Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- Pocket Sized Adventures! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed for 1-2 game sessions.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Spatzimaus" data-source="post: 1054479" data-attributes="member: 3051">I'm a card-carrying Friar of the Church of Munchkin from my BattleTech days, thanks to one particularly ridiculous design I posted on a message board.  But no, I don't min-max much in a long-term game, because it's usually just not fun.That's not really the issue here, though; I'm not saying the Flaming-type enchantments aren't balanced as is, I'm just trying to refute the "they're CLEARLY better because you lose 1 attack to get 2.5 damage" statements.  You get more damage, in some situations, against certain enemy types.  They're still good enchantments, just not no-brainers.The reason I know these statistics is because a while back a discussion started on whether a "+1 Flaming Flaming Flaming" weapon was valid under the rules, and then the question came up of whether it was even a good idea in the first place.  In the process of coming up with alternatives, I spent a while working on some +4-cost Greater elemental enchantments, and to make sure they were balanced I did a lot of number-crunching.  On the bright side, it DID lead to some nice enchantments for my campaign, which we've been happy with.Mistwell: for melee types, yes, but he's talking about a bow.  Why WOULDN'T you do a Full Attack (or at least use Rapid Shot and Multishot to launch three or four arrows, which does the same thing mathematically)?Also, in 3.5E There's a lot less reason NOT to stand still and do a Full Attack, especially considering the changes to Haste and the increased number of Feats or Class Abilities that give extra attacks (the monk Flurry rules, the Ranger 2WF chain, etc.)</blockquote>

Verification