Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Iku Rex" data-source="post: 2680507" data-attributes="member: 752">You really can't understand why its not appropriate to demand that I track down some obscure book to check if it does indeed say what you claim that it does and check it's math? How about this: I don't think you're telling the truth about "what the book says".  "A rule of thumb is an easily learned and easily applied procedure for approximately calculating or recalling some value, or for making some determination." - <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thumb" target="_blank">Wikipedia</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thumb" target="_blank"></a>"As a rule of thumb, men are stronger than women". Buy hey - I'm sure you can find some woman, somewhere, that's stronger than some man, somewhere, and thus disprove my rule of thumb, Alzrius-style. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f644.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":rolleyes:" title="Roll eyes    :rolleyes:"  data-smilie="11"data-shortname=":rolleyes:" /> Why do you think the Power Attack feat works as it does? Do you think the ratio was selected randomly? I have a simple, direct question for you: Have you ever done the calculations to figure out if power attack is a good idea for a character or not?Now for an example: Character one is using your method with Small greataxes. -2 attacks, +2 damage.Character two is using two battleaxes and -2 power attack on all attacks. -2 attacks, +4 damage. Why is it so difficult for you to understand that character one is using a sub-optimal method? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused    :confused:"  data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" /> Or is it your claim that max Power Attack will always be the better option for character two, making Power Attack some sort of uber-feat? If so, do the math, or trust those of us who have. I already did. As opposed you I posted actual numbers proving me right. Her's what you said: Overall, all things being equal, the human fighters have a slightly better chance of landing their hits, but will do less damage when they do. The orc fighter gets a greater amount of damage, with an average to hit bonus only slightly behind his human counterpart, virtually guaranteeing he'll do more damage.This makes no sense if you intended to compare characters with equal Strength. With equal Strength, the "Orc" is way behind in attack bonus. In fact the whole Orc-Human thing is nothing but a red herring.Right. Can't let "dry number crunching" get in the way of your opinions on what the dry numbers are. :\ The "original point" was whether or nor dual-wileding two Small greatazes was a good idea. My "dry numbers" prove that it's not. For realistic 12th level characters, both a single greataxe and two short-swords makes for a more powerful character. (The numbers don't change with two handaxes.)  I take it the "added feats" you're talking about is Power Attack? That's a must- have for all Str based melee fighters. If you get to waste three feats on two-weapon fighting feats, then you can hardly object to me giving "my" guy one feat. Even without Power Attack, extra attack bonus can be "traded" for AC with Expertise.The two-weapon fighters get a lower enhancement bonus because they have (gasp!) two weapons to pay for rather than one. Why don't you explain why the version wielding two short-swords left "your" guy in the dust? You can't blame power attack and you can't blame an extra 1680 gp worth of equipment. They're identical except for the choice of weapons.I also notice how you fail to say what you'd consider a "fair" comparison... What would that be Alzrius?(Next: Reply to examples.)</blockquote>

Verification