Post/Author/DateTime	Post
DivineDwarf 01-28-05, 09:15 PM	I'm not sure if this tactic has been touched upon before, but here it goes. Working with my fellow player we have formed an ultimate attack routine, which we refer to as the Voltron Tactic. Requirments: 1 - Min Maxed Cleric: Cleric 3/ Church Inquisitor 6. Feats: Extend Spell, Persistent Spell, Divine Metamagic Persistent Spell, Divine Spell Power, Extra Turning (2). Domains: Strength and Planning. Turning Attempts (14) with +2 cloak of charisma and 32 point buy. Persistent Spells: Divine Power. AC 35 (10 base, 11 Full Plate with Divine Spell Powered Magic Vestment, 5 Shield with Divine Spell Powered Magic Vestment, 1 dexterity, 4 Deflection - Divine Spell Powered Shield of Faith, 4 Natural Armor - Barkskin spell from Nentyar Hunter). 2 - Min Maxed Ranger/Rogue/Nentyar Hunter with sneak attack and a longbow. Must be able to cast invisibility on himself or have access to greater invisibility spell. Character can cast at least 2-3 magic missles and 2-4 cure spells. Tactics: Cleric casts either enlarge person or righteous might. One large buffed to the brim cleric (size large) is mounted by 1 invisible sneaky ranger/rogue (size medium). Cleric casts shield other on said rogue. Cleric proceeds to enter melee combat while mounted by Rogue. Cleric pummels enemy in melee while greater invisible rogue sneak attacks the enemy with longbow. If cleric takes substantial damage, invisible rogue can heal said cleric with cure spells. Problems/Solutions: 1) To stay on the cleric there is no rules for that, treat as mounted combat, where said character must make a DC 10 (5 base, 5 abnormal mount) ride check to stay on large creature. The cleric conceivably should be able to fight on its turn without any checks, but if your DM is a stickler, have the rogue roll another DC 10 ride check to allow the cleric to fight) For more fun, the rogue essentially could have mounted combat feat to negate hits aimed at the cleric mount. 2) If DM states that even though rogue is invisible, it still provides cover and therefore is subject to being un-intentionally hit. Use a 25% chance that the attack would be directed to the rogue instead. Then you need to roll the 50% miss chance for greater invisibility. If said rogue is hit, then half damage goes to the cleric (shield other), which the rogue can just heal anyways. 3) If DM states that rogue is at a penalty for abnormal mount (no more than a negative 4 penalty should be given), then said cleric just casts a buff spell to negate the rogues penalty Enjoy!
masterofmayhem 01-28-05, 10:02 PM	:rofl: :rofl: . . . You are joking, right? If not, I cannot express the number of things that are wrong with this. Ignoring the rampant use of broken and overpowered rules/feats/whatever that most sane DMs ban, this tactic is not even that good! It takes a round or so of buffing to get to this point. If you're going to abuse rules, you might as well do it right and make items of permanent greater invisibility and permanency enlarge on the cleric. :rolleyes: Seriously, though, I don't get the basis of your tactic. Why does the ranger ride on the cleric's head? Is he asking demons with see invisibility to take AoO's on him every time he fires? To heal him, you say? Does this ranger have heal, or is he using cure moderate? It's a waste of the ranger's turn to use his puny healing spells on the cleric, especially since the cleric can not only do it better, but the ranger/rogue does more damage because of sneak attacks. So we're talking a -4 to attack and AC for the cleric and a -4 to attack and AC for the ranger. And that's being nice. Ever try to fight a demon while in full plate mail and with a large child on your back? Me neiher, and with good reason. Trying to balance someone on your shoulders will toss a hefty penalty your way, and, while your swaying about trying not to fall, you're throwing off your buddy's aim. It would definitely be better to just fight like normal, sane beings on foot with conventional tactics, instead of those that are designed to make your enemies laugh to death. ;)
Zym 01-28-05, 10:13 PM	lol, reminds me of a old 2nd edition Dark Sun campaign. I played a Halfling Druid/Psionicist who hid in his Half Giant Gladiator buddy's backpack. I kept Sight Link manifested...he would wade into combat, I would manifest safely from his backpack (custom made). There was risk and damage taken at times, but the benefits were rather nice. I can just hear it now... "But I wanna ride the cleric!!!" :D
DivineDwarf 01-29-05, 01:26 AM	:rofl: :rofl: . . . You are joking, right? Quite the contrary, this tactic used in the right situation (yes situation, this is a situational combat tactic) is very advantageous. Granted it's mainly for comic relief, but the MAP is a viable combat beast, assuming you have the right amount of time to buff. Of course if you're fighting a demon or wizard with see invisibility or true seeing, it is pointless. If you're fighting a horde of ogres, Giants, Dire Bears/animals, Hydras, Golems, Lycanthropes, Dinosaurs, Trolls, Undead, etc. then the MAP is awesome. Yes some of the stuff is broken, actually really only one thing is broken and that is divine metamgic persistent, but all of the feats, spells, and classes came from just the PHB, CD, and UE. All the classes/spells/feats/etc. use the most recently errata'd, faq'd, and updated versions. No sane DM would see the MAP coming (until now). Assuming the normal rules for mounts, if all ride checks are successful then both the ranger and cleric can fight at the same time without penalty. Even the -5 for abnormal mounts is taken into the equation. The cleric is a large sized creature, one size category larger than the ranger, so he qualifies to be a mount. You also seem to miss the beauty of the MAP as set up. Yeah, the cleric can totally heal better than the ranger, but the cleric is not going to want to stop attacking with his heavy mace Atk +18/+13 Dmg 2d6+9, So he's not going to heal himself in the middle of a heated battle. If it comes down to it, the cleric if the need be can just cast cure serious or critical wounds on himself (he'll definitely pass the concentration check.) The invisible ranger can heal the cleric as his action though, allowing the cleric to continue fighting.... Imagine facing this large sized human in full plate, his bulging muscles almost breaking through the metal itself. You just landed 3 massive blows on him, but miraculously his wounds seem to heal themselves without any notion of him casting a spell or activating an item.... you can only fear how much longer you have to live. Just as it seems that the human is about to take a swipe at you, then it seems out of his eyes appear shooting arrows... if not arrows, then missles of force dart out of his fiery eyes (all cast by the ranger/nentyar hunter who is invisible). Even more awesome is the fact that the cleric has 1 5th level spell left since righteous might is a domain spell, then 2 4th level spells, then 4 3rd level spells, 2+1 2nd level spells, and 3+1 first level spells. This is assuming he buffs to almost max.
Vanigo 01-29-05, 03:30 AM	First of all, I'm pretty sure a cleric 3/Church Inquisitor 6 is impossible. Secondly, just, why? Now, if you stuck a rogue/druid/Wild Plains Outrider UMDing a wand of greater invisibility and using a wand of cure critical wounds, it could be pretty nasty, because the rogue could make a full attack's worth of sneak attacks every round as long as the cleric didn't take more than a single move. Plus the cleric would get +10 feet to his speed from Wild Plains Swiftness. And the cleric could use the rogue's Hide and Move Silently modifiers. Yes, that would be both hilarious and useful. Oh, and Mounted Combat, too. Don't forget Mounted Combat. But a ranger/rogue? He's only going to get one attack in any round the cleric moves, and the healing he can do is pretty insignificant.
masterofmayhem 01-29-05, 02:28 PM	Quite the contrary, this tactic used in the right situation (yes situation, this is a situational combat tactic) is very advantageous. Granted it's mainly for comic relief, but the MAP is a viable combat beast, assuming you have the right amount of time to buff. Of course if you're fighting a demon or wizard with see invisibility or true seeing, it is pointless. If you're fighting a horde of ogres, Giants, Dire Bears/animals, Hydras, Golems, Lycanthropes, Dinosaurs, Trolls, Undead, etc. then the MAP is awesome. I think hordes of any of those would be quite impossible for level 9 characters. In fact, hordes of mice wouldn't even be an easy fight. A horde is a lot, man. And I still don't see how the tactic is advantageous. Are AC and attack penalties advantageous? Yes some of the stuff is broken, actually really only one thing is broken and that is divine metamgic persistent, Yes, well, some would argue against that point. but all of the feats, spells, and classes came from just the PHB, CD, and UE. All the classes/spells/feats/etc. use the most recently errata'd, faq'd, and updated versions. No sane DM would see the MAP coming (until now). :heehee Yes, well, you're right about that one! And with good reason, too!! :rofl: :rofl: Assuming the normal rules for mounts, if all ride checks are successful then both the ranger and cleric can fight at the same time without penalty. Even the -5 for abnormal mounts is taken into the equation. The cleric is a large sized creature, one size category larger than the ranger, so he qualifies to be a mount. Not in a sane DM's universe. You also seem to miss the beauty of the MAP as set up. Ya got that right. Yeah, the cleric can totally heal better than the ranger, but the cleric is not going to want to stop attacking with his heavy mace Atk +18/+13 Dmg 2d6+9, So he's not going to heal himself in the middle of a heated battle. 2d6 +9 should be about half of what a good rogue is doing. Imagine facing this large sized human in full plate, his bulging muscles almost breaking through the metal itself. You just landed 3 massive blows on him, but miraculously his wounds seem to heal themselves without any notion of him casting a spell or activating an item.... you can only fear how much longer you have to live. Just as it seems that the human is about to take a swipe at you, then it seems out of his eyes appear shooting arrows... if not arrows, then missles of force dart out of his fiery eyes (all cast by the ranger/nentyar hunter who is invisible). Imagine facing a large-sized cleric in full plate, utilizing some of the most broken spells known to the PHB. Yes, that is scary. Until you hear some stupid ranger sitting on his shoulders, murmuring the verbal components for a cure light wounds spell. 1/10th of the damage you inflicted last turn disappears, and no fiery arrows or bolts of force shoot out of the cleric's eyes, since the ranger is too busy playing doctor. Even more awesome is the fact that the cleric has 1 5th level spell left since righteous might is a domain spell, then 2 4th level spells, then 4 3rd level spells, 2+1 2nd level spells, and 3+1 first level spells. This is assuming he buffs to almost max. So he should be healing, too, since he is likely to take plenty of damage against "hordes of golems."
Milkman Dan 01-30-05, 05:02 AM	First of all, I'm pretty sure a cleric 3/Church Inquisitor 6 is impossible. A church inquisitor requires a lawful good or lawful neutral alignment, a Will save of +3 (which a 2nd level cleric has), 4 ranks in Knowledge (arcana), Knowledge (religion), and Spellcraft, all of which are class skills for a cleric, and the ability to cast zone of truth, which is a 2nd-level cleric spell. So a 3rd-level cleric that meets the special prerequisite of having uncovered corruption in his church or religious order could become a church inquisitor.
HomebrewedMonster 01-30-05, 10:38 AM	Umm....how are you getting 14 turn attempts? Its 3+cha modifier and I didn't see Extra Turning on the list of feats. So you have a charisma of 32, giving you a +11?
DivineDwarf 01-30-05, 12:08 PM	Umm....how are you getting 14 turn attempts? Its 3+cha modifier and I didn't see Extra Turning on the list of feats. So you have a charisma of 32, giving you a +11? 1 - Min Maxed Cleric: Cleric 3/ Church Inquisitor 6. Feats: Extend Spell, Persistent Spell, Divine Metamagic Persistent Spell, Divine Spell Power, Extra Turning (2). Domains: Strength and Planning. Turning Attempts (14) with +2 cloak of charisma and 32 point buy. Persistent Spells: Divine Power. AC 35 (10 base, 11 Full Plate with Divine Spell Powered Magic Vestment, 5 Shield with Divine Spell Powered Magic Vestment, 1 dexterity, 4 Deflection - Divine Spell Powered Shield of Faith, 4 Natural Armor - Barkskin spell from Nentyar Hunter). Nope, stated right in the first post how you get 14 turning attempts. I think hordes of any of those would be quite impossible for level 9 characters. In fact, hordes of mice wouldn't even be an easy fight. A horde is a lot, man. And I still don't see how the tactic is advantageous. Are AC and attack penalties advantageous? You know I didn't mean "hordes" literally.... instead of looking at whether or not my use of words could be used differently, why don't we look at the actual tactic itself and work to expand upon it. This is the combat boards, not the MLA boards. 2d6 +9 should be about half of what a good rogue is doing. Only if the rogue is able to apply sneak attack damage and has more than 2 attacks per round by taking two weapon fighting.