Post/Author/DateTime	Post
LachlarlanIII 03-09-07, 02:26 PM	I currently have a Dragon Disciple character in the works, so I thought I'd share it with everyone else. Currently: Human Str 14, Dex 10, Con 14, Int 14, Wis 8, Cha 15 1: Marshal 1 - Combat Expertise, Improved Trip 2: Hexblade 1 Going Into: 3: Hexblade 2 - Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Whip) 4: Hexblade 3 - Cha 16 5: Warmage 1 6: Dragon Disciple 1 - Improved Disarm 7: Dragon Disciple 2 - Str 16 8: Dragon Disciple 3 - Cha 17 9: Dragon Disciple 4 - Leadership, Str 18 10: Dragon Disciple 5 11: Dragon Disciple 6 - Con 16 12: Dragon Disciple 7 - *Feat*, Cha 18 13: Dragon Disciple 8 - Int 16 14: Dragon Disciple 9 15: Dragon Disciple 10 - Dragon Breath or Improved Flight, Str 22, Cha 20 I'm not really asking for advice on the build. The feat selection is fine except I don't know what to take at 12th, and I'm unsure whether to take Dragon Breath or Improved Flight at 15th. I took the Art of War aura so I can add my Str and Cha to Trip and Disarm checks. With +6 stat bumps to Str and Cha, I'll be +20 to Trip checks and as high as +54 to Disarm checks at 15th level. I chose the Whip instead of the superior Spiked Chain because I wanted to be different, because it has 5' more reach, and because I want to be able to use a shield at all levels. Against adjacent enemies I'll be using Spiked Gauntlets. Leadership is required for advancement in one of my Meta-Orgs, so it has to stay. I'll post my cohort below. Also, it should be noted that this is not a damage dealer build, it is a combat control specialist.
LachlarlanIII 03-09-07, 02:41 PM	Cohort Human Str 14, Dex 12, Con 13, Int 10, Wis 8, Cha 15 1: Marshal 1 - Power Attack, Improved Bull Rush 2: Hexblade 1 3: Hexblade 2 - Improved Sunder 4: Hexblade 3 - Cha 16 5: Hexblade 4 6: Dragon Disciple 1 - Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Fullblade) 7: Dragon Disciple 2 - Str 16 8: Dragon Disciple 3 - Cha 17 9: Dragon Disciple 4 - Combat Brute, Str 18 10: Dragon Disciple 5 11: Dragon Disciple 6 - Con 15 12: Dragon Disciple 7 - Shock Trooper, Cha 18 13: Dragon Disciple 8 - Int 12 This is the power hitter of the duo. I want to take Motivate Strength as her aura, but I keep hearing that Motivate Str and Art of War don't stack, even if they're from different Marshalls. Instead, I'm thinking about taking Beguiler 1 at first, and dropping Hexblade 4 in favor of Fighter 4. I would also have to drop Cha in favor of Int. I would be giving up Arcane Resistance and Mettle to do so. If I took the Fighter route, I would also be able to pick up Karmic Strike. This character's shtick is Bull Rushing everything all over the place, while at the same time swinging around a big-ass sword.
Timlagor 03-10-07, 06:03 PM	Why oh why oh why would you even consider Warmage?
Hariman 03-11-07, 12:36 AM	You might run into the problem of not having enough tables with less than 6 players. Which would leave you without your damage dealer. I'd toss in a level of fighter instead of Marshall or warmage (with Hexblade 4) to get power attack, just for those times when you NEED the extra damage.
boogahwoof 03-11-07, 07:55 PM	Well, I just dont underdstand making builds reliant upon a cohort ? But, my wife plays a trip attacker, i dont see why anyone playing a reach weapon tripper doesnt consider the 3 levels of knight. Treating every square you threaten as hampered terrain, now thats battlefield control.
King Kashue 03-11-07, 08:43 PM	i dont see why anyone playing a reach weapon tripper doesnt consider the 3 levels of knight. Treating every square you threaten as hampered terrain, now thats battlefield control. That is not the Knight ability...So many people are misreading it. "An opponent that begins its turn in your threatened area treats all the squares that you threaten as difficult terrain" (PHBII p.28) It's still a nice ability (particularly with a spiked chain or reach weapon/imp unarmed combo), but it is not the earth-shattering, game-changing ability so many people have read it to be...
boogahwoof 03-11-07, 08:49 PM	Not earth shattering ill agree, but enlarged, with a whip is a pretty big zone to threaten. But i forgot one thing, disarming wouldnt be a good thing for a knight since its agaisnt the knightly code to attack a unarmed person.
King Kashue 03-11-07, 09:37 PM	Not earth shattering ill agree, but enlarged, with a whip is a pretty big zone to threaten. Whips don't threaten.
LachlarlanIII 03-12-07, 09:50 AM	Why oh why oh why would you even consider Warmage? True Strike + Armored Casting. That's all. Well, I just dont underdstand making builds reliant upon a cohort ? But, my wife plays a trip attacker, i dont see why anyone playing a reach weapon tripper doesnt consider the 3 levels of knight. Treating every square you threaten as hampered terrain, now thats battlefield control. The build isn't reliant upon the cohort. The cohort, as previously planned, just added more power to the character. Plus the main build's Art of War aura benefits the cohort as well.
LachlarlanIII 03-12-07, 09:51 AM	You might run into the problem of not having enough tables with less than 6 players. Which would leave you without your damage dealer. I'd toss in a level of fighter instead of Marshall or warmage (with Hexblade 4) to get power attack, just for those times when you NEED the extra damage. Are you referring to the cohort or the main? The main is already locked into Marshal 1/Hexblade 1.
Hariman 03-12-07, 10:41 PM	Are you referring to the cohort or the main? The main is already locked into Marshal 1/Hexblade 1. The main, but if it's locked into Marshal/Hexblade, then it's locked into those classes. If you're going for True Striking melee character, I'd definitely recommend power attack. True Strike + Power Attack is a high damage tactic. I'd actually pick up the Halberd/Spiked gauntlet (or armor) combo, or a spiked chain. Personally, I think the Halberd is superior because of its slashing or piercing damage, slightly better base damage, and better critical multiplier. You do lose some effectiveness over the whip, but you won't need to rely on special enhancements like "Shocking" or "Flaming" to do actual damage.
Timlagor 03-13-07, 07:32 AM	Halbers are reach weapons (I think).
LachlarlanIII 03-13-07, 09:46 AM	The main, but if it's locked into Marshal/Hexblade, then it's locked into those classes. If you're going for True Striking melee character, I'd definitely recommend power attack. True Strike + Power Attack is a high damage tactic. I'd actually pick up the Halberd/Spiked gauntlet (or armor) combo, or a spiked chain. Personally, I think the Halberd is superior because of its slashing or piercing damage, slightly better base damage, and better critical multiplier. You do lose some effectiveness over the whip, but you won't need to rely on special enhancements like "Shocking" or "Flaming" to do actual damage. That's not a bad idea. I would probably choose the Guisarme though. Reach + True Strike + Trip + Power Attack. Cast True Strike on your action, use Trip attack option during AOO from enemy moving through threatened space, Power Attack for full on the Trip attack, attack prone enemy using True Strike + full Power Attack bonus from free attack after Trip. You still gain the True Strike bonus because Improved Trip states your can make an attack as if you hadn't used your attack to trip the enemy.
LachlarlanIII 03-13-07, 09:47 AM	Halbers are reach weapons (I think). They aren't. Halberds are the only martial polearms in the PHB that aren't reach weapons.
King Kashue 03-13-07, 10:13 AM	You still gain the True Strike bonus because Improved Trip states your can make an attack as if you hadn't used your attack to trip the enemy. That's an interpretation not supported by the example in the Improved trip feat text or by the True Strike text. The feat text does say that you take the extra attack as if you hadn't taken the first one, but the example is specifically about what attack bonus to use (and to illustrate that you don't use a step in the iterative attack progression). And the true strike text says "Your next single attack roll (if it is made before the end of the next round) gains a +20 insight bonus." Even if the follow-up attack is treated as if the first one never happened, it doesn't matter. True strike does not modify your attack, in-game, it modifies the game mechanic of your next "attack roll", which is most certainly the touch attack prior to the trip.
LachlarlanIII 03-13-07, 10:43 AM	That's an interpretation not supported by the example in the Improved trip feat text or by the True Strike text. The feat text does say that you take the extra attack as if you hadn't taken the first one, but the example is specifically about what attack bonus to use (and to illustrate that you don't use a step in the iterative attack progression). And the true strike text says "Your next single attack roll (if it is made before the end of the next round) gains a +20 insight bonus." Even if the follow-up attack is treated as if the first one never happened, it doesn't matter. True strike does not modify your attack, in-game, it modifies the game mechanic of your next "attack roll", which is most certainly the touch attack prior to the trip. From the SRD: IMPROVED TRIP [GENERAL] Prerequisites: Int 13, Combat Expertise. Benefit: You do not provoke an attack of opportunity when you attempt to trip an opponent while you are unarmed. You also gain a +4 bonus on your Strength check to trip your opponent. If you trip an opponent in melee combat, you immediately get a melee attack against that opponent as if you hadn’t used your attack for the trip attempt. Normal: Without this feat, you provoke an attack of opportunity when you attempt to trip an opponent while you are unarmed. Special: At 6th level, a monk may select Improved Trip as a bonus feat, even if she does not have the prerequisites. A fighter may select Improved Trip as one of his fighter bonus feats. In my opinion, "as if you hadn't used your attack for the trip attempt" sounds like one should keep all bonuses from their original attack and should override the True Strike spell. After all, if one "hadn't used their attack for the trip attempt" they would still have the True Strike up.
King Kashue 03-13-07, 11:57 AM	From the SRD: "IMPROVED TRIP [GENERAL] Prerequisites: Int 13, Combat Expertise. Benefit: You do not provoke an attack of opportunity when you attempt to trip an opponent while you are unarmed. You also gain a +4 bonus on your Strength check to trip your opponent. If you trip an opponent in melee combat, you immediately get a melee attack against that opponent as if you hadn’t used your attack for the trip attempt. Normal: Without this feat, you provoke an attack of opportunity when you attempt to trip an opponent while you are unarmed. Special: At 6th level, a monk may select Improved Trip as a bonus feat, even if she does not have the prerequisites. A fighter may select Improved Trip as one of his fighter bonus feats." Yes, but the SRD isn't the official rule, the PHB is. And what the SRD leaves out is the example I mentioned. "If you trip an opponent in melee combat, you immediately get a melee attack against that opponent as if you hadn't used your attack for the trip attempt. For example, at 11th level, Tordek gets three attacks at bonuses of +11, +6, and +1. In the current round, he attempts to trip his opponent. His first attempt fails (using up his first attack). His second attempt suceeds, and he immediately makes a melee attack against his opponent with a bonus of +6. Finally, he takes his last attack at a bonus of +1." (PHB p.96) The example makes it pretty clear what "as if you hadn't used your attack" means, i.e., it means that you insert it into the attack sequence and it doesn't progress the sequence to the next BAB. Anyway, the spell text is rather clear. You get +20 on your next "attack roll" (PHB p.296). On the next "roll", not on the next attack. This both allows for things like targeted spells, but it definitely seems to exclude what you're suggesting. I.e., the character treats the attack as if the first attack didn't happen, however, the player has already made an attack roll, and true strike has "gone off". In my opinion, "as if you hadn't used your attack for the trip attempt" sounds like one should keep all bonuses from their original attack and should override the True Strike spell. They don't use the same terminology, and you're suggesting using a relatively unclear rule to override the explicit text of the spell... Can't say I agree with the process of using the vague to clarify the clear...
LachlarlanIII 03-13-07, 12:10 PM	"If you trip an opponent in melee combat, you immediately get a melee attack against that opponent as if you hadn't used your attack for the trip attempt. For example, at 11th level, Tordek gets three attacks at bonuses of +11, +6, and +1. In the current round, he attempts to trip his opponent. His first attempt fails (using up his first attack). His second attempt suceeds, and he immediately makes a melee attack against his opponent with a bonus of +6. Finally, he takes his last attack at a bonus of +1." (PHB p.96) The example makes it pretty clear what "as if you hadn't used your attack" means, i.e., it means that you insert it into the attack sequence and it doesn't progress the sequence to the next BAB. The example doesn't make it in any way any clearer. First, if Tordek had True Strike up, he would have had +20 to hit on his first attack. The example clearly states he missed on his primary attack so it wouldn't have been an issue in the first place. Second, the example is using base iterative attacks and doesn't take into account any other bonuses Tordek would receive such as Strength, Masterwork Weapon, or Flanking. That much is clear. An 11th level Fighter has 3 attacks at +11/+6/+1. The example doesn't show anywhere what bonuses you lose or gain. In fact, Tordek, after succeeding to trip his opponent on his 2nd attack would actually be at +10 to hit his prone foe, not the +6 as stated, and his tertiary attack would be at +5. I hold to my claim that the feat overrides the text of the spell for the reason I stated earlier, and add that the above example is flawed because it doesn't take into account any additional bonuses or penalties one might have.
King Kashue 03-13-07, 12:16 PM	Second, the example is using base iterative attacks and doesn't take into account any other bonuses Tordek would receive such as Strength, Masterwork Weapon, or Flanking. That much is clear. Precisely... The example is ignoring those bonuses because they're irrelevant to the intent of the rule. The example illustrates the intent. I hold to my claim that the feat overrides the text of the spell for the reason I stated earlier, and add that the above example is flawed. The example in the PHB is flawed in showing the rule's intent? :confused: It is part of the rules, unless you've got an errata to say otherwise, it can't be flawed... And once again, using the vague to "clarify" the explicit seems a rather poor methodology...
LachlarlanIII 03-13-07, 12:44 PM	Precisely... The example is ignoring those bonuses because they're irrelevant to the intent of the rule. The example illustrates the intent. The example in the PHB is flawed in showing the rule's intent? :confused: It is part of the rules, unless you've got an errata to say otherwise, it can't be flawed... And once again, using the vague to "clarify" the explicit seems a rather poor methodology... How exactly are the bonuses irrelevant? That's like saying when one makes a trip attack they should ignore any bonus except their base attack bonus because those bonuses are "irrelevant" to the completion of the attack. The bonuses gained for the trip attempt are 100% relevant to the outcome of the attack and the "bonus" attack that comes after. That is why the example is flawed. My assertation is that the writers omitted extraneous bonuses in order to shorten the rules text.
Munkwunk 03-13-07, 01:28 PM	It is part of the rules ... it can't be flawed... *snerk* Sorry, I'm not trying to be a jerk. Honest. It's hard to say where I stand on this. My initial impression is that True Strike only applies to the touch attack (which would make it pretty pointless) and I believe that is actually the opinion I'd stand behind. You did, after all, make an attack roll. At best, the argument here is taht True Strike applies to both the touch attack [iand[/i] the follow-up, which is certainly not the intent of True Strike. I believe "as if you hadn't made another attack" is simply to imply that you don't waste an iterative/haste attack to get the Improved Trip attack. The fact still remains that you used your True Strike on the touch attack roll, since the spell would immediately discharge upon making the attack roll.
Timlagor 03-13-07, 04:37 PM	They aren't. Halberds are the only martial polearms in the PHB that aren't reach weapons. Yeah.. that's what I meant :/ There ain't no way you're getting true strike on two rolls at my table ;) (well maybe if you quicken one..)
Donald_Cannith 03-13-07, 11:14 PM	Well here is where I stand on it, I feel that the rule states basically that you get the same bonus on the succeeding attack as you did on the first one, thatst he one that just makes the msot sense, after all i have to declare if I am poweratackign befoe makign the trip attempt and keep the bonus for both halves why wouldnt it apply to both?
Jay_Ibero_911 03-13-07, 11:29 PM	It's already covered by the FAQ that you DON'T get your true strike bonus on the follow up attack after you trip a guy. Time does not rewind back to before you used your true strike.
Crazy Boro 03-13-07, 11:40 PM	Just in case its asked, it is p. 25 current FAQ: Suppose a character with the Improved Trip feat uses the Bluff skill to successfully feint in combat and uses his next melee attack to trip the duped opponent. It seems clear that the character ignores that opponent’s Dexterity bonus to Armor Class for the touch attack to initiate the trip. Assuming that the trip attempt is successful, Improved Trip provides an additional attack as if the character hadn’t used her attack for the trip attempt. Does this mean that the character continues to ignore the tripped opponent’s Dexterity bonus to Armor Class for the additional attack granted by Improved Trip feat? How do other “next attack only” effects (like the true strike spell) work with the Improved Trip feat? In each case, the initial attack in trip attempt is the “next attack,” not the extra attack that you get from the Improved Trip feat. That is, if you’ve made a successful feint, your foe is denied any Dexterity bonus to Armor Class when you make the initial melee touch attack to start your trip attempt, but not when you attack him after a successful trip. Likewise, if you use the true strike spell, the +20 attack bonus applies to the touch attack, not to the free attack. The Improved Trip feat description says that you get an extra attack after a successful trip attempt “as though you hadn’t used your attack for the trip attempt.” That, however, is just a shorthand way of explaining what part of your normal attack routine you use for the extra attack; it’s not meant to imply that you enter some kind of strange time warp when you make trip attacks.
King Kashue 03-14-07, 03:33 AM	*snerk* Sorry, I'm not trying to be a jerk. Honest. Heh...I should have said "It's part of the rules, therefore can't be dismissed as flawed" :D It can certainly be flawed, but even a flawed rule must be dealt with if there is no errata. And it seems the FAQ says my interpretation was correct, so, yeah...:D
LachlarlanIII 03-14-07, 09:50 AM	I was just in the mood for a debate. :) My original intention for True Strike was for disarming people. As an opposed attack roll, I would not automatically fail on a natural 1. So even if I did roll a 1, I would end up with a 21 to my disarm check before any other bonuses.
Timlagor 03-14-07, 08:38 PM	I was just in the mood for a debate. :) My original intention for True Strike was for disarming people. As an opposed attack roll, I would not automatically fail on a natural 1. So even if I did roll a 1, I would end up with a 21 to my disarm check before any other bonuses. "A 1 automatically fails. Therefore if one side of an opposed attack roll rolls a natural 1 and the other doesn't then the 1 loses irrespective of modifiers." I have absolutely no idea if the above is a sound argument but I thought I'd post it for someone else to look up ;)