Just thought we should have a list of classic mistakes made by beginning Min/Maxers and why.

To start with some classic ones,

Bard/Eldrich Knight

Replacing ten levels of Bard with Ten of Eldrich Knight costs you One Caster Level (usually another to qualify), Fourty Skill Points, Ten Levels of Bardic Music and Ten Levels of Bardic Lore. In exchange you gain two and a half points of BAB and a single feat. A bad choice.

Burst Weapons

The greatest chance of extra damage from a burst weapon given that it hits is 30% (Falchion+ Improved Critical). 30% of 1d10 does not stack up against an extra d6 all the time for an extra elemental damage. For that matter it scarcely does more damage than an extra point of enhancement.

Elemental Two Handed Weapons

With Power Attack, a +1 bonus to hit and damage becomes +3 to damage. If your threat range is 17-20 or better (Greatsword+Improved Crit being the obvious), counting the bonus damage done on a critical you do more points of damage on average with the enhancement. You also have the option of not power attacking against harder to hit foes. Also the bonus is not affected by elemental resistance and helps the weapon become epic.

Two Weapon Fighting

TWF is not bad in all cases by any means. On the other hand, unless you have a decent source of bonus damage (usually Sneak Attack), it does very little more damage and the -2 to hit eats up all this extra damage. It also costs a lot of feats and quite a lot of money if you want two magic weapons. (Does anyone have an analysis link handy). TWF is particularly bad for rangers as they don't have a decent and reliable means of bonus damage (unlike fighters and rogues) and archery usually does much more damage anyway. (Also note that elemental damage usually isn't enough, especially as the TWFer has enough problems hitting anyway)

"Weak Levels" in builds

Rogue 3/Sorceror 4/Virtuoso 2/Arcane Trickster 10 is a very nice 19 level build. On the other hand, as a lead in Rogue 3/Sorceror 3 has only first level spells (when a straight sorc will get third), is mildly short of skillpoints and has the BAB of a sorceror. Likewise Cleric 3/Wizard 3/Mystic Theurge 10 is nice but Cleric 3/Wizard 3 is near-pathetic.

(A Tempest analysis would be an obvious next choice but I don't have MoTW)

Oh, does someone want to add a list of links (this, the CharOpt Cheat Sheet, the various 3.5 threads, the Gish thread, the Druid's Handbook and a few others) to the FAQ and maintain it.

Don't bother with the Tempest prestige class, it was pretty weak in 3.0, and became useless in 3.5.

I think a good combo for TWF, is a paladin using sword and board. Take Divine Shield, Divine might, and Improved shield bash and you've got a high AC, do lots of damage, and don't have to buy a really good shield. The -2 to hit isn't much of a penelty compared to all that.

Also, a prestige class I think is overrated, is the Red Wizard. Sure, spell power +5 is nice and all, but it only applies to one school, and to qualify you need to sacrifice four schools! Thats not worth +5 to your caster level check to get by SR, or the +5d6 damage with the few spells that have no die cap.

Originally posted by Ranthanas
TWF is particularly bad for rangers as they don't have a decent and reliable means of bonus damage (unlike fighters and rogues) and archery usually does much more damage anyway. (Also note that elemental damage usually isn't enough, especially as the TWFer has enough problems hitting anyway)
[/B]

Sorry to pick on you, but here is a commonly made error. Rangers are good TWFers because of the bonus damage from Favored enemy (which will apply to both their offhand and onhand equally). In addition, they do not need extreemly high dexterity scores for the higher level TWF'ing (unlike any other character). It may not have the same punch as SAD, and it may be useful for THF'ers as well, but it is not a fundamentally bad choice. Combine ranger TWF, favored enemy, Supernatural strike, and SAD and you have a Beast

Whats a SAD?

Originally posted by Tyreus
Don't bother with the Tempest prestige class, it was pretty weak in 3.0, and became useless in 3.5.

explain.
tempest was bad in 3.0 but its decent in 3.5
according to the living greyhawk conversion guide, off hand parry got the nerf and is now two weapon defence.
unlike off hand parry, two weapon defence doesn't require you to sac all of your off hand attacks to get the bonus.
tempest still has dead levels and spring attack but thats it. my biggest beef with the class in 3.0 was off hand parry and that has been fixed.

nice analysis so far. i will add some picks when i get up again and have a bit time to spare.

gs
Funny

Originally posted by goblinhero
explain.
tempest was bad in 3.0 but its decent in 3.5
according to the living greyhawk conversion guide, off hand parry got the nerf and is now two weapon defence.
unlike off hand parry, two weapon defence doesn't require you to sac all of your off hand attacks to get the bonus.
tempest still has dead levels and spring attack but thats it. my biggest beef with the class in 3.0 was off hand parry and that has been fixed.

Because (and especially in 3.5), three feats give you three attacks on the off hand at level 11. On the other hand, by taking tempest you delay that second attack until level 10 (or waste a feat), and the third attack until level 14 (or waste another). Granted, the tempest will gain the Perfect TWF feat two levels before the non tempest, but many would rather do something else with 19 levels.

In addition to this, a fighter-rogue(or, more combat effectively, OA Ninja) or ranger-rogue with the TWF-ITWF-GTWF tree will almost always out-do a tempest of similar level in the damage standpoint, also leaping far above the tempest in skill points.

Tempest reminds me of the Heartwarder (Faiths&Pantheons). A class that can be taken without actually taking it. Heartwarder's main draw is the +5 charisma, but that can be gained through a Tome and levels can be spent elsewhere. Tempest's main draw is its TWF stuff, but that can also be more efficiently taken without 19 levels.

Originally posted by Ranthanas
Burst Weapons

The greatest chance of extra damage from a burst weapon given that it hits is 30% (Falchion+ Improved Critical). 30% of 1d10 does not stack up against an extra d6 all the time for an extra elemental damage. For that matter it scarcely does more damage than an extra point of enhancement.

I can think of one example where this is partially worth it. The various archery builds that take advantage of deepwood sniper can benefit from this, as the critical multiplier of the weapon (and thus the resulting amount of burst damage) is upped by two. Agreed though that (even in this circumstance where there is a 10% chance of 4d10) it isn't necessarily a better buy than an extra 1d6.

edit: making a double post count

I think there is a rule somewhere (in one of th new books I got recently) that a magic weapon can't have two opposing elements on it.

So no Frost Flaming Longswords (makes sense too). Oh wait... this was in the Diamond Throne by Monte Cooke for his Arcana Unearthed d20 game.

TWF is particularly bad for rangers as they don't have a decent and reliable means of bonus damage (unlike fighters and rogues) and archery usually does much more damage anyway.

I like the idea of your thread but disagree with this one. Rangers get the feats for free and don't have to pump dex exclusively. They can get the 3 main archery feats (pt blank, precise, and rapid shot) at the cost of only 1 more feat than the archery route and be 90% as effective there. Taking a level of rogue for the traps search ability is a natural, and you get more favored enemies now. You can take 3 levels of rogue for +2d6 sneak dmg and you won't lose anymore BAB. I'm not sure I'd say its clearly better but it is no where near bad enough to get on this list!

ugghhh

double post

I think this is a common min/max beginner's mistake:

Too much into just one build

'Wow, I'll be wreaking havoc by the time I reach level 35!'

Nice thread, Ranthanas. ;)

Originally posted by HighlandsTraveller
TWF is particularly bad for rangers as they don't have a decent and reliable means of bonus damage (unlike fighters and rogues) and archery usually does much more damage anyway.

I like the idea of your thread but disagree with this one. Rangers get the feats for free and don't have to pump dex exclusively. They can get the 3 main archery feats (pt blank, precise, and rapid shot) at the cost of only 1 more feat than the archery route and be 90% as effective there. Taking a level of rogue for the traps search ability is a natural, and you get more favored enemies now. You can take 3 levels of rogue for +2d6 sneak dmg and you won't lose anymore BAB. I'm not sure I'd say its clearly better but it is no where near bad enough to get on this list! But the pure ranger using two Shortswords does 1d6/1d6 Damage, while the Greatsword Ranger does 2d6 + 1.5*Str Modifier and can still have the Archery Combat Style.

The Archery Ranger is superior because it has archery capabilities without sacrificing any class features for the same melee capabilities.

The sneak attack argument might've been valid in 3.0, but in 3.5 the two-weapon Sneak Attack is better for a Rogue to just take the feats (or to take levels of Fighter at proper places to get Improved and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting).

Rogue 7/Fighter 1 would be a good time to take Improved Two-Weapon Fighting

Then at Rogue 12/Fighter 2 would be the time to take Greater Two-Weapon Fighting

Why? Because Rogues generally have high dexterity anyway.

Taking levels other than Ranger and then returning to Ranger is generally a bad idea because you push back further those already high special abilities.

Originally posted by Deuteros
I think this is a common min/max beginner's mistake:

Too much into just one build

'Wow, I'll be wreaking havoc by the time I reach level 35!'

Nice thread, Ranthanas. ;) YES!

"The best way to be able to do everything is to specialize so much in such a way that you can use your specialization for everything." -Munchkin Manual

"What you can't manage with your stats, manage with your roleplaying skills." -Munchkin Manual

unintended post

You can add the Vorpal quality to the list of mistakes.

Playing a melee combatant with its highest attribute in anything but con.

Or Strength, right?

No offense, but it doesn't seem all that glaringly horrifying if a Fighter puts his highest ability score in Strength.

Int, Wis, Cha, or to a lesser extent, Dex, then I'd probably agree. But it's not really much of a hideous Min/Max mistake to put your good score in Strength. Con for me is normally my second best.

Originally posted by DeadEye
Or Strength, right?

No offense, but it doesn't seem all that glaringly horrifying if a Fighter puts his highest ability score in Strength.

Int, Wis, Cha, or to a lesser extent, Dex, then I'd probably agree. But it's not really much of a hideous Min/Max mistake to put your good score in Strength. Con for me is normally my second best.

Youu're definately right. I mean, any bladesinger that maxes Int is just asking for it, and a Holy liberator/Arcane duelist with their highest stat in Cha is clearly sub-par.

Originally posted by catharz
Youu're definately right. I mean, any bladesinger that maxes Int is just asking for it, and a Holy liberator/Arcane duelist with their highest stat in Cha is clearly sub-par.

Hey, dude, no need to be sarcastic. Those examples you listed aren't exactly 'general' melee builds. As a GENERAL rule, Str and Con are usually the best for most melee builds. Bladesingers, Holy Liberators and Arcane Duelists certainly wouldn't turn down a high Str or Con. There's always some exceptions, but they are the exception, not the rule.

Originally posted by catharz
Youu're definately right. I mean, any bladesinger that maxes Int is just asking for it, and a Holy liberator/Arcane duelist with their highest stat in Cha is clearly sub-par. Not anymore.

Swashbuckler 3 lets you add your Intelligence instead of your Strength Modifier to damage for light weapons/weapon finesse weapons... so a Rapier Bladesinger off of Wizard and Swashbuckler is quite powerful (and makes Strength only useful for carry limits) because the Swashbuckler also gives Weapon Finesse as a special at level 1.

Sorry, sarcasm.

Originally posted by catharz
Sorry, sarcasm. You're forgive, more sarcasm.

Sure, max your int and cha, won't help your HP, though. Lets keep this thread from turning into another 'which stat is most important' by realizing the conclusion reached by that thread was con.

Frankly, in any campaign, the more HP a 'fighter' has, the better. Character still need to be able to kill things, but a high con will be less draining on party resources in the long run than any other stat.

Most people don't do (I don't) this because it's not nearly as fun as a powerful character. However, from a pure mechanical standpoint, your highest attribute should be constitution, probably for every character.

Originally posted by Ranthanas
Burst Weapons

The greatest chance of extra damage from a burst weapon given that it hits is 30% (Falchion+ Improved Critical). 30% of 1d10 does not stack up against an extra d6 all the time for an extra elemental damage. For that matter it scarcely does more damage than an extra point of enhancement.

Unless you happen to have a weapon with a x3 or x4 multiplier. Maybe a Great Axe, a Scythe, Composite Longbow, or even a Mercurial Greatsword? Not the most common weapons maybe, but they all work well with Burst enchantments.

Originally posted by Lokathor
Unless you happen to have a weapon with a x3 or x4 multiplier. Maybe a Great Axe, a Scythe, Composite Longbow, or even a Mercurial Greatsword? Not the most common weapons maybe, but they all work well with Burst enchantments.

But those weapons generally have half the chance of actually scoring a crit, so that probably evens out.

Originally posted by catharz
Sorry to pick on you, but here is a commonly made error. Rangers are good TWFers because of the bonus damage from Favored enemy (which will apply to both their offhand and onhand equally). In addition, they do not need extreemly high dexterity scores for the higher level TWF'ing (unlike any other character). It may not have the same punch as SAD, and it may be useful for THF'ers as well, but it is not a fundamentally bad choice. Combine ranger TWF, favored enemy, Supernatural strike, and SAD and you have a Beast

That takes the SAD. By my calculations, you are only just breaking even at the +4 bonus level if the TWFer has two +3 (or rather +1 double elemental) weapons and the greatsword fighter has a +4 weapon.

The greatsword wielder is also a much better skirmisher (even against the +6, +8 and +10 enemies) and rangers don't usually have the AC and HP for toe to toe slugfests. If the ranger spends his feats on archery, he gets almost as many attacks with a better chance of hitting (more on a partial action) and has a range advantage.

Oh, is Brilliant Energy another trap? Having just checked the SRD, it only affects Armour AC bonusses, not even natural. (Good for a campaign vs humanoids but not much more than that).

As for burst weapons and scythes, for burst weapons to be equal to elemental ones on average, you'd need a threat range significantly better than 15-20/*3 or 17-20/*4. This is unlikely. (I picked the Falchion because it is the joint best core weapon with them (along with the scythe, the scimitar and the pick)

Alright, about the burst weapons. For the most part, they are a bad idea. But, I think bursting weapons have their place. The main use I see from them is for a 1/day finishing move. Combined with the power critical feat on a scythe you can basicly get an automatic +40(54 if you also have thundering) elemental damage on a single attack each day. This was also mentioned earlier, a deepwood sniper can also put bursting weapons to very good use, gaining +54(72 with thundering) damage on each critical. Combine that with the fact that all of their arrows are automaticly keen. You could also add levels of arcane archer to make all of their arrows magical.

Fighter 4/Ranger 1/Sorcerer 1/Deepwood 7/Arcane Archer 7
This makes a character who always fires Keen +4 arrows and has a x5 crit multiplier.

Anyways, I just thought I would stir the pot a little bit.

Am I missing something?

All this talk about burst weapons sounds like they don't get the 1d6 elemental damage on a non-critical hit.

in fact they DO get 1d6 on a normal hit, and IN ADDITION to this, they get burst damage on a critica. So if a falchion gets a critical hit it does (in addition to weapon damage) 1d6 + 1d10.

This doesn't sound so bad to me.

are we talking about simply giving a weapon multiple energy effects, so for the same +2 mod, you get say 1d6 of fire and 1d6 of electricity? For most weapons this is probably the better choice. But what about the large crit multiplier weapons? I'm not sure.

For one thing, Doing more damage on a single hit increases the likelyhood that you will be able to cleave. A cleave attack is like another whole critical hit, since, like a crit, it's an extra die roll for yet more damage. This depends on the situation, but facing multiple foes is a common situation.


The way I would use brilliant energy is to have a brilliant energy weapon, in addition to you normal weapon. Then whey you are fighting armored foes, pull this weapon and power attack for all it's worth. Naturally this is expensive, and certainly best used by a two handed fighter. Otherwise, I agree it's not that great.

With a 18-20/*5 weapon, the weapon does an average of 3.3 bonus damage per hit from the burst property. This still compares unfavourably to the 3.5 for the straight elemental point. (For comparison, power attacking with a 1 handed weapon in this case with a straight +1 enhancement bonus yields an average bonus of 3.2 damage that can't be elementally resisted).

Yes, it does help on cleaves, but it is far behind either an extra elemental point or power attacking with a two handed weapon on average.

(I'm counting the burst property as +1 and the elemental as a separate +1 in my comparisons rather than the burst as a +2 that includes the elemental property. I also haven't included Hunters Mercy or Power Critical in my calculations- Power Critical is only once per day and I don't have the book with Hunters Mercy)

As for a reserve Brilliant Energy weapon, that's a 50,000GP weapon. Expensive for a backup that is only useful in rare cases.

Well, thanks for the analysis!

That said, assuming you now have your +5 enhancement bonus, what would a two handed weapon weilder WANT to have on his weapon? What would he fill the remaining +5 with.

Specifically what weapon should my Mercurial Greatsword Weapon Master weild?

Maybe I'll start a new post.

Here's another one for the list:

Specializing in the wrong area

This can mean two things:

*Concentrating too much on one thing ("Look, my monk has AC 54 at lvl 9! too bad he can't hit anything or do any damage when he does")

*Using the wrong character to specialize. If you want to play a straight damage caster, don't play a cleric. If you want to play a melee monster, don't play a bard.
A build like that might be reasonably effective in its area, but it won't ever come near a build which uses the right classes for the same effect.

taking more than 4 levels of fighter. i've seen several builds utilizing fighter 5/Prc X and i'm disgusted every time.

not multi-classing as a sorcerer is a huge mistake IMO. straight sorcerer is sub-par to almost any Prc.

oh, and about the burst enchantment:

+1 flaming longsword of shock average damage = 1 + 3.5 + 4.5 + 3.5 = 12.5 + str mod

critical w/ same longsword = 2 + 3.5 + 9 + 3.5 = 18 + twice str mod

+1 flaming burst longsword average dmg. = 1 + 3.5 + 4.5 = 9 + str mod

critical w/ same longsword = 2 + 3.5 + 9 + 5.5 = 20 + twice str mod

okay now lets use a weapon with a better critical multiplier.

+1 flaming sythe of shock average dmg = 1+3.5+5+3.5 = 13+ str mod*1.5

crit= 2+3.5+3.5+10 = 19 + (str mod*1.5)*2

+1 flaming burst sythe average dma = 1 +3.5+5 = 9.5 + str mod*1.5

crit= 2+3.5+10+22 = 37.5 + (str mod*a.5)*2

5% chance of doing twice as much damage with a 95% chance of doing 4 points less.

that's the math. is it worth is to you?

Maybe we could dissect this subject the same way we did burst weapons: Damage Reduction X/-

I've never played a character with DR so I'm not sure of its worth. I think if you manage to get it at low levels (Dwarf Fighter 1 getting DR 2/- from Roll with it) it's a great asset. But what about higher levels when you're facing nastier foes who deal much more damage from a single blow? How much 'resources' (feats) would have to be spent in order for DR to remain 'great' instead of just 'OK'?

I'm planning a Dwarven Barbarian and I keep wondering if I should pursue DR or instead concentrate on AC, Hit points and Con.

Thanks! ;)

Know the rules.

Faulty builds based on ignorance of the rules happens all to often. If you're going to min/max, you need to know the paramaters of what you have with which to work.

Originally posted by Boondoggle
Know the rules.

Faulty builds based on ignorance of the rules happens all to often. If you're going to min/max, you need to know the paramaters of what you have with which to work. I think that was Rule 0.1 in the Munchkin Manual...

Know the rules better than the Authors.

Haniball, your analysis doesn't go far enough. It does a good job of posing the question, but it doesn't answer it.

There are two ways to look at the answer: Average damage, and actual play

First let's look at average damage

the average damage of the base weapon damage, is the average die roll multiplied by (1 + n).

Where n equals [crit range x (crit multiplier - 1)] /20

so a greatclub has average damage equal to 5.5 x 1.05, figuring that there is a 5 % chance of doing 100% more damage with the weapon.

A greatsword has an average damage of 7 x 1.1, figuring that there is a 10% chance of doing 100% more damage with the weapon.

A greataxe has an average damage of 6.5 x 1.1, figuring that there is a 5% chance of doing 200% more damage with the weapon.

OK, so this is average weapon damage. Now, what stacks with this, and what adds on?

Things that stack:
Enhancement bonuses
Power Attack
Strenght bonuses
Bane weapon damage bonus

Things that add on:
Energy Damage
Sneek attack
Bane weapon extra damage dice
Aligned weapon extra damage dice
Merciful weapon
etc.

Note that energy burst isn't in either of these categories. The reason for this is that it adds on ONLY to a critical. It is the only extra dice that add on to the critical.

So in order to figure the average damage of an energy burst weapon into the overall value of the weapon, you have to multiply the average damage of an energy burst (5.5) with n. This way you can figure the damage it provides to the critical hit.

So, if your weapon is a spiked chain and thus has a x2 multiplier and crits on a 20 only, n is 0.05, your average damage from the burst is only 0.275 points of damage. Which sucks.

If you are a scythe weapon master doing your improved critical multiplier and and have both imroved critical and ki critical you do x5 damage on a 17-20, and your crit multiplier is 0.8, so now your average burst damage is 4.4, which is considerably BETTER than just energy damage alone (3.5)


OK, so on to the analysis of actual play.

There are several factors that go into when the extra critical damage becomes usefull:

Cleave/great cleave - this is a big one. fighting multiple foes is a fairly common situation, and if the extra damage from energy burst helps you down a foe, then you get a free attack, and that is good. That is like the energy burst just did an additional weapon+all your adds to your attack. Note that this will come up regularly, but not THAT regularly. Again it depends on your weapon. If you have a longsword, the extra damage is MORE likely to make a difference than if you have an battleaxe, because when you crit with the battleaxe you are more likely to kill what you hit whether you have the energy burst or not.

Overkill - This is bad, and is likely to come up often if you have a high crit multiplier like the scythe weilder above. In this case the extra damage is wasted.

Note. however, that overkill and cleave are not mutually exclusive.

Creatures with energy immunity/resistance. This is not a consideration when comparing the weapon to say, one with two different energy types, but it IS a consideration when comparing it to say a holy weapon. Note that almost ALL "add ons" have situations where they don't work.

Note that creatures immune to crits are NOT a consideration, since the burst still works even if the weapon doesn't do extra critical damage (this was in the miniatures handbook as well as other sources IIRC).

So, is energy burst a bad thing? Well, it depends. A weapon with a high n will see a benefit in a burst weapon to overall average damage. However, weapons with a high n very often have high crit multipliers, which lead to overkill. If you are going this route, then you also want the cleave feat.

But then you wanted that anyway.

The point where burst becomes usefull though is when n is greater than 0.6. This is hard to do.

Originally posted by Psifon
[...]
OK, so this is average weapon damage.
[...]

No, not quite. You are confusing threats and critical hits. Critical hits have to be confirmed to actually do more damage, thereby reducing their contribution to the average damage.

To be precise, it's necessary to include the to-hit bonus of the fighter and the AC of his opponent in the calculation.

silly me, I forgot.

So really the burst is MUCH worse than I am showing here.

So what this means is that even with the 4.4 damage of the scythe weilder, the benefit of the burst is only a fraction of what I have shown.

Actually you don't need the BAB and target AC (unless a threat isn't a hit on the target foe). It cancels out of the equation so that the chance of scoring a critical off a hit (and it's only hits we are worried about- all weapons miss equally with equivalent enhancements) is the same as that of scoring a threat off an attack.

In the case you mention, average damage of a 2 handed sword wielder using a +1 enhancement with a single point of power attack is 5.4 (which comfortably beats the 4.4 of the elemental damage). A 1 handed power attack does an average of 3.6 damage, although 1 handed power attacks aren't worth it in most cases (probably including this one)

If you take into account that the burst requires an elemental point first, the base damage is 6 vs d6 for the two handed weapon (+2 enhancement, 2 points of Power Attack compared to elemnetal burst) (4 vs d6 for the one handed) and the critable is 6 vs d10 for the two handed (4 vs d10 for the one handed), meaning that the two handed weapon does more average damage on a non critical and has more critable damage while the one handed burst weapon requires a 'n' of 1/3 (better than 15-20/*2 or 18-20/*3) to even catch up on the cases where the power attack is a good bargain for the one handed fighter.

Thundering catches up a two hander on 11-20/*5 (again power attack may not be the optimum case (n=2)) and a one hander on 16-20/*6 (n=5/4), again assuming you don't want extra normal hits by not power attacking.

To sum up, don't even think of either thundering or elemental burst weapons unless you are a weapon master wielding a one handed weapon, and even then they are dubious. Note: see also the current magic weapon thread, although the analysis there is much the same.

The only way for a burst enhancement to be more effective than just another +1d6 garunteed is to be a weapon master wielding a falchian with improved crit, Ki critical & improved multiplier. With these, you can get your threat range to 13-20/x3. Even then, you have to an 80% chance to confirm the critical.

The math:
Ave of 1d6: 3.5
Ave of 2d10 (x3 multiplier): 11

40% (threat range) x 11 x 80% (chance to confirm) = 3.52

That's at most 5 times per day.


If this character was instead gaining another +1 enhancement instead of a burst weapon (by downgradeing from, say, flaming burst to just flaming) and useing power attack for 1, he would do an extra 3 damage garunteed (+1 enhancement, +2 power attack) and an extra 1.92 damage from criticals (40% x 6 x 80%). That puts the +1 enhancement's damage at 4.92 compared to the burst's damage of 3.52.


So, a burst property on a weapon is only better than a garunteed +1d6 of elemental damage in an extreme situation. However, in that same situation, a +1 enhancement is much better than the burst property.


Now, can we stop derailing the thread and get back to the topic at hand?

Weapon Building mistake: To add anything other than Holy to a weapon first.

I play in three separate games where it is the role of the players to be good and to fight evil in one form or another. This means 9 out of 10 fights are against things with an evil alignment, which means I almost always get the +2-12 dmg. Plus the weapon is now considered Good so it bypasses some Damage Reduction AND cannot be regenerated by some evil outsiders.

All for +2.

It is a total bargain like no other (except Unholy, I guess.)

Originally posted by Lord Arkhaven
Weapon Building mistake: To add anything other than Holy to a weapon first.

I play in three separate games where it is the role of the players to be good and to fight evil in one form or another. This means 9 out of 10 fights are against things with an evil alignment, which means I almost always get the +2-12 dmg. Plus the weapon is now considered Good so it bypasses some Damage Reduction AND cannot be regenerated by some evil outsiders.

All for +2.

It is a total bargain like no other (except Unholy, I guess.)

To take this a step further - What is the general opinion on Bane? You have as good a chance running into your selected creature type as you would with a Ranger or Foe Hunter. And breaking DR /epic with a +4 bane weapon doesn't exactly suck either.

When it comes to bane, archers get the strong end of the stick. Get +1 Bane Magic Arrows. They count as +2 weapons, but you can get like 10 of 5 differen types. the +1 won't count, but the Bane enhancement will.

The value of bane quality is a lot like Favored Enemy for Rangers. If you notice the DM likes to use a lot of Dragons, then take Dragon Bane weapons. It is also based on how tough the type is. Taking a few Dragon Bane arrows might just be useful anyway because when dragons come up it is nice to be able to put a few in them. But again, the best way to gauge the usefulness is to know your DM.

Hell Campaigns mean TAKE Holy and Evil Outsider Bane (take the bane first as it is cheaper).

Bigger Weapon Building Error: Taking just one weapon. And not taking multiple Counter DR weapons!

At level one melee character should have a Steel (normal) weapon and at least a Silver dagger.
At level 5 or 6, consider also getting a Cold Iron weapon.

Also, now it is a good idea to take a variety of weapons of Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing types (there is DR/Piercing).

Halbards are great because they are both Slashing and Piercing weapons.

Double Swords/Axes are also great, make one head Silver and the Other Cold Iron and you can just use one at a time.

Originally posted by JosephKell
When it comes to bane, archers get the strong end of the stick. Get +1 Bane Magic Arrows. They count as +2 weapons, but you can get like 10 of 5 differen types. the +1 won't count, but the Bane enhancement will.

This is definately true. Any mid-high level character with a missile weapon should have at least some +1 Aberration, +1 Undead, +1 Evil outsider, and +1 Dragon ammo. For any character with a ranged weapon, Bane is second to none (well, second to Spell storing if your DM allows that :rolleyes: ). Another arrow that every character should have in his quiver is a +1 Daylight (A&E) arrow. Daylight at will for a few hundred gp! Just don't accidentally fire it.

At any rate, this is a thread about what not to do, so I suppose I'm a bit off-topic. To make up for that,
What not to do: Don't be so abusive of the rules that your DM starts banning/house-ruling everything. This will ruin the game for everyone very quickly! Oh ya, and don't get so caught up in Min/Max that you stop doing stupid things just because they're cool ;)

All the above depends on the campaign.

Still, my players are about to really suffer. They didn't take any silvered weapons (Level 2). I gave them some silver daggers as loot. They sold them. (OK, so most of them are still in 3.0 land and I'm running a 3.5 game...)

Forsaker Levels (for anyone) or Vow of Poverty (for non-druids / clerics / sorcerors / highly polymorphed fighters)- It's not that these are bad feats numerically, but they really have a hidden cost that, IMO, is not worth it.

By the time you get a decent deal out of these barney feats, the hidden cost is that you DON'T ADVENTURE. The only reason fighter-types can go on adventures at all is because clerics and wizards slap spells on them to get to the castle, sneak past the guards, and beat the spoon out of the badguys. Forsakers and Vow of Poverty woefully fails to accomplish this except for the beating the spoon out of badguys part.

So we really have to realize there's a point where the amount of power you get is never worth it if it prevents you from going on adventures. It's like getting a +200 to hit and damage with 10 attacks if you can only use it once per year, and the rest of the time you have a bonus of +0 and 1 attack.

If you're starting at a high level and your wizard is generous with polymorph buffs, wasting a lot of your time with strength, dexterity, and constitution bonuses. If your DM has completely lost his mind, intelligence bonuses for the wizard (polymorph any object).

War Hulk for almost all purposes other than extreme edge case builds (ultra-trippers, bull rushers, etc.).

(BTW, if you're going the divine shield/divine might paladin, I highly recommend boosting CHA over all else; in my WIZARDLY Eldritch Knight / Sacred Exorcist build, I put CHA over even intelligence. CHA adds to damage, saves, attack, AND AC. Good stuff... good stuff.)

Taking the 3.5E Whirlwind feat, unless you have an out of this world crazy reach and a ton of foes that you can't kill in one hit. Like 40' worth of reach and at least 8 opponents.

Diluting your BAB as a monk with monkly prestige classes (this can be circumvented by only bailing out where the next level of monk doesn't give a BAB bonus).

Spring Attack for TWFs, low-mid and most high level Monks, and most rogues. Spring Attack reduces battle to a one-blow trade off, which means that you had better have a better attack bonus than your foe and a better damage bonus and hp.

In builds, if you have to regularly spend more than 2 rounds buffing or activating your stuff to get an acceptable level of mojo, then you had better see a gigantic boost. +5 stackable damage and attack to all attacks doesn't cut it, for example. This is why most Mystic Theurge buffers suck.

If your character relies on buffing (Eldritch Knights, clerics), get extend spell and preferrably persistant spell. If you ever get advance notice of ass-kicking, cast all of your spells extended/persistant before spell prep time, and load up on 'real' spells. This is why divination magic is so important for buffers.

If you're a Sacred Fist and you're not being polymorphed, something is dreadfully wrong.

Here is one (only half serious... maybe 75%) "Coming here as your first resort" (true and appropriate min/maxing comes from within, not without like on some message board)

(true and appropriate min/maxing comes from within, not without like on some message board

this aint different.

true min/maxing comes from within us and we share it over here, thus the board is filled with it.

gs
Funny

You mean its not a spiritual quest of inner alchemy? Damn. All that meditation, wasted.

Another min-max mistake... mixing monk levels with duelist levels, ESPECIALLY the 3.5E duelist.

Even on an out-of-this-world crazy die-rolling scheme, like... 50-point buy (let alone even the high-powered 32-point die), taking levels of duelist is just not worth it for a monk.

The biggest problem is your stat array. As a monk, you are already forced to maintain a high strength (even if you have weapon finesse, because monks are notoriously poor with big damage), dexterity, wisdom, and constitution. The duelist asks you to stop monk advancement and has you put a high priority in intelligence. You can take duelist levels as an 8th level monk, minimum, and you've most likely used up all of your feats just to get into the gate unless you're a human, strongheart halfling, or multi-classed character. Even though you get full BAB, you get absolutely nothing from this class, as the minimum level you can start taking duelist levels completely stops your improved attack rate, which is the only saving grace of a monk's low BAB scheme. Further, you're locked into using a siangham or optional OA weapons for the rest of your career, as your fists suddenly no longer hit things as hard.

Not even elaborate parry, an OMG class feature of the duelist, can save the monk, as you are effectively looking at a -6 to hit (considering that you diluted your BAB) for a +10 to AC over someone who takes full BAB classes. Since it's a dodge bonus, it only makes your monk all the more vulnerable against being flatfooted, attacked by invisible opponents, and being grappled if a lucky touch attack hits.

The duelist already trades enough damage and accuracy with a full BAB class; mixing it with two prime monk weaknesses (hitting things and dishing out big damage) just makes things bad for the home team.

Another min-max mistake... mixing monk levels with duelist levels, ESPECIALLY the 3.5E duelist.

i once made some analysis thread about this and, saying it vague, the result was that fighting without armor tends to be superior if you have at least three stats to AC, means at least two classes/PrC that grant some stat.

with four stats to AC you get the bigger benefit over time, but thedrawback is that you have to invest in the right classlevels.

i once made some bladesinger with holy liberator and mystic wanderer tacked on, dipping into arcane duelist and old duelist while ignoring the advice that no stat should be added twice, made some good AC.
the highest AC-build is also depending on this,
but as said you may encounter other weak areas if you focus on these abilities too much.

other than this i like the cleric walking with just a robe and a stick. mystic wanderer, mysticism, divine might, GMW, spikes and brambles, persistant stuff, i am pretty sure this unsuspective looking guy will beat the **** out of nearly anybody...
of course, if you manage to be a monk or SF with the right PrCs you can walk naked into the hoard and get the BBEG while all are trying to hit you.

gs
Funny

I have a question about the comment on TWF. Isn't it true, that a ranger of 11th level, would have three offhand attacks?

Doesn't this given them a total of 6 attacks at 11th level.. (with a max of 7 attacks at higher levels.)

Rapid shot gives only one extra attack, at the same -2 penalty, correct?

It would seem that a two-weapon fighting isn't a bad alternative for min/maxing if you stick with the core class.

For rapid shot you pay the same -2 penalty for each attack, to add one additional attack. With two weapon fighting you get the -2 penalty on each attack (assuming a light offhand weapon) and get three additional attacks.

It also seems easier to add str bonus to damage with TWF as opposed to ranged.. since you have to buy consistently different composite bows as your strength increases.

With weapon-finese, a ranger can also take rapid shot and point blank shot as additional feats, and get the same benefit. The dexterity would apply to all twf attacks and bow attacks.. and they could get the best of both worlds.

Am I missing something here? In the scenario where they have weapon finesse, the to-hit arguments are thrown out.. because dex applies to all attacks. (Granted, they have to be using two light weapons, but a rapier and short sword, or duel rapiers make a nice selection.)

Assuming our 11th level ranger...BAB +11/+6/+1

rapid shot with composite longbow 16 str and 16dex.. just for comparison.
+12/+12/+7/+2... doing 1d8 + 3 assuming a composite longbow allowing +3
str bonus. (avg damage is 4.5+3=7.5)
This is .6*7.5 + .6*7.5 +.35*7.5 + .1*7.5= 12.375dmg on average

twf is, with two light weapons to allow weapon finese, is avg dmg
of 3.5+3 or 6.5. With attacks of +12/+12/+7/+7/+2/+2 we get:
(.6*6.5)*2 + (.35*6.5)*2 + (.1*6.5)*2 = 13.65 dmg on average

This also doesn't mention the fact that rapiers have nice crit ranges,
as opposed to the bow, but that complicates the math a bit, because
the crit multiplier on the bow is higher. Though I agree with the premise
that a great sword wielded two-handed is a good choice.. it doesn't allow
for the two-weapon defense feat that grants additional +1 or +2 to AC.

Your great sword of 2d6+1.5str is with a BAB of +14/+9/+4 (no
-2 penalty and no extra attacks does in fact give
higher avg damage, for those comparing, .7*11+.45*11+.2*11=14.85)
But this doesn't take into consideration the opportunities for crits.

When you have 6 attacks, the probability is higher for a potential
crit. The math gets harder, but when you look at a dual rapier-wielding
ranger, with a crit range of 17-20, the odds of doing more damage go
up significantly over the great sword.

I would enjoy seeing the math involving the crit ranges of weapons and
strength, for considering the TWF feat. From a pure observation perspective,
if you had a rapier with the keen ability, you would be criting with it once
a round on average, with 6-7 attacks. The other things is that TWF would
allow str bonuses more easily than with a bow. Our DM would not allow
a composite long bow that had a +1 str bonus, to all of a sudden for a few
hundred gp to become a composite bow with +3 str bonus. If you spend
money improving your composite bow str +1, then have to throw it out
to get a new composite bow to take advantage of your new strength,
you are out of luck.

On another side-area here. If your ranger is buffed by a cleric in the
party.. the strength adders do apply to all damage for a sword, not
necessarily on your bow.

Please explain if I understand this incorrectly, I am sort of new to
looking at TWF as a viable option.

You forgot feats like Point Blank Shot.

Broadly speaking, unless you are doing at least +5 bonus damage, the Two Handed Fighter does better in all situations than the TWFer despite the lower feat cost (mismatched weapons cost an extra feat for Weapon Focus)- assuming twin shortswords vs a greatsword, the fighter can dump the two saved points of BAB into damage for +4 to damage (and with reasonably hard targets, the BAB is worth more than extra damage).

In short the two handed style is better and doesn't cost any feats at all.

(Remember the rapier is finessable but not light- don't dual wield rapiers for TWF as you are at -4 to hit. Also your off hand seems to be getting its full strength bonus rather than the half it should and is still behind the greatsword in damage. Also remember you can only TWF on a full attack action)

As for archery, firstly archers aren't as vulnerable (unless backed against a wall)- they can move away and fire. Secondly, Point Blank Shot skews the calculations- adding one to your to hit bonus does quite a lot of damage (the +1 to damage alone puts it as better than the TWF in your example, and the +1 to hit will be pretty big). Thirdly they don't need to be at their target. Fourthly, although bow and arrow bonusses don't stack, if you have a +5 bow and a set of +1 holy shocking frost arrows onto which someone has cast Flame Arrow, you hit as if you had a +5 holy shocking frost flame arrow (worth +10). Fourthly arrows are good against DR. Fifthly, Manyshot gives you a scary move-and-attack, even if most of the arrows will miss.

Crit ranges: The percentage of attacks that threaten is equal to the percentage of hits that crit (the chance of hitting cancels out as long as all threats are hits). This also means that the shortswords extra crits are cancelled by the greater crits of the greatsword.

TWF simply isn't viable unless you get a lot of bonus damage (rogue's sneak attack springs to mind, when it can do simply hideous amounts of damage). Archery is competative with two handed fighting, not as risky as greatsword use and is far more versatile.

HTH

No, monk duelists still really suck. Mostly because having your monk progression grind to a halt when levels 3-10 are the most brutal suck, mostly because the new duelist got nerfed into uselessness.

Here's Giant's analysis of the 3.5E duelist. Gah.
http://azure.bbboy.net/niftymessageboard-viewthread?forum=6&thread=410

Originally posted by Funny Slaughter
this aint different.

true min/maxing comes from within us and we share it over here, thus the board is filled with it.

gs
Funny What I meant was, you can't learn to min/max if you are always asking for help. And if a person's first resort to optimization is to come to a board then they aren't making it (and the outcome might not be appropriate to the game).

Of all that is posted, how much of it includes the process that got you there?

More common mistakes:

1. Asking for help on a build without stating what books or types of books you have to work with and think your DM will allow, and without giving a good idea of what kind of character you want to play. All it acomplishes is getting you character builds you won't want or, worse, will want really bad but can't use.

2. Actually trying to use an outrageously broken class or race (like the Dragon 313 Half-Ogre and Half-Minotaur). There's a very good chance you'll end up ticking off your DM and making him suspicious and overly critical of all your future characters.;)

made a twf build that outdamaged the 3.0 weaponmaster with a greatsword... in 3.5 it would have been even better, saving a feat. the problem is the stats... the build is like this:

rogue3
fighter4
holy liberator 8
divine champion 5

the key here is:
improved shild bash (twf with shield bonus to ac = nice)
divine might
shield-charge feat from defenders of the faith
divine favour
divine wrath (from divine champion 5)

this builds gives you:
high ac
high saves (cha to saves)
you can be chaotic good not boring lawful good - i really can't play it ;)

with a cloak of resistance the saves will be in the mid twenties, that is 22-26 :)

the character is fun to play through all levels as the sneak attack damage in the beginning is really good :)

Oh.

If you ever stick a single level of Shiba protector in any of your builds, you've just basically admitted that this character will never be played on any game.

The no shadow blows ability of the Sacred Fist causes enough consternation on its own, and you have to suffer through a HARSH first 7 levels, as enhancement bonuses don't come cheap (from items or GMW) at that level and you can't ever used ranged weapons or attack incorporeal creatures.

Of all that is posted, how much of it includes the process that got you there?

thats right.
i came here looking how to improve "my min/max", not lurking to grab a cool character.

there arelots of people not contributing here and i dont see anything wrong there, they are no min/maxers and eventually will never be, they hang around to learn the rules better, get strange builds or abuses and standing impressed and astounded or just shocked.

a new player in our group told me his old DM would throw him out if he knows him to visit this boards.
he made a pretty good char and i didnt want to improve him, its his own char. so i told him to post it here.

he doesnt want to, thats his descision, nobody can be forced to improve his min/max.

may the min/max be strong within us

gs
Funny

It has been proven over, and over again that the Archery path for a 3.5 ranger stinks. The TWF path is better, but it is still mediocre.

The best damage path is to use a two-handed weapon. I have been playing a ranger for almost 20 years, and I hate to admit to that, but its true.

Originally posted by Deuteros
Maybe we could dissect this subject the same way we did burst weapons: Damage Reduction X/-

I've never played a character with DR so I'm not sure of its worth. I think if you manage to get it at low levels (Dwarf Fighter 1 getting DR 2/- from Roll with it) it's a great asset. But what about higher levels when you're facing nastier foes who deal much more damage from a single blow? How much 'resources' (feats) would have to be spent in order for DR to remain 'great' instead of just 'OK'?

I'm planning a Dwarven Barbarian and I keep wondering if I should pursue DR or instead concentrate on AC, Hit points and Con.


With 20 Con and Toughness you're eligible for the epic feat Damage Reduction right out of the gate - pick up fighter levels and use the bonus feats to pick up more and more DR. By 20th level, a Great Red Wyrm's full attack action will deal exactly 0 points of damage to you without criticals.
Yes, DR can be worth it. :D

Big Mistake: Not opening your mind to others. The greatest power of this board is not Snow or Funny or JK or Sis or any of the other regulars. It's that they all interact with each other. They feed each other and learn from each other.

To min/max well is to min/max min/max'ing. Maximize good questions/comments; minimize useless comments.

(Qaetar)

Zug Zug.

"Actually you don't need the BAB and target AC (unless a threat isn't a hit on the target foe). It cancels out of the equation so that the chance of scoring a critical off a hit (and it's only hits we are worried about- all weapons miss equally with equivalent enhancements) is the same as that of scoring a threat off an attack."


Considering to Hit:

Average Damage Per Attack (Assuming Strength of 18, Longsword, Hit half the time):
((4.5 [LS avrg dmg] + 4 [str]) x 1.05 [crit prob + confirm]) x .5 [to hit] = 4.4625

With a flaming LS:
((4.5 [LS avrg dmg] + 4 [str]) x 1.05 [crit prob + confirm] + 3.5 [flame]) x .5 [to hit] = 6.2125

With a flaming burst LS:
((4.5 [LS avrg dmg] + 4 [str]) x 1.05 [crit prob + confirm] + 3.5 [flame] + .27 [avrg burst inc crit prob + confirm]) x .5 [to hit] = 6.3475

With a flaming shocking LS:
((4.5 [LS avrg dmg] + 4 [str]) x 1.05 [crit prob + confirm] + 3.5 [flame] + 3.5 [shock]) x .5 [to hit] = 7.9625

In the example above, the flaming burst LS does 6.3475 / 7.9625 = 79.7% of the damage of the flaming shocking LS.


Without considering to hit:
Average Damage Per Attack (Assuming Strength of 18, Longsword, Always hit):
((4.5 [LS avrg dmg] + 4 [str]) x 1.1 [crit prob]) = 9.35

With a flaming LS:
((4.5 [LS avrg dmg] + 4 [str]) x 1.1 [crit prob] + 3.5 [flame]) = 12.85

With a flaming burst LS:
((4.5 [LS avrg dmg] + 4 [str]) x 1.1 [crit prob] + 3.5 [flame] + .55[avrg burst inc crit prob]) = 13.4

With a flaming shocking LS:
((4.5 [LS avrg dmg] + 4 [str]) x 1.1 [crit prob] + 3.5 [flame] + 3.5 [shock]) = 16.35

In the example above, the flaming burst LS does 13.4 / 16.35 = 82.0% of the damage of the flaming shocking LS.

As shown, adding in the need to confirm threats does infact decrease the effectiveness of burst weapons.




Cheers

The only way for a burst enhancement to be more effective than just another +1d6 garunteed is to be a weapon master wielding a falchian with improved crit, Ki critical & improved multiplier. With these, you can get your threat range to 13-20/x3. Even then, you have to an 80% chance to confirm the critical.

I found a way that a burst weapon can be effective. Improved Critical, Ki Critical, improved multiplier, and 10 levels in the Disciple of Dispater PrC, book of Vile Darkness. Assuming the falchion you weild is made of metal, you get a 6-20 threat range. Now, I'm horrible at math, so someone do the figuring to A) make sure I'm right and B) figure the effectiveness. I honestly can't see why the DoD build is overlooked in all places I see powergaming brought up

With 20 Con and Toughness you're eligible for the epic feat Damage Reduction right out of the gate - pick up fighter levels and use the bonus feats to pick up more and more DR. By 20th level, a Great Red Wyrm's full attack action will deal exactly 0 points of damage to you without criticals.

Problem : The section on Epic feats explicitly states that Epic feats require that you are of level 20 or higher to take them.

Originally posted by Qaetar
Big Mistake: Not opening your mind to others. The greatest power of this board is not Snow or Funny or JK or Sis or any of the other regulars. It's that they all interact with each other. They feed each other and learn from each other. To min/max well is to min/max min/max'ing. Maximize good questions/comments; minimize useless comments.(Qaetar)

:tiphat: for putting me onto such an esteemed list, you could have added your name on it also, but I understand that putting ones own name anywhere except in signature is frowned upon ;)

Anyhow, I totally agree with you. I'd like to note though that of those mentioned Snow and JK do a lot more original work than I do. Funny does somewhat more also. What I do these days is mostly putting people in touch with what has been done before. My answers to many questions and problems are just short pointers to the direction of the already written material and when I help (especially the new people on the board) I try to give pretty simple and playable answers (I am not saying that Snow for example would generally give unplayable advice, but her suggestions certainly are not simple :cool: and might be a bit much for the newbies and their campaigns). My suggestions are often of the type: "Take that 6th level of wizard as it is +1 BAB & +1 to all the saves level" and "Level 5 is a bad cut-off level for a rogue because its a zero BAB level and you are building a melee character." And then I give a simple tried and trusted advice like rog3/swashb3/IB5 and perhaps also point the person the advice given on the matter earlier by Yekoj, Snow, Funny & Muck... assassin wannabe's I point to that great death attack monk of yours and ranger wannabes I point almost without exception to Snow Owl's creations. There is a lot of synergy in our work, especially when these pretty comphrehensive resources have been made lately (largely Funny Slaughter as the primus motor).

Anyhow, the class specific minmax mistakes are rarer now, when people have access to the various handbooks et cetera. There is a bit of stagnation when minmaxing is becoming an established science, I just hope I am not contributing too much towards that stagnation ;-/

Sisyfos

Originally posted by TaisharMalkier
Zug Zug.

"Actually you don't need the BAB and target AC (unless a threat isn't a hit on the target foe). It cancels out of the equation so that the chance of scoring a critical off a hit (and it's only hits we are worried about- all weapons miss equally with equivalent enhancements) is the same as that of scoring a threat off an attack."


Considering to Hit:

[SNIP]

In the example above, the flaming burst LS does 13.4 / 16.35 = 82.0% of the damage of the flaming shocking LS.

As shown, adding in the need to confirm threats does infact decrease the effectiveness of burst weapons.

Very nice. Pity your maths wasn't right. You don't put in a Crit probability and chance of confirming and then multiply it by your chance of hitting.

Greymarch: It depends on the situation. The bowman will do more damage if within 30 feet (and infinitely more if outside it), but will get severely mauled in Melee if he's not also an OoBI (or epic...). If he's got a nice meatshield preventing you reaching him, he'll be better off than the twfer.

Finally: Terulian: the elemental burst weapon is still worse off than a +2 weapon being used to power attack- remember you need to buy the elemental damage as well as the elemental burst damage (meaning that the +2 weapon does an average of 6 points of damage, all crittable whereas the elemental burst weapon does 3.5 points of uncrittable damage and 4.5 of crittable with no baseline)

ERROR: Forgoing magic defenses.

I see many combatants, who concentrate on damage, AC, spells DC and other offensive things, forgoing the magic defense altogether.
You should understand, that by 15+ levels having good saves is not enough. You MUST invest into magic defense as you invest in armor. The cloak is not enough you needs ring of counterspells (dispel), death wards, spell turning, etc. Without these items you will die in the first round.

Let me show you WoTC build, which illustrates this mistake.
This wizard will loose initiative and die in the first round to any Fort save or die spell. What a pathetic fortune for a great inventor of Black tentacles!

EVARD, Con 16 (Dungeon #107)
HD 15d4+45; hp 90; Init +1; Spd 30; AC 18, touch 14, flat-footed 17
BAB +8; Grpl +12; Atk +13 (1d4, unarmed strike)
AL NE; SV Fort +9, Ref +7, Will +10
Str 10, Dex 13, Con 16, Int 23, Wis 8, Cha 13

Contigency: Incapacinated -> magic jar.
Permanent spells: arcane sight, darkvision, greater magic fang +5, resistance, tongues

Skills: -
Feats: Augment summoning, Craft wand, Craft wondorous, Extend spell, Forge ring, Improved grapple, Improved unarmed strike, Scribe scroll, Skill focus (kn. arcana), Spell focus (conj.), Widen spell.
Languages: -

Spells prepared:
5/7/7/6/6/6/5/4/3
DC 16 + spell level, DC 17 + SL for conjuration.

0 -
1 - animate rope, comprehend, grease (2)*, identify, obscuring mist*, ray of enfeeblement;
2 - detect thoughts, glitterdust*, mage armor (extended, casted every day), Melf's arrow (2)*, rope trick, summon swarm*;
3 - fly, glitterdust (extended?)*, lightning bolt, phantom steed*, sleet storm*, stinking clowd*;
4 - D. anchor, Evard's black tentacles*, fire shield, polymorph, scrying, summon monster IV*;
5 - baleful polymorph, cloudkill*, dismissal, Evard's all-seeing worm*, Evard's black tentacles (extended)*, wall of force;
6 - acid fog*, chain lightning, lightning bolt (widened), summon monster VI*, wall of iron;
7 - banishment, Evard's black tentacles (widened)*, greater teleport*, summon monster VII*;
8 - horrid wilthing, Evard's black tentacles (extended and widened)*, maze*

* Conjuration spells

Evard's prohibited schools are enchantment and illusion.
Spellbook: Evard knows every spell in PHB (except enchantment and illusion spells), along with spells chosen by DM.

Posessions:
Ring of freedom of movement, ring of protection +3, ring of feather falling#, ring of swimming#, ring of mind shielding, ring of force shield#, ring of sustenance#.
Amulet of health +2, headband of intellect +4, slippers of spider climbing, wand of Evard's black tentacles (48 charges), wand of stinking cloud (13 charges), wand of web (22 charges), potion of cure moderate wounds (4), potion of fox cunning (4), diamond dust worth 4000 gp (for magic jar), ivory contingency statuette worth 2000 gp.

# The ring has no space limitations.

Trying to get back to the original thread,

I would have to say that the TWO biggest failings I see in players are failure to be versatile, and failure to cover thier weaknesses.

Examples "I am awesome! My ftr2/bbr2/rogue3 minotaur does as many HP as you have with every attack. More when flanking, mage buddy"

"Yes, but I have a will save. Funny, ain't it? (casts Tasha's)"

As a RPGA judge, over an over I see players unable to bypass DR, without a backup weapon, unable to cross a pit, swim, or deal with getting surprised in the middle of the night.

Cheers,
UMiskatonic

Originally posted by terulian
Problem : The section on Epic feats explicitly states that Epic feats require that you are of level 20 or higher to take them.

Make that level 21 or higher. Level 20 is still considered pre-epic.

The most common min/max mistake I see is not minimizing a character's weaknesses. It's easy to maximize without minimizing but both must be done. I think many Invisible Blade builds demonstrate this.

To min/max well is to min/max min/max'ing. Maximize good questions/comments; minimize useless comments.
Ha ha, that's funny

Personally, I prefer simple builds which utilize three classes (including PrC) or less. Favorites include Druid 20, Wizard 5/PrC 10/Archmage 5, Cleric 19/Contemplative 1 and Rogue 10/Ninja Spy 10. It's best to keep a build relatively simple as otherwise the recordkeeping can really become a headache for the novice player.

Also, be focussed! Some versatility is important, but if you dilute your focus too much you are in trouble. D&D is a game of specialists. Figure out what your character's role should be and do it well.

Remember the golden mantra for wizards, sorcerers, clerics and druids: do not give up caster levels.

Forgetting the party: Except for the rare few who play through solo adventures, a character's only useful if he actually works with the party. A min/max'd character of blatant utter evil won't work well in a LG party, for example. In a more mechanics-focused sense, a character needs to fill a useful role for the party - if he's merely duplicating someone else's abilities a little better without real need or performing a function that's never useful to the party, he's a worthless character.

Closely related is not understanding your role: When making a character, make sure he fits ALL parts of his role and not just one aspect.

Not comparing: It's great if you can optimize one way of doing something, but that gets much less fun when you realize there was a much easier, less expensive way to achieve the same end.

Understanding the limits of min-maxing.

Near as I can determine, a min-maxed character is only mechanically about 20% better than a boring old iconic. This ignores edge conditions based on poorly-written rules such as the hulking hurler (whose damage gets right back into reasonable range if you make the improvised weapon chart geometric instead of arithmetic, ie, if you leave its progression more like the earlier part of the chart).

Likewise there are power-attack calculators and such, that if you do the perfect thing with power attack vs a known AC with a known attack mod you get maybe another 20% better output.

But...if you didn't need 120%-140% more power to kill the bad guy this round, all that extra power is wasted.

And in the hands of an incompetent player, a character will perform poorly no matter what the build is.

A good player can take any character that isn't less than 80% as effective as a PHB iconic (Tordek, etc) and perform pretty well in any encounter up to about CR+3. A min-maxed character in their hands might go to CR+5 IF the min-max situation comes up.

There's also a dark side to min-maxing which is getting 20% better at one thing and being utterly incompetent at everything else (not just 80% competent).

It's one thing to take a character who always gets surprised (wisdom 8, no sensory skills or abilities, poor init mod).

It's another thing to have a weakness (wisdom 8, no sensory skills or abilities, but either enough AC/hp/saves to just be a sponge in the surprise round, or combat reflexes/contingencies/etc to participate in the battle even while surprised or even very high init mod so you act pretty soon even if surprised)

The latter char isn't a liability to the party in a surprise situation, he's just not at his best. The former might need to be rescued a lot.

Now if you have a terrible player, being 80% competent might not be good enough, as they won't use the abilities properly. You might need to give them a simple character with one strength and let them use it as a hammer.

But an experienced player often starts out with a min/max and then dilutes it to expand the roles the character can fill in a pinch. Yes my sorcereress has no trapfinding and her disable device is minimal, but between her spells and her skills she covers the trapfinding and social roles adequately, and can assist the expert if the party has one. (in one mod, she ran into another part-time rogue, who normally assists the "Real" rogue. Together they just barely picked a lock...)

So a "real" min-maxed character is more like this:

120% better at usually 2-3 common things
100% at most things that are expected of his archetype
80% at some unusual things, or weakness brought up to this level
1-2 Achilles heel's, sometimes roleplay related.