no point do you "round down" anything.

A meaningless distinction. The orc fighter with two small greataxes does more damage whether or not you round the last .5 of damage away.

And like I have told you repeatedly now, "assuming they all hit" is not a helpful assumption.

Also meaningless. The orc still gets more attacks that do more average damage, trading off only a slightly smaller chance of hitting.

What made you think I didn't believe that Str 14 fighters can do more damage than Str 10 fighters?

Maybe the fact that I had to beat the orc part of the equation over your head to get it.

Here's quote from the post where you first introduced your examples (the paragraph starting with the "lesson to be learned" from the examples) : I take it you've changed your mind?

Why would I change my mind? I was right then, and I'm right now.

Since you make no attempt to refute my posted proofs, or even acknowledge them

I find nothing in them worth acknowledging. In order to be worthwhile examples, everything needs to be kept the same (including feat selection and weapon enhancement bonus) except race, the type of weapon wielded, and the number of wielded weapons. Your proofs didn't have that, and so aren't applicable.

I'll assume

Assume whatever you want; that won't make it true or correct.

I am trying to understand how you think.

Try harder.

When you posted examples in the post where you loudly disagreed with my explanation for why wielding two Small greataxes was a bad idea, you intended to show that Str 14 orcs can deal more damage than Str 10 humans.

And I did.

Even with a sub-optimal choice of weapons and fighting style. Is that accurate?

Get rid of the "sub" and it is.

Where is all this "human" talk coming from?

Maybe the fact that, ever since my first post, I've been taking race into consideration as a factor, e.g. that the build I suggested was optimal because it was an orc, and compared it to a human with other fighting styles?

Your "orc build" is inferior to an "orc build" with a two-handed greataxe wielder and an "orc build" with a two-weapon handaxe wielder. That's not my idea of "quite optimal", which is what I made clear in my very first reply to you.

You haven't proven anything to back that up.

 

[Iku Rex]

What made you think I didn't believe that Str 14 fighters can do more damage than Str 10 fighters?

Maybe the fact that I had to beat the orc part of the equation over your head to get it.

"Get" what? That that "Str 14 fighters can do more damage than Str 10 fighters?" I have never in any way or form suggested otherwise.

Why would I change my mind? I was right then, and I'm right now.

Imagine for a moment that you are wrong. What would it take to prove that? Is there any possible way?

Unless you answer this one I don't see how I can help you. Clearly the numerous examples I've posted so far, all disagreeing with your theory, aren't doing the trick.

I find nothing in them worth acknowledging. In order to be worthwhile examples, everything needs to be kept the same (including feat selection and weapon enhancement bonus) except race, the type of weapon wielded, and the number of wielded weapons. Your proofs didn't have that, and so aren't applicable.

You claim that wielding two Small greataxes is NOT a bad idea. In fact, you claim that it is an "optimal" choice, despite being proven wrong about it.

What has race got to do with that? If orcs were the only PC race available, would it still be an "optimal" choice?

Your "orc build" is inferior to an "orc build" with a two-handed greataxe wielder and an "orc build" with a two-weapon handaxe wielder.

You haven't proven anything to back that up.

Actually, I have. In this post and in this post. If you wish me to explain the math, ask. If you have objections to my methodology I haven't already addressed, say so. Most importantly : Tell me what you'd consider to be a fair comparison.

 

[rowport]

Alzrius & Iku Rex-

Would you guys mind please moving your argument to another thread? Some of us here are more interested in Nightfall's potential character build. Thanks!