The Traps Beginners should be warned of

[ImperatorK]

Is this fighter also thri keen or powerful build.  That is some baggage to be carring around.

Is this a question or a statement?

[InnaBinder]

Is this fighter also thri keen or powerful build.  That is some baggage to be carring around.

Is this a question or a statement?

At a guess, the first (re: thrikreen/powerful build) is a question.  The second is a statement.

[ImperatorK]

Then what Fighter is he talking about and why thri-kreen/powerful build?

[Zionpopsickle]

On bad feats: I don't think that just because something's bad it's a trap.  This is more of a definition issue, but I don't think that something should be considered a trap just because they are very bad.  It should be something that, in a campaign designed for that power level, do not work well.

Same thing with spells.  Fireball, not a trap, just bad.

Yah, it seems we are at a definitional disagreement.  I would argue that bad feats are traps because they are worth less than the cost of what you invested into them and thus make the character inherently worse than if they had taken a more functional option.  As such I would not say that a prerequisite feat is a trap since even though it may not be worth the initial investment it is furthering the functional goals of the character in question.  The trap feats are those that had the character basically pointed at a random feat on the page there is a decent chance that it would be better than what he had chosen.  Which does make trap feats a very small minority of all feats because most feats are prerequisites of something else or do give a legitimate (if sometimes statistically insignificant) mechanical boost to character abilities.  Of the top of my head the only feats I can think of are toughness and the +2/+2 skill feats because both have such woefully small improvements to the character compared to how valuable a feat is that taking them instead of something as bad as Improved Bull Rush is clearly a poor choice.  Primarily for the +2/+2 is the fact that said bonuses can be gained for pocket change compared to how much a feat is worth if converted into the metric of gold cost.

[InnaBinder]

Then what Fighter is he talking about and why thri-kreen/powerful build?

There's a large amount of equipment presumed with the build in question.  Powerful build would help in carrying it around (see his note about baggage).  Thri-kreen would as well, while simultaneously allowing benefits of two-handing multiple weapons (assuming the right feats and splats are available and chosen).

[RetroGamer24]

It was also sarcasm.

[Zionpopsickle]

To expand upon this and talk about the game in a much more theoretical standpoint I think most "traps" can be defined by two primary failures: inappropriate cost/benefit analysis and inappropriate scope of time examination.

The first is where we find such traps as the iconic sword and boarder and most trap feats.  These are probably the most simple to spot because they have objective mathematical deficiencies that can be readily calculated from the primary sources.  A comparison of AC vs. WBL vs. Monster AB is all that is necessary to notice sword and board is troublesome although the nail in the coffin is presented by the second failure as will be shown.

The second failure is the one that is far more difficult to spot because it is very difficult to properly define what the appropriate time scale is in a specific situation except for via observation from outside the situation.  This is what can make a feat like weapon focus seem 'trappy' because while weapon focus does present a clear mechanical benefit at lower levels (especially in the way that is introduces asymmetries into PA) over the course of numerous levels (which we are assuming a multi-level campaign for this point) it begins to flounder when compared to the disproportionate NA increase for monster.  Inappropriate choice of time scale is also a failure for sword and board because while sword and board does increase round survivability, an examination at the level of discreetness of rounds is not appropriate for combat.  Combat should be examined on a time scale of turns or encounters depended upon the effect and upon such times scales we see that while sword and board does increase round survivability, turn and encounter survivability can be increased further by killing the enemy faster (via two-handing or two-weapon+precision).  In effect, while sword and board may make you take one less hit per attack, other methods make you take less attacks in general which works out to a mildly paradoxical increase in survival despite a lower survivability on small discreet time scales.

This time scale failure is also the reasoning that blasting is suboptimal when compared with battlefield control and debilitation because while blasting is clearly advantages at the round by round time scale over the turn and encounter time scales its instantaneous nature becomes a drawback and spells with sustained effects result in increased survivability and overall victory allowance.

The thing about this kind of analysis is that it is not something that we can expect from beginners.  It requires the ability to examine the game both on a very fine and nuanced scale where tiny details become incredibly important and also to examine the game on a very large and generalized scale were details become lost in bigger structural concerns.  I can do this because I have played dozens of games competitively for over a decade and thus have a breadth of knowledge of how fundamental mechanical interactions work on a variety of scales.  Beginners probably will not be able to say the same.

The biggest concern in a thread like this must be the way that we translate these fundamental theoretical aspects of the game into a language that both allows the beginner to see the superiority of the suggested option from readily available axioms and premises and also shows the logic used to reach it so that this logic can be applied elsewhere and thus increase the beginners system mastery.

Rote memorization is by far the worse way to do this because it can be easily derailed by a vindictive DM who like it or not has a large amount of subjective influence over the game.  Instead the 'traps' must be presented in a way that generalizes to most rationally allowable game states and allows the beginner to use the imparted knowledge to make good decisions.

[veekie]

Indeed, though some general principles often remain applicable across tables and game types. D&D, is strongly offense slanted, so efficiency of any non-permanent resources(like wealth to some extent, health and spell slots, but not actions, unless in combat) is secondary by far to peak output, so long as you don't run out entirely.

Time value is another, variable matter. If you're in a level 1-5 game sure weapon focus can be entirely worthwhile(assuming you didn't need the slot for something specific). A trap at low levels is not necessarily one at high, and vice versa.

You can for example, make use of the random sample test to identify what options are baseline terrible(before synergistic effects or multiplier investments, which take more experience to learn), simply by examining a random sampling of the options available for the same cost, and contrasting benefits. Effects involving synergy should be measured by aggregating the combined cost before comparisons. Skills here actually do fairly well, their costs are generally low, and their benefits are persistent, which is priceless for passive abilities and abilities for which the need cannot be easily anticipated. Stealth, Sense Motive, Knowledge and Perception are example of these, since you require them over an extended period(making magical options rather impractical to set up over the early to mid game, while magic foils magic at late game) or use them against unanticipated situations

[TSS]

Useful posts... Nope, not seeing any. So let's fix that.

Sword and board is a trap because it is inferior both offensively and defensively at all levels of play, meaning that you lose a great deal of offense for no gain at all and a net loss... even on the thing it is supposed to help with.

The only means of using a shield are if you are a spellcaster or are using an Animated shield. In any other instance you are only screwing yourself.

[RetroGamer24]

Personal experience post here.

Not a game I am in but what a friend of mine has told me.  He is playing a cleric (I think) and is going sword and board. He could be a fighter.  I told him to drop the shield and use both hands on his axe.  He didn't for a long time.  When he did the encounter went fast due to more damage output.  They were around 1-6 in level so nothing super big. 

[TSS]

Since no one figured out the answer here it is.

At level 1 enemies average 13 HP. A 2 handed weapon user does 2d6+6, average 13 which takes out those enemies in one hit. A 1 handed weapon user does 1d8+4, a maximum of 12 damage. He never takes enemies out in one hit and occasionally doesn't take them out in 2. All he gets in exchange is +2 AC... which since enemies are living at least twice as long doesn't actually help and actually causes him to take more damage over the course of a fight than the guy who can kill them faster.

At any later level sword and board does even worse. At any point at which you are encountering anything other than attacks targeting AC sword and board does even worse. Those are ideal conditions and it's still terrible.

[Keldar]

Way to be condescending about what people already stated.  You truly have a winning personality.

[RetroGamer24]

Not that he needs it but TSS gave a firm example of why S&B doesn't work.  With numbers and such.  Others also gave good examples.  I knew about S&B from brilliantgameologists but, after some editing, the example show to a new person why S&B is a trap.

[snakeman830]

Not that he needs it but TSS gave a firm example of why S&B doesn't work.  With numbers and such.  Others also gave good examples.  I knew about S&B from brilliantgameologists but, after some editing, the example show to a new person why S&B is a trap.

This was a good example.

It's also the first actual example I have seen him post anywhere.

At least at low levels, Sword and Broad can function.  Yes, you are a bit more unlikely to one-shot enemies (I notice he forgot to mention that all melee's apparently have 18 STR and the ability to devote more than half their wealth on the weapon at level 1), but you are also 10% more likely to avoid any incoming attack, which drastically increases your survivability.  You have to consider that at level 1, AC drastically outstrips to-hit.

Consider a basic AC of 14 (base 10, +2 Dex, +2 leather armor).  This is easily expect-able at level 1.  Average to-hit, however, is somewhere around +3, meaning they have a 50% chance of actually hitting you with any given attack.

Add in a heavy shield and they now need a 13 or higher to attack.  It's 10% fewer attacks that hit, but the enemy's chances of hitting dropped by 20% (8/20 instead of 10/20), so each individual enemy deals 20% less damage on average.

Is shield & board optimal at any level?  Hell no!  That said, it's not a complete waste at early levels.  Only the earliest, though.

[Kajhera]

Not that he needs it but TSS gave a firm example of why S&B doesn't work.  With numbers and such.  Others also gave good examples.  I knew about S&B from brilliantgameologists but, after some editing, the example show to a new person why S&B is a trap.

This was a good example.

It's also the first actual example I have seen him post anywhere.

At least at low levels, Sword and Broad can function.  Yes, you are a bit more unlikely to one-shot enemies (I notice he forgot to mention that all melee's apparently have 18 STR and the ability to devote more than half their wealth on the weapon at level 1), but you are also 10% more likely to avoid any incoming attack, which drastically increases your survivability.  You have to consider that at level 1, AC drastically outstrips to-hit.

Consider a basic AC of 14 (base 10, +2 Dex, +2 leather armor).  This is easily expect-able at level 1.  Average to-hit, however, is somewhere around +3, meaning they have a 50% chance of actually hitting you with any given attack.

Add in a heavy shield and they now need a 13 or higher to attack.  It's 10% fewer attacks that hit, but the enemy's chances of hitting dropped by 20% (8/20 instead of 10/20), so each individual enemy deals 20% less damage on average.

Is shield & board optimal at any level?  Hell no!  That said, it's not a complete waste at early levels.  Only the earliest, though.

The enemy now hits you with 40% of their attacks rather than 50% of their attacks. If the difference in damage output makes the difference between the enemy still being up and the enemy being down, then they will have 2 attacks rather than 1. The chance of not hitting with either attack is 6/10 * 6/10 = 36% of the time, improving their chance of hitting at least once to 64%, from the previous circumstance of 50%. They have an additional 16% chance of hitting twice.

[veekie]

Is shield & board optimal at any level?  Hell no!  That said, it's not a complete waste at early levels.  Only the earliest, though.

First four I think, especially when you steadily get the wealth to do things like get plate armor on top of the heavy shield. After though, you'd be better off using just plain shield fighter, with the shield in play not for defensive benefits(at least, not mainly) but for offensive special qualities.

[TSS]

I've posted plenty of examples. They were ignored. I've also pointed out plenty of things without explicitly spelling them out. They were also ignored.

Even here he's ignoring things.

TSS: At level 1 enemies average 13 HP. A 2 handed weapon user does 2d6+6, average 13 which takes out those enemies in one hit. A 1 handed weapon user does 1d8+4, a maximum of 12 damage. He never takes enemies out in one hit and occasionally doesn't take them out in 2. All he gets in exchange is +2 AC... which since enemies are living at least twice as long doesn't actually help and actually causes him to take more damage over the course of a fight than the guy who can kill them faster.
Snake: At least at low levels, Sword and Broad can function.  Yes, you are a bit more unlikely to one-shot enemies (I notice he forgot to mention that all melee's apparently have 18 STR and the ability to devote more than half their wealth on the weapon at level 1), but you are also 10% more likely to avoid any incoming attack, which drastically increases your survivability.  You have to consider that at level 1, AC drastically outstrips to-hit.

That said, enemies have at least 4 or 5 to hit at this level without doing anything special, not 3. The target will also have a bit better AC so it comes out to the same result in the end. In both cases the sword and board character both does less damage and takes more damage.

At this level the character will die in 1 hit, 2 at the most. The one giving enemies at least two chances to attack them is much more likely to die than the one that can take them out in one hit.

As for 18 Str, why wouldn't you, at the minimum? You could have 22 or even higher so going below 18 is itself a trap. It also makes sword and board even worse.

If you look at any level higher than 1 enemies have more HP, the sword and board guy is not doing that much more damage and the two handed weapon user is doing a lot more damage. AC is even less meaningful.

[lans]

Since no one figured out the answer here it is.

At level 1 enemies average 13 HP. A 2 handed weapon user does 2d6+6, average 13 which takes out those enemies in one hit. A 1 handed weapon user does 1d8+4, a maximum of 12 damage. He never takes enemies out in one hit and occasionally doesn't take them out in 2. All he gets in exchange is +2 AC... which since enemies are living at least twice as long doesn't actually help and actually causes him to take more damage over the course of a fight than the guy who can kill them faster.

At any later level sword and board does even worse. At any point at which you are encountering anything other than attacks targeting AC sword and board does even worse. Those are ideal conditions and it's still terrible.

You are assuming the character has no abilities that are relevant to this. An azurin evil incarnate could be dealing d8+9 vs 2d6+11. Or he could drop the shield after the first round of combat and be dealing 2.5 pts less. Warblades  can use punishing stance and wolf fang strike to attack for  3d6+d8+6 vs 4d6+d3+6/8 with a greatsword, these are well into the killing average foe range.

And if your going to be using a THW your going to be using a reach weapon.

[InnaBinder]

If "traps" are going to be so broadly defined as to include "any stat generation method or array that doesn't give an 18 for the primary attribute," we've officially hit the point where the thread's not doing newbies any real service.

[Unbeliever]

If "traps" are going to be so broadly defined as to include "any stat generation method or array that doesn't give an 18 for the primary attribute," we've officially hit the point where the thread's not doing newbies any real service.

This occurred to me as well.  It is, I think, a useful illustration of something that some of us have pointed out a number of times in this thread and ones like it.