Should i multiclass??
- Thread starter Hescamar
- Start date
Speaking as a only mildly penatant power gamer I'd take a cleric level.
What you get is
1. An unstuffy Cleric!
2. The Sphere special abilities can be very nice. If your happy go lucy dwarf takes luck and travel the special abilities (and acces to cooler skills) alone become worth the loss of +1 BAB. and an average of 1 HP.
3. Better saves, Fort and WIL. That modest jump in your will save is teriffic for a fighter.
4. Last but not least.... SPELLS
1st level cleric spells will give you a lot of versatality!
River
What you get is
1. An unstuffy Cleric!
2. The Sphere special abilities can be very nice. If your happy go lucy dwarf takes luck and travel the special abilities (and acces to cooler skills) alone become worth the loss of +1 BAB. and an average of 1 HP.
3. Better saves, Fort and WIL. That modest jump in your will save is teriffic for a fighter.
4. Last but not least.... SPELLS
1st level cleric spells will give you a lot of versatality!
River
Maldur
First Post
The two dwarfs in my campaign prove that both choices are good roleplaying. One went the Fighter/TWF way and the other the Cleric way.
I would say: If your in doubt go for 4 levels fighter for weap-spec and in the meen time think about class progression keeping both roleplaying and game-mechanics as your deciding factors.
either way: have a good game
I would say: If your in doubt go for 4 levels fighter for weap-spec and in the meen time think about class progression keeping both roleplaying and game-mechanics as your deciding factors.
either way: have a good game
CRGreathouse said:
Yes, but it is also not the right comparison - you are wasting a hand. You are comparing a longsword (a one handed weapon) with two shortswords - two light weapons.
If you're looking to maximize damage, compare a two handed weapon (say, a greatsword) with two light weapons (two shortswords).
Even if we turn that longsword into a greatsword, we don't actually expect much (if any) benefit to the two shortswords in damage - the two shortsowrds have one extra point of enhancement bonus, but they will each hit less often. The enhancement bonus to damage isn't the real issue.
You start seeing notably greater damage potential when you start adding extra dice of damage - from, say a flaming weapon. Two flaming +2 shorswords cost in the neighborhood of 36,000 gp. One +2 holy weapon costs around 32,000. Still, not too bad, you might say. But the extra 4,000 gp is equivalent to a whole list of lesser items - including gaultlets of ogre power, or a set of boots and cloak of elvenkind...
And that's if the DM in question allows you to get whatever weapons you want, whenever you want them, at DMG prices. While many may allow that, many don't. If the player is going to min/max, he should take into account how likely he is to get the items required to take greatest advantage of his feat choices.
Last edited:
CRGreathouse
Community Supporter
I know the math on TWF quite well - I've run the numbers on huge Excel spreadsheets of my own design. I agree with most of your points, but the cost difference isn't the real problem - it's the -2 attack penalty.
When comparing two +2 weapons compared to a single +3 weapon, the +2 weapons have more damage (+4 vs. +3) but less of an attack bonus (+0 vs. +3). That is the argument against TWF stripped to its most basic form.
When comparing two +2 weapons compared to a single +3 weapon, the +2 weapons have more damage (+4 vs. +3) but less of an attack bonus (+0 vs. +3). That is the argument against TWF stripped to its most basic form.
CRGreathouse:
Well, if you think one step farther, you might agree that cost is an additional issue.
As you saw, I compared a pair of +3 equivalent weapons with one +4 equivalent. Even though the number of dice of damage they produce is about the same, the to-hit modifiers leads to the pair having lesser average damage. And they are already more expensive than the single weapon.
Now, the simple way to get equal or better damage out of the pair is to raise the equivalent bonus - add more enhancement bonus, or more dice of "elemental" damage. But then you're likely to need to double the overall cost of your weaponry, or worse!
Do you want to tell me that a fighter isn't going to care if he'll need to use twice as much cash to get the same mileage out of a fighting style?
Well, if you think one step farther, you might agree that cost is an additional issue.
As you saw, I compared a pair of +3 equivalent weapons with one +4 equivalent. Even though the number of dice of damage they produce is about the same, the to-hit modifiers leads to the pair having lesser average damage. And they are already more expensive than the single weapon.
Now, the simple way to get equal or better damage out of the pair is to raise the equivalent bonus - add more enhancement bonus, or more dice of "elemental" damage. But then you're likely to need to double the overall cost of your weaponry, or worse!
Do you want to tell me that a fighter isn't going to care if he'll need to use twice as much cash to get the same mileage out of a fighting style?
Last edited:
Re: Re: Uh...
What the number crunching also fails to factor in is wasted damage. If a critter has 2 h.p. left, it doesn't matter if you do 5 points of 25 points to it, really. But the spreadsheets don't/can't take it into account. Again, it really depends on the sort of creatures your DM sends after you.
Cullain
Umbran said:
What the number crunching also fails to factor in is wasted damage. If a critter has 2 h.p. left, it doesn't matter if you do 5 points of 25 points to it, really. But the spreadsheets don't/can't take it into account. Again, it really depends on the sort of creatures your DM sends after you.
Cullain
Last edited:
Similar Threads
