Telak vs. Zantar

Having now reached 12th level, there are obvious differences between Telak and Zantar. In combat, they seem to be equally effective. However, I think it would be interesting to look at the outcome in a one-on-one battle. Ideally, Telak should win quite handily, as the single-class Fighter should be the best combatant in the game. However, will this actually be the case?

Basic Attacks

Normally, Telak has an armour class of 28 (Full plate +3, Heavy shield +1, Amulet +2, Ring +2). He has three attacks, at +22/+17/+12, and does 1d8+12 damage per hit (+2d6 vs Evil). He crits on a 17+, for double damage. Telak has 122 hit points.

Zantar has an armour class of 27 (Breastplate +2, Heavy shield +2, Dex +2, Amulet +2, Ring +2). He has three attacks, at +20/+15/+10, and does 1d10+1d6+6 damage per hit. He crits on a 20, for triple damage. Zantar has 135 hit points.

This means that Telak does an average of 32.67 points of damage per round (Zantar isn't evil). Zantar, by contrast, does 18.48 points of damage per round. Therefore, Telak kills Zantar in 5 rounds. Zantar kills Telak in 7 rounds. So far, so good. (Note that if Zantar were evil, the battle becomes even more one-sided, with Telak killing Zantar in 3 rounds.)

Rage

Ah, but what if Zantar rages? Well, in this case, his armour class drops to 25, his attacks change to +23/+18/+13, damage to 1d10+1d6+9, and his hit points increase to 171. Since rage lasts 8 rounds, and the fight will be over in less than this, we don't need to worry about the consequences of it ending.

In this case, Telak now does 38.61 damage per round, killing Zantar in 5 rounds (54.99, or 4 rounds, if Zantar is evil). Zantar does 30.855 damage per round, killing Telak in 4 rounds.

Other Tactics

Of course, Zantar has now used his best weapon, so it's hardly surprising that this swings the fight. He can now add Power Attack, and switch to a two-handed axe grip, but otherwise, that's it. Telak's primary options at this point are much the same, but he can also use Combat Expertise if desired. If this can drag the fight out to more than 8 rounds, he's almost guaranteed to win.

Switching to a two-handed grip reduces Telak's AC to 25. His damage increases to 1d8+15 (+2d6). By contrast, Zantar's AC drops to 21 (in rage), and his damage increases to 1d10+1d6+12. Telak now hits on a 2!

Of course, you don't switch to a two-handed grip without also using Power Attack, for some serious damage benefits. A quick (okay, slow) analysis indicates that the optimum Power Attack value for Telak is 3, and for Zantar is 4. In this case, Telak does 55.08 damage per round, ending the fight in 4 rounds. Zantar does 55.44 damage per round, ending the fight in 3 rounds.

The other option is for Telak to fight fully defensively, increasing his armour class to 33. In this case, Telak reduces to 29.7 damage per round (and shouldn't use any Power Attack). Zantar drops to a mere 13.2 damage per round (and also shouldn't use Power Attack). In this case, Telak needs 6 rounds to kill Zantar, while Zantar needs 10 rounds to kill Telak (and since he must kill him in 8 rounds, or be effectively dead, he's stuck).

Of course, Zantar's best response to Telak going full defensive is to resume shield use, which changes things again. In this case, Telak drops to 17.82 hit points per round, while Zantar sits at 11.22. Telak now wins at the end of the 8th round, when Zantar comes out of rage, and drops dead.

Conclusion

None of this amounts to anything, except in this: the system mostly works. Telak vs. Zantar is a very intriguing match-up, and the results are almost exactly what would be expected. Since the Fighter is basically just a combatant, while the Barbarian has other advantages, you would expect the Fighter to come out on top. However, it's a very close thing, and could go either way. All of which is good - it requires the players involved to think, and not just rely on "I'll attack him again" as the limit of their tactical thinking.

Of course, I didn't take into account time taken switching weapons and stances. Neither character has Quick Draw, so switching from weapon-and-shield to two-handed takes time. Likewise, once a character has shed his shield, he effectivelly cannot get it back for the duration of the combat. So, if Telak can dupe Zantar into going two-handed, and then switch to full-defence himself...

Edit: Damnit! I forgot to include the Barbarian's damage reduction! Fortunately, I don't think it makes a huge difference to the results - Telak is probably better using Power Attack 4 instead of 3, but is still even better to use full Expertise anyway. The couter-balance to this is that Telak is not optimised to fight a non-Evil Zantar. Against Evil Zantar, the DR 2/- is more than countered with those extra +2d6 damage.

Good One, Wizards...

Okay, so I've weakened, and purchased a set of the "Complete..." books for D&D. I've been reading through these books over the past week or so, marvelling at the over-abundance of prestige classes, wincing at the over-powered nature of some of the spells and effects, and generally being quite surprised at the fact that they're a lot less unbalanced than I'd expected. Actually, they're pretty decent, for the most part. (But no, Roger, you can't use them in my game :-)

However, the following passage caused me to collapse to the floor, my eyes burning:

For "Complete Arcane", p.173: Your [The Dm's] own sense of how the magic of the campaign works should never be forced on player characters, for while many players will naturally want to create characters who fit well in the worlkd of the campaign, any character a player imagines is by its very nature exceptional. Players have the privilege of creating unique and hard-to-explain characters. For example, if the human Telziijka tribesfolk are the only known warlocks in your campaign, and a player wants to play a dwarf warlock, you and the player should be able to come up with a means to accomodate that desire...

So now every player in a D&D game can introduce any character they want into the setting, regardless of how it might fit with the DM's carefully crafted campaign (world and adventures). And if the DM questions it, the player can now show the DM this passage, and state that "it's the rules".

Thanks a bundle, Wizards.

For the record, my take on this matter (and it's something I've stated before) is this: the DM can place whatever restrictions on character creation he wants. A player who doesn't like it has three choices: (1) Just accept it and move on, (2) try to persuade the DM otherwise, or (3) choose to play something else.

To me, the notion that a player has the right to introduce a Half-dragon Ninja/Warlock into any game of the appropriate level, and that the DM just has to put up with it, is laughable.

Or am I just being silly?

Adventure Support

We're in the endgame of the Shackled City adventure path from Dungeon magazine, which means we're now in the process of looking at games for the future. (Hard to believe that we've been playing that campaign for eight months now - since the start of August. It doesn't seem that long.)

The group are more-or-less united in a desire to play something other than D&D for a change. Sadly, though, there's no real inspiration as to what we do want to play. So, looking at the options, we came up with a list of available systems.

Unfortunately, from my own point of view, there are only two systems I currently know well enough to run, being d20 and Storyteller. And I'm not really keen to expand this list at this stage - I don't have a great deal of free time, and there aren't any games out there currently that say to me, "You must run this!"

There is another unfortunate problem, though, also caused by a lack of time. In addition to working full-time (when I am working), I'm busy running two pipe bands and the local BB. Granted, none of these are solo efforts, but they do demand a lot of my time. This, in turn, limits my ability to develop adventures for a game.

The biggest problem that I have, when it comes to running games, is a lack of quality published adventures. This applies to every system except (fairly vanilla) D&D. Even d20 variants, or even a heavily house-ruled D&D would suffer from this weakness. In most cases, systems just don't have published adventures, or have a very small number of vildly variable quality.

Now, it's probably important to point out that the published adventures for D&D are also of variable quality. However, with the sheer number of them that there are (between Dungeon magazine, the Wizards website, and the d20 publishers), you can usually avoid the dross and use only the best ones.

It's funny - I never used to use published adventures at all, and didn't use published worlds either. Now I find that the one is almost indispensible, and Eberron is starting to look mighty inviting as well...

Feeblemind

Truly a vicious spell. Sadly, it is removed with a Heal spell, which means it's likely to take out the party wizard for only a single round.

Vampires and Gaseous Form

It's always fun when trying to handle half-remembered rules in the game, especially when in the context of an extremely complex high-level combat. Basically, there were a few calls made regardiong the vampire in the last combat on Saturday that weren't quite right:

1) The Turn Undead attempt against the vampire should, indeed, have failed. The creature's hit dice were too high to be affected. Oh, and the wraith was specifically immune to turning/destruction due to a class ability.

2) The last attack against the vampire, the one that reduced her to 1 hit point, should actually have reduced her to 0 hit points, and forced her to take gaseous form immediately. Since her next action was to do just that, there was no harm done.

3) Once in gaseous form, the vampire is specifically immune to any further damage (although, I suppose, she could have been destroyed by a greater turning or similar effect). However, the vampire also has a mere 2 hours to reach her coffin, or else is destroyed. This reflects the classic ability of the vampire - they must always be hunted down and destroyed in their own domains.

So although it might have seemed like I was twisting the rules into knots to protect that character, I wasn't quite doing so. I just wasn't applying the rules quite correctly.

Spell in a can

The fly spell can only be cast by Wizards or Sorcerers (or Clerics with the Travel domain, but how many of those do you know?). It's also a 3rd level spell, which means your Wizard would have to sacrifice one of his daily fireballs to prepare it, or your Sorcerer would have to choose it as one of only 4 3rd-level spells he can ever learn. (Of course, your Cleric would be limited to casting it once per day, or memorising it as a higher-level domain spell). There is also the Air Walk spell, which is Cleric/Druid level 4. However, that's one less Cure Critical Wounds for the day.

Winged boots cost 16,000 gold pieces. Other means of magical flight are similarly expensive. And the availability of cohorts and mounts that can fly is fairly low in most games.

Given that a huge portion of the effectiveness of the average Fighter relies on his ability to get up close to the enemy, if that enemy can fly, the Fighter really needs that ability also. Suddenly, that potion of fly starts to look really useful, doesn't it? Of course, at 750 gp for a mere 5 minutes of flight, it's quite pricey, but most groups should probably invest in one or two. (Not that you're about to be facing flying creatures, of course...)

Likewise, spells like Resist Energy and Protection from Energy are very useful, but they are also in short supply. The former is 2rd level for most casters, while the latter is 3nd. Again, potions of these spells are available, and should be considered.

It's funny - the current group don't tend to use disposable magical items, except for healing devices. Which is fair enough - disposable items are a drain on resources that are quite limited, and in the long run permanent items are a better investment. However, there are big boons to be found in the careful use of such items.

Also, it's worth noting that potions of healing are probably a waste of funds at this point. Using such a potion requires giving up on a round of attacks to regain, at best, 3d8+5 hit points. Far better to rely on the Cleric for emergency healing, and using wands for healing the group between combats.

Sundering Items

Two small tidbits I came across recently:

1) From the DMG: "An attacker cannot damage a magic weapon that has an enhancement bonus unless his own weapon has at least as high an enhancement bonus as the weapon or shield struck."

Rather an important detail, really, and should have been included amongst the sunder rules in the PHB. Better still, should have been listed in both places.

2) From the PHB this time: "You don't use an opposed attack roll to damage a carried or worn object. Instead, just make an attack roll against the object's AC. A carried or worn object's AC is equal to 10 + its size modifier + the Dexterity modifier of the carrying or wearing character. Attacking a carried or worn object provokes an attack of opportunity just as attacking a held object does... You can't sunder armour worn by another character."

So, it is entirely possible to sunder an Amulet of Natural Armour, a Ring of Protection, a Dusty Rose Ioun Stone, or even a magical shield. The requisite info is as follows:

Amulet of Nat Armour: AC 14+Dex mod (Diminutive object), Hardness 10?, HP 5?

Ring of Protection: AC 18+Dex mod, Hardness 10, HP 2 (per DMG!). I recommend that you require a character's Gauntlets (if any) be sundered before attacking the ring. I would also suggest that non-magical gloves not provide this same protection, but that magical gloves should.

Edit: The original version of this post said 13. I failed to take into account that the DMG value assumes the item was unattended, and so had an effective Dex of 0 (a -5 penalty).

Dusty Rose Ioun Stone: AC 24, Hardness 10, HP 5. A character's Dex mod does not apply to this item's AC; it is neither carried nor worn.

Shield: Sundering a shield requires an opposed attack roll, and a weapon of at least equal enhancement bonus. Hardness and hit points are given in the PHB.

Munchkin Armour Class

Following recent discussions with Roger, here's the build to optimise armour class. Some notes:

1) This assumes core rules only, using PHB races only, and only counting permanent bonuses. Higher values can be gained with feats and spells, but they are temporary, and so I haven't counted them.

2) The very best AC in the game can be achieved by a munchkin halfling Monk with 36 Dex and 29 Wis. However, a far more likely build is a Human Fighter with a base Dex of 13. He can reach a total of AC 46.

3) This assumes the highest armour class possible is the desired outcome. The character may well prefer to use a heavy shield instead of a tower shield, to avoid a -2 penalty to attack rolls. In this case, a mithral shield is not required.

4) There are two points at which this character must change armour: from scale to full plate, and from mull plate to mithral. The timing of these changes is tricky, since the character loses a lot of money in the change. Clearly, he should change to full plate at the earliest possible opportunity, but the change to mithral is more difficult to time. It looks like this should be done last, but only because of the sheer expense involved. Alternatively, a forward-thinking character might well prefer to make the change as soon as possible, changing the sequence below dramatically.

5) Likewise, the character needs to change to a mithral tower shield at some point. However, this should be done as soon as possible, as the cost difference is not so dramatic in this case.

6) The last two points are gained with Dex bonus. As this requires the use of mithral armour, the character can save a lot of money be ignoring this option.

7) This assumes that the character's armour and shield are for protection only. Adding other special abilities with a +1 or greater equivalent cost will vastly change the optimisations, as the costs of further upgrades change.

There are six ways to improve the character's armour class (unless I've missed something): Armour, Shield, Ring of Protection, Amulet of Natural Armour, an appropriate Ioun stone, and Gloves of Dexterity. Of these, an armour bonus is preferable to a shield bonus, since the character may elect to use a two-handed weapon at times, and so lose the shield bonus, and a ring is considered preferable to an amulet, as it applies to all AC types, and not only to the base and flat-footed AC.

The order of changes is as follows:

1) Start with Scale armour and tower shield. This is average for a 1st level fighter.
2) Switch to masterwork full plate.
3) Enchant full plate to +1
4) Add Ring of Protection +1 and Amulet +1
5) Switch to Mithral shield +1
6) Enchant armour and shield to +2 each
7) Add Ioun stone
8) Boost armour and shield to +3 each
9) Boost ring and amulet to +2 each
10) Boost armour and shield to +4 and then +5 each
11) Boost ring and amulet to +4 and then +5 each
12) Switch to mithral full plate +5 and add Gloves of Dexterity +2
13) Boost Gloves of Dexterity to +4

And there you have it. As far as I can tell, that's the most cost effective way to boost AC to obscenely high levels. To be honest, I think a character who's hell-bent on getting to the top AC should probably accept a lower AC for a while to get the mithral full plate earlier, but that's a judgement call.

But then, I also think a character would probably be better missing the top four points of AC entirely, forgetting the mithral armour and shield, not getting gloves of dexterity, and using a heavy shield rather than a tower shield. I would have though an AC of 42 was respectable.

Save or Die!

There are some weapons that the DM has at his disposal that I'm not terribly fond of using. These include night attacks, gear-destroying attacks, energy drain, and save or die spells. So, I'm not terribly fond of the idea of firing off a Destruction spell and requiring the party rogue to make a Fortitude save at DC 22, or be destroyed forever.

That's not to say I won't use such attacks.

The truth is that all of the above are valid parts of the game system. Night attacks can and do happen, and should be permitted. Some creatures can and do damage the equipment of their foes, or have the dreaded energy drain ability. And extremely powerful magic should be something to fear. Not including these elements does the game a disservice, and does the players a disservice as well (because if you remove these elements, shouldn't you also remove PC death at all, or perhaps injury, or... The point being that a lot of the excitement of the game comes from knowing that bad things can happen.)

However, it is important to note that I will not make extensive use of any of the above attacks on PCs. I won't throw endless ambushes by energy draining creatures at night at PCs, nor take every opportunity to destroy their equipment. I will use these attacks, but will use them sparingly. Oh, and I'll let the PCs cut loose with their powerful abilities, as well.

Of course, it would be nice to assume that the same holds true in reverse - if the PCs discover a particular combination of abilities that becomes unbeatable, I would like to see them use it perhaps twice before moving on. There's not a lot of fun to be had if every opponent is defeated in one round by the tactical nuke feat.

Not that that's a problem I've had lately.