Why hate optimization?

[ottdmk]

I don't exactly hate optimization, but there are parts of it I don't really like.

I'm a "small o" optimizer. When I pick a character concept I try to make it work as best I can. What I don't like about what I call "Capital-O" Optimizers is the tendency to tell people "you're doing it wrong."

In my current 3.5 group, average CL 10, we have two Fighters. Bog-standard, no ACFs, no prestige classes. The first advice any Optimizer would give them, in my experience, is "play something else." And I know the problems with Fighters, and I know that from an effectiveness standpoint, it's hard to argue that. Especially as neither one is playing any of the usual Optimized Fighter builds (Tripper, UberCharger, etc.)

The thing is though... both players are having fun. They always feel like they contribute. I've helped one of them advance his character, mostly suggesting Feats that seem to go with what he's aiming for. (He has an unusually speedy Dwarf who likes to charge, but isn't an UberCharger.) I wouldn't dream though of telling him that he picked the wrong class.

I just find there's too much of a tendency to tell someone "don't bother" when they say they're interested in playing something. I'd rather help them make the best example of that something they can, as long as it fits with what they're interested in doing with it.

Of course, I have a slightly skewed worldview. If you look at my .sig I wrote a handbook for those who'd like to play a Soulborn for fun.

[Darth Ultron]

But people seeking some Practical Optimization shouldn't be villainized because they enjoy playing the Character Creation Minigame and are good at getting the best bang for their buck on it. Most PO builds are quite commonly acceptable to your "Normal" games. That is to say, you wouldn't be able to distinguish them from any of your "Non-optimizer" players, because these people are just making prudent choices about their character's mechanical construction.

And it doesn't mean they are stuck in Roll play so much they can't Role play. Being good at the Character Creation Minigame doesn't in any way affect a player's skill at taking any character they are handed and staying flawlessly in character, even when it means making decisions detrimental to optimal success ratio.

I guess you can say there are ways of optimization, but they are still all the same basically.

Yes there are a couple of good people that optimize and you can call them optimizers if you feel you need to lump them with the rest. And it's the rest I'm talking about: the monstrous selfish jerks that just want to stroke their own ego and delusions and ruin the game for everyone else....and worse of all they try to hide that behind the innocent idea that they are just making a competent character, while they secretly just want to ruin the game for everyone.

It's true being good at mingames don't not effect a players skills. An optimizer does not role play as they are simply that type of person.

I see you're not just bad at what "optimization" means, you're also bad at math. The problem is not just that sword-and-board does less damage than two-hander, it's that the exchange rate of AC for damage is highly unfavorable.

Unfavorable for you and in your option.

I could look up the math, but I'll ask a pointless question instead: For a Fighter who is having difficulty hitting a Ogre, do you think his chances of hitting a DC 20 (Ogre roll 10, +10 for situation--bluff during combat) Bluff check are better?

Guess I'd need to check your random numbers. Though the main point is every battle or fight does not just need to be ''roll attack and roll damage, repeat."

Achilles and the men of the Light Brigade and Pickett's Division and most of World War I on the Western Front would disagree.

Well, your mixing real life and a game again.

Which has very little to do with anything in the mechanics. Again you're confusing "reasonably competent at a class' presumed job at their level" with "always winning everything everywhere."

As several optimizers in this thread have said, just scroll back and look.

It's more so for a simple reason: It's harder to fix than healing HP. Hell, repairing a significantly powerful magic item is more difficult than raising the dead, and replacing it outright can be more expensive.

This is yet another way to tell a Bad Player or an Optimizer: they only want things to happen to thier character that don't matter.

This is why they like hit point damage: the game makes it easy to fix that. Like most video games. Take like 100 damage..eh, does not matter, just get 100 healing.

And this is a perfect way to ''out'' a hiding optimizer or bad player: have the character get something the player can't fix in a couple minutes to be ''super duper demigod perfect at all times''. This makes players run from the house crying about how the DM ''won't let them player their character'' or some other such rant.

[Malimar]

This is yet another way to tell a Bad Player or an Optimizer: they only want things to happen to thier character that don't matter.

This is why they like hit point damage: the game makes it easy to fix that. Like most video games. Take like 100 damage..eh, does not matter, just get 100 healing.

And this is a perfect way to ''out'' a hiding optimizer or bad player: have the character get something the player can't fix in a couple minutes to be ''super duper demigod perfect at all times''. This makes players run from the house crying about how the DM ''won't let them player their character'' or some other such rant.

It's interesting that 4e and 5e largely eliminated difficult-to-fix conditions, catering directly to the players you're complaining about. And yet optimizers hate those two games and much prefer 3.5e...

[Jormengand]

And this is a perfect way to ''out'' a hiding optimizer or bad player: have the character get something the player can't fix in a couple minutes to be ''super duper demigod perfect at all times''. This makes players run from the house crying about how the DM ''won't let them player their character'' or some other such rant.

Wait...

So the way to find out if a player is a bad player is to stop them from playing the game, and then see if they realise they've been prevented from playing the game. If they do realise they've been prevented from playing the game, then they're a bad player?

You need to be stopped.

[AnimeTheCat]

Wait...

So the way to find out if a player is a bad player is to stop them from playing the game, and then see if they realise they've been prevented from playing the game. If they do realise they've been prevented from playing the game, then they're a bad player?

You need to be stopped.

I'm not vouching for Darth Ultron, but say you have a 7th level party of a barbarian ubercharger, healing/support focused cleric, conjuration specialist wizard, and rogue/scout swift ambusher. In such a party, they've started taking down quest after quest. Is it farfetched for a villain to start evaluating the party, their tactics, and how to counter them?

If I were to counter such a party I would certainly target sundering the chargers weapon, debilitating the rogues movement and blinding them (with say glitterdust or similar), invisible foes surprising the wizard with int damaging poison, and grappling the cleric or simply dealing high hit point damage and knocking them out.

The idea is that, aside from the cleric, no hit point damage has been dealt, but the party is broken and must fall back/regroup which gives the villain/DM the chance to put pressure on the party and provoke a challenge outside of the party's standard comfort zone. It's not so much an attempt to "break an optimizer" but more to challenge the party by effectively removing their strengths.

[Jormengand]

It's not so much an attempt to "break an optimizer" but more to challenge the party by effectively removing their strengths.

Oh yeah, except that in DU's case it clearly is.

[AnimeTheCat]

Oh yeah, except that in DU's case it clearly is.

Whoa, i said i wasnt vouching for DU, i was very much asking my own question. Yes based off of his comments of "breaking" optimizers, but my question was more carefully crafted to try to show depth, thought, and process to the villain in an attempt to challenge the party, not bring down an optimizer.

Look, you're experienced and you know what you're talking about, that's why I directed the question at you. Anyone, of course is free to answer, but I specifically wanted your opinion as it is commonly one of the more backed up (be that anecdotal or rules backing, it's there either way).

[Florian]

It's not so much an attempt to "break an optimizer" but more to challenge the party by effectively removing their strengths.

.... thus started the arms race that ended with a tpk and the table breaking up...

[JNAProductions]

There's a difference between "Okay, this is the BBEG-he's cunning, he's smart, he's survived 2,000 years... He's gonna go ham on these guys in ways they don't expect, because that's the kind of person he is," which is fine and even good from a metagame perspective, and "I want to make this person run from my table in tears," which is outright mean and toxic.

In addition, it kinda depends on what the expectations were going in for the game. Some people want Combat As Sport, no cruel challenges, just tactics. Other people want Combat As War and EXPECT brutal strategies.

[Crake]

I'm not vouching for Darth Ultron, but say you have a 7th level party of a barbarian ubercharger, healing/support focused cleric, conjuration specialist wizard, and rogue/scout swift ambusher. In such a party, they've started taking down quest after quest. Is it farfetched for a villain to start evaluating the party, their tactics, and how to counter them?

If I were to counter such a party I would certainly target sundering the chargers weapon, debilitating the rogues movement and blinding them (with say glitterdust or similar), invisible foes surprising the wizard with int damaging poison, and grappling the cleric or simply dealing high hit point damage and knocking them out.

The idea is that, aside from the cleric, no hit point damage has been dealt, but the party is broken and must fall back/regroup which gives the villain/DM the chance to put pressure on the party and provoke a challenge outside of the party's standard comfort zone. It's not so much an attempt to "break an optimizer" but more to challenge the party by effectively removing their strengths.

Thing is, with the way dnd works, catching the party by surprise and specifically targetting all their weaknesses is a surefire way to result in a TPK if the party doesn't see it coming and make preparations.

Why stop at sundering and poisoning, why not instead ambush them at night, wait until the barbarian is on watch then cast deep slumber on him, move in coup de grace the party, easy peasy.

That said, people who are saying that sundering a weapon makes it so you can't play the game, have you people heard of backup weapons? Sure, maybe you don't have your valorous lance for triple damage on a charge, but you can still pick up a masterwork longsword and swing that around. I'm running an e6 game with an OA samurai, and I not too long ago had a treant sunder his ancestral daisho katana, a very meaningful weapon in a game where I'm using the no magic item variant of pathfinder's automatic bonus progression. Literally the only magic item in the game, and a class feature, shattered to pieces. But he wasn't suddenly excluded from the game. He drew his wakazashi and carried on fighting, then at the end of the fight, collected the pieces of his katana, and has been searching for a means to reforge it (since he doesn't have the ranks in craft weaponsmith to do it himself). All the meanwhile, he's been using his wakazashi, which is not quite as effective, but still, he participates. Even if I destroyed his wakazashi in that fight (which, thankfully the treant died before it could), he would have just bought another weapon and used that.

Now sure, that example isn't quite the same as having a +7-8 weapon (including special abilities) become sundered and having to go back to using a masterwork weapon, but having your stuff broken doesn't exclude you from the game by any means.

[JNAProductions]

Now sure, that example isn't quite the same as having a +7-8 weapon (including special abilities) become sundered and having to go back to using a masterwork weapon, but having your stuff broken doesn't exclude you from the game by any means.

It depends. If you're dealing with, say, a Wyrm Black Dragon (first CR 20 Dragon on the SRD) they have AC 39 and DR 20/Magic. If you're dropped to a Masterwork weapon (say, a Greatsword) you're dealing, base, 2d6 damage. Assume a Strength of about 30, and your basic attacks deal something like 17 damage on average, which isn't enough to even scratch him.

Now, you SHOULD have Power Attack, but without your +X sword, you're looking at +20 (BAB) +10 (Strength) +1 (Masterwork) for only +31. You hit on an 8, for no damage on average. If you drop your BAB by, say, 3, to increase your odds of damaging it from 1/12 to 5/6, you now hit on 11s. (For between 0 and 8 damage, assuming no crit.)

You can't really meaningfully contribute to this fight-now, I'm sure there's ways to be effective without a weapon as a Fighter or Barbarian, but those probably involve a lot of optimization.

And yes, there's more than fights in D&D, usually. But Fighters or Barbarians in 3.5 SUCK at the non-fighty bits, generally.

[Rynjin]

Correct, sort of, though I'm not sure where he gets the idea of being "excluded from the game" if something is sundered. It's not exclusion, it's reduced impact on a permanent basis unless your DM is kind. It's the same as games with "death spiral" mechanics (where getting injured makes it easier to injure you etc. etc. until you die, like Savage Worlds for example), except unlike those games it's out of keeping with the rest of the system. It has a disproportionate impact, is the issue.

Mind you losing your uber weapon can make for some interesting encounters sometimes, I've been the Barbarian that has their weapon Disarmed by a Great Wyrm White Dragon and has to fight the bastard mostly bare-handed to retrieve it from the hoard once we caught up with it (thankfully I had an Amulet of Mighty Fists, and was Beast Totem), and it was a fun and memorable encounter.

But an encounter is what it was, and it ended there. Which is how encounters generally should end.

[Crake]

It depends. If you're dealing with, say, a Wyrm Black Dragon (first CR 20 Dragon on the SRD) they have AC 39 and DR 20/Magic. If you're dropped to a Masterwork weapon (say, a Greatsword) you're dealing, base, 2d6 damage. Assume a Strength of about 30, and your basic attacks deal something like 17 damage on average, which isn't enough to even scratch him.

Now, you SHOULD have Power Attack, but without your +X sword, you're looking at +20 (BAB) +10 (Strength) +1 (Masterwork) for only +31. You hit on an 8, for no damage on average. If you drop your BAB by, say, 3, to increase your odds of damaging it from 1/12 to 5/6, you now hit on 11s. (For between 0 and 8 damage, assuming no crit.)

You can't really meaningfully contribute to this fight-now, I'm sure there's ways to be effective without a weapon as a Fighter or Barbarian, but those probably involve a lot of optimization.

And yes, there's more than fights in D&D, usually. But Fighters or Barbarians in 3.5 SUCK at the non-fighty bits, generally.

If you're fighting CR20 encounters, you'd imagine that your backup weapon is at least +1 specifically for overcoming DR magic, or at the very least Cyrite, which costs a measly +250gp extra and overcomes DR/magic.

And lets be honest, most people don't have a +5 weapon, they have a +1 wepaon with +9 worth of special abilities, then they have the cleric cast greater magic weapon on their sword, so your chances to hit should be the same, after all, the cleric is using a lesser metamagic rod of chain to pump up everyone's weapons and their backup wepaons, and their backup backup weapons to +5 by that point. Or maybe that's just my players.

Maybe the problem comes from a player's expectation that they won't have their gear sundered, and thus don't bother to carry around an appropriate backup weapon? So it's kinda like feedback loop in that sense. A player who's DMs don't do things like sunder weapons won't prepare themselves for getting sundered, or any other similar circumstance, and thus would see the action as a far bigger threat than say, a character who's DMs wouldn't hesitate to sunder weapons, and thus prepare themselves appropriately.

Correct, sort of, though I'm not sure where he gets the idea of being "excluded from the game" if something is sundered. It's not exclusion, it's reduced impact on a permanent basis unless your DM is kind. It's the same as games with "death spiral" mechanics (where getting injured makes it easier to injure you etc. etc. until you die, like Savage Worlds for example), except unlike those games it's out of keeping with the rest of the system. It has a disproportionate impact, is the issue.

Mind you losing your uber weapon can make for some interesting encounters sometimes, I've been the Barbarian that has their weapon Disarmed by a Great Wyrm White Dragon and has to fight the bastard mostly bare-handed to retrieve it from the hoard once we caught up with it (thankfully I had an Amulet of Mighty Fists, and was Beast Totem), and it was a fun and memorable encounter.

But an encounter is what it was, and it ended there. Which is how encounters generally should end.

Someone mentioned exclusion along the line, hence why I responded to that. As for "reduced impact on a permanent basis", is that really the case? As people have mentioned, if your gear is significantly impacted, then the DM should make up for the lost wbl by dropping more loot.

Alternatively, use the automatic bonus progression system from pathfinder, so you can literally just pick up a masterwork weapon and attune to it, making it a +X weapon of appropriate level.

[Jormengand]

Mind you losing your uber weapon can make for some interesting encounters sometimes, I've been the Barbarian that has their weapon Disarmed by a Great Wyrm White Dragon and has to fight the bastard mostly bare-handed to retrieve it from the hoard once we caught up with it (thankfully I had an Amulet of Mighty Fists, and was Beast Totem), and it was a fun and memorable encounter.

"I lost my weapon but I had fun because I happened to have a magic item that helps me fight unarmed, so no-one who loses their weapon can be upset!"

[Rynjin]

"I lost my weapon but I had fun because I happened to have a magic item that helps me fight unarmed, so no-one who loses their weapon can be upset!"

I feel like you would be 6000% less salty if you actually read and kept up with the context of discussions and other posters' entries in the thread.

I know there's a lot of material to go over but if you'd just consider not throwing a hissy until you're sure somebody is saying what you think they were, everybody would be happier.

...

Plus, it's not just "happened", I'm a dirty filthy no good fun ruining optimizer because that Barbarian was a Ragepouncer, which required Beast Totem to pull off in Pathfinder at the time (Beast Totem was the only way to get Pounce for quite a while). Lesser Beast Totem, one of the prerequisites, gives two claw attacks.

[Crake]

"I lost my weapon but I had fun because I happened to have a magic item that helps me fight unarmed, so no-one who loses their weapon can be upset!"

I'm fairly sure he was calling that out as an exception, so you're kinda arguing against yourself there.

[Jormengand]

I'm fairly sure he was calling that out as an exception, so you're kinda arguing against yourself there.

An exception to his assertion that having your only method of dealing damage reliably destroyed doesn't stop you from playing the game meaningfully?

I feel like you would be 6000% less salty if you actually read and kept up with the context of discussions and other posters' entries in the thread.

I know there's a lot of material to go over but if you'd just consider not throwing a hissy until you're sure somebody is saying what you think they were, everybody would be happier.

...

Plus, it's not just "happened", I'm a dirty filthy no good fun ruining optimizer because that Barbarian was a Ragepouncer, which required Beast Totem to pull off in Pathfinder at the time (Beast Totem was the only way to get Pounce for quite a while). Lesser Beast Totem, one of the prerequisites, gives two claw attacks.

It's hilarious that you accuse me of not having read the thread and then imply that I'm anti-optimiser in the same post.

[death390]

I thought TWF and S&B were competent for the ToB classes.



Its important to note that tower shields let you duck behind them and just say no to attacks from one direction

they are meh for ToB. tiger strike is designed for two weapon fighting. . . kinda. meanwhile two handed fighting still reigns supreme since you can power attack with certain maneuvers (if they say you attack + this extra bit). it definitly brought the other style up slightly but it also jacked up two handed fighting along with it.

tower shields confer total cover. however that does not confer immunity to attacks AND you give up ALL your attacks to do so. ways around tower shield cover include area attacks (+3 reflex bonus against them) such as fireball and acid flasks, attacking the shield itself (it will break eventually), flanking, ect.

[death390]

~snip~


As a side note: TWF SnB is prolly one of the best fighting styles for a PF Fighter, working right out with core only and getting better with each splat.



Yes, there're feats that let you charge in a crooked line or allow you to make a 90° turn, on the opposing side, there're very cheap feats that upgrade the control radius of the defender or make squares in a radius around the defender count as difficult terrain in regards to movement. You already "play" when going into this kind of depth, even when not hitting, because you force your targets actions and decisions. And since this is a team-based game, chances are good, when not playing with total egomaniacs, that the blocker will also have Enlarge Person on and someone with a little bit of tactical savvy will have used Grease.

i said TWF is good if you have a damage add on. that includes sneak attack.

difficult terrain can be completely negated with 2 feats or a 1 lvl dip. there is a stance form ToB which removes all terrain penalties. hell a 1 level dip for a charger isn't even a bad thing you gain a **** ton.

[Rynjin]

Someone mentioned exclusion along the line, hence why I responded to that. As for "reduced impact on a permanent basis", is that really the case? As people have mentioned, if your gear is significantly impacted, then the DM should make up for the lost wbl by dropping more loot.

Keep in mind part of the context of this discussion branch is in reply to Darth Ultron, whose last post on the subject was:

This is yet another way to tell a Bad Player or an Optimizer: they only want things to happen to thier character that don't matter.

This is why they like hit point damage: the game makes it easy to fix that. Like most video games. Take like 100 damage..eh, does not matter, just get 100 healing.

And this is a perfect way to ''out'' a hiding optimizer or bad player: have the character get something the player can't fix in a couple minutes to be ''super duper demigod perfect at all times''. This makes players run from the house crying about how the DM ''won't let them player their character'' or some other such rant.

This makes it clear no extra wealth will be forthcoming, because the goal is to punish, and the attitude is actively to avoid inflicting a "fixable

Alternatively, use the automatic bonus progression system from pathfinder, so you can literally just pick up a masterwork weapon and attune to it, making it a +X weapon of appropriate level.

Good god no, I'll keep using the superior version I've been using for years before that system came out.

All right, a bit harsh, but the bonus progression from ABP is too slow if you're looking to mimic the usual levels people acquire certain items given WBL expectations.

An exception to his assertion that having your only method of dealing damage reliably destroyed doesn't stop you from playing the game meaningfully?

Since you are confused, a quick breakdown. We are discussing use of Sunder as a tactic. I have stated repeatedly that it is a tactic that should be used sparingly, and opportunity for remedying the issue should be provided at some point afterward.

JNA mentioned that there is "no way to meaningfully contribute in that scenario".

I said he was "correct, sort of" (there ARE ways to contribute, for example Grappling the dragon to prevent him from flying off, just none reliable or anywhere near as effective as you would be) and fired off an anecdote about a time one of my characters was Disarmed (note: not Sundered; they are two different maneuvers) and it led to a memorable battle.

I ended off by distressing it was good memorable because the problem was resolved after a single difficult encounter with the effects of this, neatly tying back to my initial statements.

Does that clear things

It's hilarious that you accuse me of not having read the thread and then imply that I'm anti-optimiser in the same post.

Yes, it is very funny when your tongue is so firmly planted in cheek re: the thread topic (and some users' sentiment) in general) it is nearly bursting the skin and somebody takes it upon themselves to assume everything is aimed directly at them.

[death390]

That's not a proof, that's a couple of cost comparisons placed alongside a number chosen to match them. I still don't know what these builds are or what the point is, but if you built both of them at a particular level with properly balanced gear and compared them to a couple standard monsters, you would have something.

Custom items are custom, and continue to have no bearing on game balance.

If you're forcing a binary choice and dumping AC, sure. If you're using a balanced gear progression based on WBL, as the game assumes, you should have both. If you're hardcore optimizing, you shouldn't even have the cloak because rod-extended Superior Resistance exists and you're actually a gish.


This is quite a tangent though, and I was not intending to continue your argument, just get you to argue it properly.

in order of most needed to be said.

A: Custom items are part of core rules and thus are part of game balance (DMG p 285).

B: those are actual number comparisons for the items. cost comparison is a valid statistical value for comparison. if you won't take numbers for a comparison then nothing i give you will work as DnD is all about numbers when you strip away the fluff.

C: the point made was that a shield is a valid choice as it increases AC. my numbers showed that is actually a detrimental choice unless it is a basic and non-magical as the costs do not reflect the benefits. this is due to the additional opportunity cost of spending the money on the shield compared to other more valuable items.

[Jormengand]

Yes, it is very funny when your tongue is so firmly planted in cheek re: the thread topic (and some users' sentiment) in general) it is nearly bursting the skin and somebody takes it upon themselves to assume everything is aimed directly at them.

Ah, I see, the old "Looking at you but talking to him." I see.

[Luccan]

To actually answer the OP: I think the problem is usually perception. This thread has more than shown that people's perception of optimizers and "anti-optimizers" is far more important to the view of optimization than any actual effect optimization has on the game. Because in a perfect world, everyone would build to the optimization level appropriate for their table and never get in arguments about it with people they've never played with. Optimization will almost never be the issue*; perception will be.

Also, have to agree with what Grod recommended on page 1 about a standardized post format for build help, solved at least two pages of discussion before it even really started.


*Barring the sorts of people who don't care about other people's fun

[death390]

Under the rules for Measuring Distance:



The intention of this is pretty obvious: there is only ever supposed to be one closest square, and the attacker does not get to choose which square that is. So, there is a specific square that you have to target when you charge. Presumably, the player attempting to play Roadblock would be privy to the knowledge of which square counts as "closest," and therefore should be able to place himself appropriately to block a charge.

if head on that is still 2/3 chance to hit the square not covered by the roadblock. and if left or right 1 space thats still 1/2. again IF you are blocked for that creatures just pick a different one this round and go after primary targer next round.

[death390]

On the note of WBL, think of the expected WBL as a cup and think of actual weath at whatever leve you're at as water. If the Character has too much WBL, the water will overflow. If the character doesn't have enough WBL, the cup will not be full. The aim of the DM should be to ensure that the cup always, or usually, remains relatively close to full, but not overflowing. In this case, if a DM sunders a wizard's rod or a Fighters blade, the DM is basically taking a drink from their cup of WBL, and it is the DM's responsiblity to replenish the characters WBL back to an acceptable level, which is basically pouring treasure back into the character's cup of WBL. If the DM isn't doing that, complain to the DM about it, just like you would complain to a waiter/waitress if they weren't filling you cup at a restaurant. You always aim to keep the cup of WBL nearly full, but never overflowing and never too empty.

\-----A well filled cup of WBL-----/
|WBLWBLWBLWBLWBLWBLWBL|
|WBLWBLWBLWBLWBLWBLWBL|
|WBLWBLWBLWBLWBLWBLWBL|
|WBLWBLWBLWBLWBLWBLWBL|
|WBLWBLWBLWBLWBLWBLWBL|
|WBLWBLWBLWBLWBLWBLWBL|
|WBLWBLWBLWBLWBLWBLWBL|
|WBLWBLWBLWBLWBLWBLWBL|
|WBLWBLWBLWBLWBLWBLWBL|
|WBLWBLWBLWBLWBLWBLWBL|
|WBLWBLWBLWBLWBLWBLWBL|

EDIT:

Where is that at? All I found was:

That was at this link. Is there something more about sundering magic items elsewhere?

don't forget though if that +5 blade the DM sundered of the fighters it should be something SIMILAR that it is replaced with. giving a fighter a super buffed wand of unseen servant (say CL 20 for simplicity) it is not equivilent to losing his main weapon. even if it is WBL equivalent (i didn't do the math i have to go to work in a couple min so im rushing)

[death390]

It depends. If you're dealing with, say, a Wyrm Black Dragon (first CR 20 Dragon on the SRD) they have AC 39 and DR 20/Magic. If you're dropped to a Masterwork weapon (say, a Greatsword) you're dealing, base, 2d6 damage. Assume a Strength of about 30, and your basic attacks deal something like 17 damage on average, which isn't enough to even scratch him.

Now, you SHOULD have Power Attack, but without your +X sword, you're looking at +20 (BAB) +10 (Strength) +1 (Masterwork) for only +31. You hit on an 8, for no damage on average. If you drop your BAB by, say, 3, to increase your odds of damaging it from 1/12 to 5/6, you now hit on 11s. (For between 0 and 8 damage, assuming no crit.)

You can't really meaningfully contribute to this fight-now, I'm sure there's ways to be effective without a weapon as a Fighter or Barbarian, but those probably involve a lot of optimization.

And yes, there's more than fights in D&D, usually. But Fighters or Barbarians in 3.5 SUCK at the non-fighty bits, generally.

don't forget sundering things like a wizards component pouches. that has been a common tactic for many tables ive been at. so i remember to mark what does and does not have material components, (i even mark some that i wear like leather or cotton). other players might not do that and if your component pouch and backup (or 2 backups) are sundered you lost 80% of your spells. possibly 100% depending on what you have prepared. this fully negates the wizard in that scenario. its not just the fighter that has to worry about those things. (i usually also wear boots with hidden compartment with a extra couple materials that are used for spells even. god damn i hate that tactic sometimes)

[Deophaun]

On sundering, it depends on game expectations. There are a good many things in RAW that are consistently ignored so you need to call out ahead of time that yes, you do use multiclass penalties and yes, you do use encumbrance and yes, enemies will try to break your stuff. Then you throw in occasional reminders that this stuff is still in play so your players have experience countering and dealing with it (read: optimizing) as opposed to finally making good at level 19 on the warning issued allllllllllll the way back in session zero.

I'm personally against sundering simply from the DMing standpoint that it becomes a headache on my end for managing treasure and it also disproportionately hinders the classes that I would rather my players pick over the T1s and T2s. But as a player, that cloak of charisma is now a set of adamantine pauldrons bolstered by a hardening spell.

[Fizban]

Really? I missed another big part of RAW. I always think that the only protection enhancement bonus provide is bonus to hardness and hitpoints. Where could I read this rule?

It's a bit hard to find actually, and d20srd.org is missing it: crack your paper DMG to pg222, and it's the first paragraph for Hardness and Hit Points.

If you're fighting CR20 encounters, you'd imagine that your backup weapon is at least +1 specifically for overcoming DR magic, or at the very least Cyrite, which costs a measly +250gp extra and overcomes DR/magic.

At level 20 I'd seriously consider having a full +5 for my backup weapon- it's still less than 10% of WBL.

they are meh for ToB. tiger strike is designed for two weapon fighting. . . kinda. meanwhile two handed fighting still reigns supreme since you can power attack with certain maneuvers (if they say you attack + this extra bit). it definitly brought the other style up slightly but it also jacked up two handed fighting along with it.

Not necessarily- the bonus damage on some maneuvers is way more than you'd get power attacking.

For the extreme examples, Emerald Razor lets you add +2/level by Power Attacking away your full BAB (which means you can still totally miss things with actual touch AC, which is more than you might think). At 3rd level when you get it, Mountain Hammer is already adding. . . +7, more than two handed PA, and works on a single handed attack. Go up a few levels and take a look at the best damage/level ratio and there's Divine Surge starting at level 7, which adds a whopping 36 damage on average to a single attack, which PA can't match on a single until 16th level (the more common Bonecrusher adds 10 at 5th, and Elder Mountain Hammer has 21 at 9th, almost like the damage is meant to be comparable with something. . . )

As always, PA gain supremacy is dependent on the other guy not having bonus damage, or you automatically hitting with multiple attacks.

tower shields confer total cover. however that does not confer immunity to attacks AND you give up ALL your attacks to do so. ways around tower shield cover include area attacks (+3 reflex bonus against them) such as fireball and acid flasks, attacking the shield itself (it will break eventually), flanking, ect.

Uh, total cover is exactly immunity to attacks, and immunity to burst type AoE effects, which includes lines and cones. Fireball is a spread, and spreads (and maybe cylinders) are the type of AoE you need to get past a tower shield, against which you gain no bonus from the tower shield because they're going around it.

[Crake]

It's a bit hard to find actually, and d20srd.org is missing it: crack your paper DMG to pg222, and it's the first paragraph for Hardness and Hit Points.

I thought that was incredibly strange to have not heard about that rule. There's actually a reason it's missing from d20srd.org: It was removed in the errata:

Hardness and Hit Points
Dungeon Master’s Guide, page 222
Problem: The first paragraph is not consistent with similar
information for shields on page 217.
Solution: Delete the first sentence after the boldface header.
Change the next sentence to read as follows:
Each +1 of enhancement bonus adds 2 to a weapon’s or
shield’s hardness and +10 to its hit points.

[Fizban]

I thought that was incredibly strange to have not heard about that rule. There's actually a reason it's missing from d20srd.org: It was removed in the errata:

That's. . . wow. Way to go idiots, you got rid of the most reliable sunder protection in the game, which had the perfect roots in "only a powerful artifact can match another" tropes. Wonder if whoever wrote that errata even knew what they were doing?

Because guess what? 3.0 DMG didn't have that discrepancy. I always remembered the rule as applying to both weapons and armor and shields, and hey look that's how it was. Some einstein decided to mess with it in 3.5. One of these days I really need to catalogue a list of all the moronic updates that made things worse (there's a whole pile of SpC spells that got jacked up in power), just to make a point of why RAW is a terrible god.

Well nevermind then I guess.