Min/Max Boards

The armor does work under partial quick release, if I'm thinking what you're thinking.  Going from Heavy to Medium is a standard action.  Heavy to light is a full round (standard + move).  Dropping the entire suit would take a bit over a full round, perhaps using the swift or immediate action too.  I guess it could be likened to a 1 round casting time, where it doesn't take effect until the start of the next round.  A problem with this approach is the difference between stripping to light and dropping the whole suit isn't much with these rules, unlike the difference between casting a full-round action spell and a spell with 1 round casting time.

Enhancements should be straightforward.  The easiest approach is having standard +1 and such enchantments work for the entire suit.  A +5 suit of sectioned armor should always be +5 regardless of it being treated as full plate or a chain shirt.

Enhancements that require a specific type of armor only work when it's being treated as that type.  For example, enchanting it with Mobility would mean it only works when it's stripped to light armor.  Mithral sectioned armor has two "settings" equivalent to light, so the Mobility enhancement would work with both.  An adamantine suit of sectioned armor would grant the appropriate DR based on whether the suit was light, medium, or heavy at the time.  Sectioned armor must be made of the same material throughout the suit: It can't be made of mithral for the first two layers then adamantine for the third, full plate equivalent layer.

Armor spikes might complicate things.  It's easy to see it working on the full plate and breastplate equivalents, but the chain shirt setting could be ruled not to work since it's technically underneath the breastplate and thus having it be spiked could cause problems.  Ruling that the chain shirt does have spikes, and that the breastplate has spikes that stack on those is a possibility, but it's more arguing semantics at this stage.  If it floats the DM's boat, having the suit with armor spikes might require it taking longer to don.  I personally wouldn't go that route since it complicates things with no real gameplay improvement, but that's me.

In this case, it's a simple numbers check. Your damage output vs average HP, determine if you can one round, two round, or > two round things. There are more particular elements that might stop you anyways, but if the character can't pass a simple numbers check there's no point in launching into in depth logistics. Running the simple numbers check first saves a lot of time, as you can probably imagine.

Moon: Because it is a simple numbers check, it doesn't matter. Average enemy HP is based on stock enemies. Being "low op" is not a free pass to make ineffective characters. If anything is "low op" it's the baselines that need to be met to pass the simple numbers check. Which means if the check is not passed, that doesn't make it a low op game. It makes it a game in which the party, or at least some members of it cannot survive and contribute on their own merits. They might ride on the coattails of the party, they might survive because the DM cheats for them, they might survive because they're not worth the effort to kill but they aren't helping.

In the case of using low-op builds, it's understood that the DM is willing to help make it effective through various means like using monsters more appropriate to the characters.  It is also understood that to get the most enjoyment of the game, everyone else in the party will be low-op too.  It's obvious a sword and board fighter won't be keeping up with the DMM: Persist cleric.  The whole thing gets toned down, which implies everyone participating knows and agrees that the game will play different.  Yes, the DM will likely change encounters because of that.  Is that "cheating" though? No. It's the DM playing the game too.

Who said all the characters have to survive by the way?  The fact that they can be killed through something besides rocket tag adds some zing to the adventure.  You'd probably disagree and say that if they can be killed that way then they aren't playing their best.  It's entirely the point in some games that the players aren't playing their best.  The players gauge what would be fitting for the game.  In my example I mentioned my character being a cleric in the party I joined.  You know what spell I cast most of the time? Spiritual Weapon.  I played a T4 cleric because the party was T4.  Hell, they named my SW "the butterknife" since my deity's favored weapon was a dagger. 

Low-op may be meaningless to you and the games you play, but your interpretation of it is not necessarily how others view it. It is not the only way of thinking.  Low-op games can be played by TO people because they've made the choice to use something that isn't as powerful.  The reasons for doing that might include trying something new and unconventional out, or having a fun character concept that isn't as effective as others but might be more interesting and entertaining.  I just found that an anthropomorphic cat can make for a great swashbuckler, for example.  D&D supports Puss in boots.

I know you mean well by saying that not using the best stuff is wasting their time and resources, but it is still their choice.  If you're not in the game, why are you getting worked up over it?  Speaking of choice, the DM can choose whether to use psionics, ToB, or anything else.  Does that choice mean he doesn't know how to handle them? Not always.  It might simply mean he just doesn't feel those things are fitting in the campaign.

Small party "meat shield?" Perhaps like the henchman? http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19871710/Chicken_Infested!_Basket_Weaving!_BAH!_Try_Henchman!


As far as the argument part of this thread goes, perhaps it's necessary to give an example.

A few months ago I joined a group that consisted of a fighter/kensai, a paladin, a barbarian, a beguiler/MotAO and someone with a wonky rogue/bard/barbarian build who later changed his main character to a cleric/wizard/mystic theurge.  We also had a weredog/samurai with us who later switched to a ranger.  Obviously the players aren't optimized.

But it didn't matter.  We'd take 5 rounds on encounters, and that was considered fairly short.  But we still had fun.  As a cleric I could have mopped the floor solo on many of the encounters, but I didn't because it would have detracted from the game.  The point of this is that just because there's the option for a monster or group of monsters to do something doesn't mean they'll do it. Just because the DM has the option to throw the biggest and baddest stuff at his players doesn't mean he'll do it even if he knows they can handle it.  Why? Because it's not a contest to be the most badass of badasses.  Characters and encounters don't need to be optimized to be fun or challenging.

The argument that creature X will destroy party Y in Z rounds unless they kill it in 2 rounds is total crap.  It's not a battle between the DM and the players:  It's about them working together to have a good time.  If having the war of wills is what's considered fun then the entire experience tends to degrade into people frantically trying to one-up each other.

In short, a character does not have to be the pinnacle of optimization to be effective or successful.  An enemy doesn't have to be the most awesome thing ever to be a worthy opponent.  Could a level 5 character take down a Great Wyrm dragon?  Yes. Could the same dragon kill the character in a single breath?  Yes.  Do these examples mean a damn thing in the grand scheme of things? No.

The actual topic of this thread is "optimizing less effective combat styles."  It is not "things that will kill you unless you can do X." It is not "this style is more effective than that one, thus that one is garbage."  Despite what some may perceive, the OP knows full well that less effective is less effective.  There is no need to point out the flaws in the style because they're already known to be flawed.  I believe a saying on relationships is pertinent here: "If you only settle for perfection, you'll never know what perfect truly is."

Quote from: Jackinthegreen on November 08, 2011, 05:04:57 PM

Psionics may fit a bit better for Jedi, but YMMV.  ToB has some things most definitely Jedi-like. Diamond Mind maneuvers seem like a good fit.

http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=12673.0 might provide you ith more Jedi information.

Fun to play eh?  Factotum might provide some memorable sessions.  If you're allowed the Dead Level abilities you might get good mileage from a Swashbuckler/Beguiler.  Dragon 310 through 312 have some great class variants to spice things up.  Monk and Fighter variants are in 310.

Factotum was actually a class I was looking at. Its like a super bard that doesn't share. Especially nice that I found its points refresh every encounter or something.. If it was just 10 points per day I'd be real sad

I wouldn't say Factotums are super Bards, but they both have a good sprinkle of "jack of all trades."

Since you have some interest in them, here's the Factotum handbook from the former BG. http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=2720.0

Psionics may fit a bit better for Jedi, but YMMV.  ToB has some things most definitely Jedi-like. Diamond Mind maneuvers seem like a good fit.

http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=12673.0 might provide you ith more Jedi information.

Fun to play eh?  Factotum might provide some memorable sessions.  If you're allowed the Dead Level abilities you might get good mileage from a Swashbuckler/Beguiler.  Dragon 310 through 312 have some great class variants to spice things up.  Monk and Fighter variants are in 310.

Sectioned Armor is a masterwork suit of Full Plate that can be stripped down partially into medium armor or fully into light armor. If anyone wants to look at its stats, check the 3.5 Planar Handbook. Because of the uniqueness of the armor, one has to think how exactly a character dons and removes it.  This is my effort to make a design that hopefully works and makes sense.  Any critiques are welcome and even encouraged!


Because Sectioned Armor must be masterwork quality to begin with and already costs twice as much as regular Full Plate, it seems reasonable that the sections can operate under the Quick Escape mechanism put forth in 3.0's Arms and Equipment guide. The wearer can use a standard action to spring a lock on the armor and immediately drop the full suit.

With Sectioned Armor, it doesn't seem much of a stretch to think each section could operate like that too, with some modifications. Dropping one section takes a standard action. Dropping two, however, should take a full-round action since the combination really ought to be a move+standard. Dropping the full rig would take a full round plus the wearer's swift action for his next turn.

Donning full Sectioned Armor, under the rules of Quick Escape, would take 8 minutes and require help for the full benefit. Because of how modular it is though, I'd wager a character proficient in the use of heavy armor could cut that down to 6 minutes, without help.  Each section would take two minutes. With help it would take three minutes to fully don, one minute per section. Essentially it takes 1.5x as long to don this particular piece of gear because of piecing it together.

Special note:  Sectioned Armor works a little differently when given the Called enhancement.  Because of the armor being modular, the character can don any number of sections as a Standard action.  If already wearing partial armor of the same suit, the character may Call extra pieces on as a Standard action, up to the maximum of three sections equaling Full Plate.  To drop the sections, one should consult the rules mentioned above or perhaps add a synergy to Called to make the armor or shield appear able to be dismissed and appear in a given bag or special location on the same plane.

The most balanced and likely conclusion with Empower is it affects only the variable(s) mentioned specifically in the spell/power.  There was also a Claws of the Beast discussion going on, and the interpretation eventually came to be that the claws themselves could be empowered, but since only the base damage is listed then nothing else during the attack is empowered (like a Strength bonus on damage).  Crits would function like normal with an extra dice roll as appropriate, but the claws would still get their 1.5 multiplier before adding on other things.

If the spell specifies 1d8 berries then I'd say it's pretty much the same as specifying 1d8 targets, which Empower would work on.

This reminds me of a discussion on Spiritual Weapon and Empowerment I got into.  My topic on the official WotC boards can be found here.

In short, the basis of the discussion is that Empower Spell has a specific example in the PHB that specifies the effect the feat has on Magic Missile.  The example states that MM benefits from it by doing (1d4 + 1) x 1.5 damage.  Notice how it specifically mentions the +1 in there, which would mean spells specifically written with d + X get the benefit of Empower to the full dice description.  Spiritual Weapon, to continue the example, would do (1d8 + 1/3 CL) x 1.5 damage per hit.

In the case of the berries, the damage would seem to follow in Spiritual Weapon's footsteps.

Sun, I am disappoint.

In all seriousness, welcome back!