I'm away from my books and can't comment on the alchemist savant. I recall it being pretty bad, so you probably aren't missing much without it.
Since the DM's banned artificer, though, I don't think you'll have much luck. Your concept will drag you down without it. And pretty much the only non-artificer support for your concept is Grenadier + Mad Alchemist (there's also a Pyro feat in Song and Silence, which really only works on NPCs hucking alchemist's fire, and wasn't updated to 3.5, but it's the only other feat I know of specifically aimed at this concept).
. Ah well. I'll probably create a more traditional rogue and just focus on poisons (assassin prestige etc). Thanks again folks, looks like im going to have to save this for some other time.Of course that's just what I'd do and I have no patience for fools that claim to want to have unoptimized players (they generally wouldn't have the class to refrain from immature name-calling and would incorrectly use the term non-munckin here) for the sake of story or some other line of bull when in reality more often than not it boils down to their fun being paramount to their player's. So let me ask you this, what materials are allowed in this game? Becuase as it looks at the moment the only way to run the concept you've come up with is "not well" and the only advice I could give you would be "get used to being terrible" and that's just a shame.
What, exactly, do you need a rogue for? Use a cleric with the Trickery (or Kobold) domain, and be sure to have Detect Snares & Pits handy. You'll never have to worry about traps again.
For your dip, you've got options. Dipping wizard gives you a familiar and access to the best spell list in the game via spell trigger items. Dipping cleric gives you access to the cleric list (which is kind of meh for a rogue in core), but more importantly two domains. Luck in particular is nice for a rogue. Bard keeps your skills up.
Or if you don't mind waiting until ECL 6 to actually craft any items, Assassin works well.
I'd probably go with bard, personally, if only for the skills and ability to activate wands of glibness with no chance of failure. An acid-throwing Bard 1/Rogue 19 with enough downtime to always be well-stocked in acid, alchemist's fire and tanglefoot bags would be about as good as it gets for a non-casting rogue in a strict core only game.
Also, I see a lot of hate for Alchemist Savant. I actually rather like the PrC. Artificers and wizards meet the qualifications super easily, and it progresses casting 5/5 levels. Potions aren't that useful to create, but the universal potion is pretty neat, and the ability to combine alchemical items with poison or spellvials is actually quite handy. If nothing else, combining a decent injury poison with acid means that you can hit multiple enemies with a single dose of poison, without needing to attack them. (And your Mark of Making means good poison is plentiful.)
The quick alchemy feature also means you can craft in way less time than usual, which is nice if your group doesn't have a lot of downtime.
Hold on. Rogue 20 with TWF throwing flasks is one of the most solid builds outside of full casters. Especially if you get to craft your own without needing to be a caster to craft your own alchemical fire. (If you do have to be a caster, I recomend wizard 1/rogue 19, its basically the same. Stronger build, but more "complicated")
I'll drop the basics, but some of you guys should already know the rest. A rogue can sneak attack on anything requiring an attack roll.
"Acid
You can throw a flask of acid as a splash weapon. Treat this attack as a ranged touch attack with a range increment of 10 feet. A direct hit deals 1d6 points of acid damage. Every creature within 5 feet of the point where the acid hits takes 1 point of acid damage from the splash."
Do normal rogue, take twf and rapid shot and you should be golden. Your DM will probably berate you for being broken because fighters can't have nice things, and you one shotting everything is breaking his game. Especially if he thought spellthief was broken.
Seriously, ignore the suggestions to "Be a druid, its PHB1". You can show him some stupid strong stuff in core without being a caster, or going outside your build concept.
(You will be throwing acid flasks for 1d6 acid [who cares] + 10d6 sneak attack about 8 times a round. As a touch attack.)
Spellthief is broken?! Spellthief?!
I'm willing to bet that the BBEG of the campaign is some sort of caster (since Spellthief is one of those base classes that I look at, then bury again...too dependent on the opponent for its abilities).
Hold on. Rogue 20 with TWF throwing flasks is one of the most solid builds outside of full casters. Especially if you get to craft your own without needing to be a caster to craft your own alchemical fire. (If you do have to be a caster, I recomend wizard 1/rogue 19, its basically the same. Stronger build, but more "complicated")
I'll drop the basics, but some of you guys should already know the rest. A rogue can sneak attack on anything requiring an attack roll.
"Acid
You can throw a flask of acid as a splash weapon. Treat this attack as a ranged touch attack with a range increment of 10 feet. A direct hit deals 1d6 points of acid damage. Every creature within 5 feet of the point where the acid hits takes 1 point of acid damage from the splash."Do normal rogue, take twf and rapid shot and you should be golden. Your DM will probably berate you for being broken because fighters can't have nice things, and you one shotting everything is breaking his game. Especially if he thought spellthief was broken.
Seriously, ignore the suggestions to "Be a druid, its PHB1". You can show him some stupid strong stuff in core without being a caster, or going outside your build concept.
(You will be throwing acid flasks for 1d6 acid [who cares] + 10d6 sneak attack about 8 times a round. As a touch attack.)
Hmm that does look very sexy. Any items in particular that would help out with throwing massive amounts of projectiles around (creating flasks quicker, retrieving multiple flasks as free actions etc)? Feats are a bit more self-explanitory with the usual +attack +damage etc. Think I may try this out in the epic level campaign instead of the level twelve one and grab Distant Shot, plus that way I can actually afford a greater invis ring to sneak attack on every flask thrown.
Don't worry. CJ plays in theoretical games that aren't real, and if you play anything but a wizard he yells at you. In a real world game I promise you, a rogue 20 throwing flasks will be so strong your DM will be in fits, and probably try to house rule it out of existance.
11d6 X*8 = 88d6, which is 308 a round, not 38.5. As a touch attack, which allows you to ignore your pathetically low BAB.
A balor has 290 HP and touch AC of 16. He dies in a round. The CR 26 great worm Red dragon has 660, so he takes 2 rounds.
I have literally suggested this build multiple times on these very boards and had potential DMs in fits because thats clearly broken.*
Now, technically you are going to be much stronger playing a wizard. There aren't many things a wizard 20 can't do, and most builds could be improved if their classes were changed to wizard 20 but don't let anyone tell you rogue 20 isn't a viable build for a home game. Especially if you throw flasks.
Wizard 20 isn't what you wanted to play, and you probably won't be running at the level of optimization CJ assumes.
In my experience most groups have a two handed fighter, a blaster mage, a buffer cleric who prepares a couple of healing spells, and maybe something weird like a monk. Most enemies are straight out of the MM. Most people take power attack, and complain that its a prereq for cleave. In that game, your flask thrower will be leagues ahead and suprise everyone. If your group is actually something like wizard 20, druid 20, DMM Cleric 20, and a second wizard 20, the DM uses entirely classed enemies, and people laugh at the idea of taking fighter level 3, then yeah you will lag behind. BUT If that was your group, you wouldn't be on the forums asking for build advice either.
*Note I don't consider it broken and wish more of my players would play something closer to that power level. In real world play thats just not the case.
Dude, I feel like you didn't even read what I wrote. I don't consider it broken, but I have been berated multiple times on these boards for daring to suggest someone play something so "Obviously broken". Thats generally what a * means. It says "Hey I have a comment or clarification on this, and will drop it at the bottom". If you follow to the bottom you will see where I explain that I don't personally consider it broken and actually push to get my players to play something at this level, but have had multiple experience where I am shouted out of the room for suggesting it because they consider it "broken".
Commoners killing balors at level 10 - This is a perfect example of the assumptions you make being invalid. A commoner 10 in most games is not killing a balor of equal level of optimization. You assume the balor is stock but crank the power on the commoner to 11.
NO ONE IS SAYING WIZARD 20 SUCKS. I'm saying the level of optimization and book availability isn't particulaly common and generally shouldn't be assumed. All dragons take Scintilating Scales is a perfect example. What if the DM doesn't own that book?
Asking for citations for my experience is weird, but sure. My current playgroups consist of
- My-Conjurer wizard, two handed barbarian/ranger/fighter (no lion totem), rogue, monk, healbot cleric, warmage, archer ranger and warlock.
- My PF witch (Note I use a great sword and am the melee tank), a twf fighter/rogue, a PF summoner, and a cleric.
Thats 2/2 in my current actively played groups of different people. I don't remember other groups exact composition, but I play with a lot of them and its generally similar. That means in my experience thats what people play. If you want written proof that thats what I see people play, here is an in character journal I was keeping for the summoner where I occasionally reference people by profession. huntingdemons.blogspot.com/ Do you want that cited in MLA, Chicago, or something else?
Doing 290 dmg in one round WITHOUT MAGICAL BONUSES is quite impressive.
8 at/rd is quite easy with a wand of Divine Power to up BAB. And he was assuming Haste...why weren't you?
C'mon, he hasn't mentioned ANY optimization at all...no scout synergy, no Assassin's stance, nothing. Without using magic he can one-shot a Balor. Using magic? and optimizing? eesh. That could get sick fast.
==Aelryinth
So a tiny bit off anecdotal evidence is sufficient for you to say that optimization is totally nonexistant, and nobody ever in the universe plays anything more powerful than a CW samurai with no ranks in Intimidate?
Hyperbole aside, you're balancing it against no better evidence. We could take a poll to see who does what, but it's not really important.
The main problem is that your input was largely useless since you didn't suggest anything constructive that built towards the originally stated goal of making a mad alchemist (that it changed later is beside the point, since that wasn't known at the time). It's like going to the Olympics and claiming that you won at swimming by running beside the pool; forget competing, you aren't even qualifying.
I have enough evidence with the CO sections on various forums, I don't particularly need to work.
Your statement of being able to find evidence is just as anecdotal as the response you criticized, and you were the one asking for evidence in the first place.
If you can't meet the standards you try to impose on others, no-one else has any reason to take them seriously.
Mine was incredibly useful. Simply, what I was doing was telling the OP not to breathe the water, which was apparently needed, and most of the other posters were telling him to do.
You failed to do anything constructive towards producing a character even remotely resembling what was requested, nor did you provide any useful alternative. It's possible that you're not capable of gearing your answers to fit particular situations, but I prefer to think that people aren't quite so inflexible and that you will be able to adapt.
The attempts of others to provide productive answers will always be more successful than your attempts to deny them unless your answers build towards a better solution. While pure character effectiveness is valuable if applied towards that solution to the appropriate degree, suggestions also need to match the criteria specified by the request; the best square peg in the world is useless for a round hole.
Unless you guys want me to give you the like to BG?
BG is currently read only. Active threads and such can be found here http://www.minmaxboards.com/ .
Don't hold it against him. Them types wandering over from BG really don't know any better, and don't realize they don't live in a normal gaming universe like the rest of us.
==Aelryinth
It is a much better sample than what Krusk provided.
It wasn't, since you didn't actually provide any parts of the sample you briefly mentioned, but I'm not too worried about sorting it out, since you were the one asking for citations and you're the only one missing out if no-one is interested in matching a non-standard.
I do believe not breathing the water is a prerequisite to swimming, to continue that simile.
That's not technically true, though it helps humans to avoid drowning while they swim. Not chopping your arms off is likewise helpful for swimming, as is not shooting yourself through the brain. But simply not doing them won't put you any closer to swimming unless you provide real instruction.
The problem isn't that you offered an opinion on what you thought shouldn't be done (even if your comments were still unhelpful on that front), but that it was all you did. As I said, you didn't manage to provide anything constructive.
Your suggestions were simply of what not to do while others were providing something that would actually help in swimming (even if it doesn't suit your standards). Your response was like saying "you shouldn't doggy-paddle because it's slow, and don't drive your car into the pool" when others were describing how to doggy-paddle. Anyone following the instructions on how to doggy-paddle will be far closer to learning to swim than those simply being told what not to do, especially since the mere act of providing instruction already steers them away from less helpful actions.
It's much easier, and much more effective in the long run to teach someone new to CO what not to do.
Also, pro tip: A smaller square peg will fit into a round hole quite nicely.
You can teach someone more effectively by providing good examples and explaining why they work, or describing the ideals involved. Instructions on what not to do are ultimately only useful for pointing the way to an effective solution, which is why actual descriptions of how to reach that solution have the advantage. Merely telling someone what not to do is like trying to give travel directions by describing every direction to avoid (there are actually ways in which it does help, but they're limited and virtually useless on their own).
As for the pegs, you've got a good point about smaller pegs fitting, and that's exactly what other people provided (to measure it by higher standards that you seem to want). They're not a tight fit, perhaps, and there's a lot more space for a larger peg that could fit into the same hole, but they're a fit. And they're a better fit than no peg at all, which is what you provided.
Gee, I never would have guessed. It's not like I'm a frequent poster there(With the same name as here, in fact) or anything, nope, not at all. Thank you so much for enlightening me on this great arcane mystery that everyone knows about, nope. It's also not like clicking on the "boards" buttone at brilliantgameologists.com takes you to minmax, not at all, nor is it like it's run by the same people, and is called BG by frequenters there, nope, not at all. I was shocked to hear about this!
Hmm, it's like you resent other people for trying to be helpful.
CJ plays Schroedinger's style...whatever side of the argument he's on, he can do anything needed to counter your argument at any time with any character or NPC. It really defines his limited ability to contribute, since he's happily violating the spirit of the boards just about every time he posts.
I get the impression that he can't help constructively without feeling that his own abilities are threatened. Perhaps he feels the need to measure up to an imaginary ideal, or perhaps he feels that the success of others is competition that somehow reduces him, perhaps both.
It certainly makes an interesting contrast with other posters, and especially with threads like the Optimization Showcases, or the incredibly enduring New Monster Request Thread, which are noteworthy for being productive and helpful.
First of all, are you familliar with the concept of "burden of proof?"
Second, as I've said, I am rather content with several hundred threads, not getting into the lovely YBIYBI section, or the handbooks.
I'm familiar with the idea of a burden of proof, and without going into any specialized use of the term, it simply rests with anyone making any kind of claim. That applies to claims both for and against any given position.
Supplying it, however, is typically more than just stating that you've seen some things supporting your claim unless you're describing a firsthand experience. Describing the situation at games you've attended is certainly as much proof as you're likely to need for those games in this situation.
If you're using sections, threads, and handbooks that state more than your personal experience, you need to provide them directly or you're just providing your own statement about them, rather than the evidence that they may contain.
Until the concept of not breathing the water is understood, there's no point it going forward. Baby steps, and all.
Further, as I've said, knowing what not to do is dramatically more useful in the long run that knowing what to do. It'll take less time for him to properly learn that way, and I believe having a newb be self-sufficient in these matters is better than holding his hand through the whole process.
The concept of not breathing water is simple, but you never got beyond it in multiple posts, mostly because you never tried to attempt anything else.
There is a good reason that education doesn't typically consist of just telling people when you think they're doing something wrong, and it's because it's a slow and inefficient way to teach anything. It's occasionally useful when punctuating particular problems within a larger body of useful guidance and instruction.
I'd call making sure it doesn't fall apart in the very beginning, while allowing the newbie to do a bit of learning is quite productive.
Without proper instruction and suggestion on good methods, it's just likely to fall apart in a different direction, and you certainly failed to cover every possible shortfall.
Maybe you could do better, but that seems like a little more work than you're likely to put in given the few instances you did cover.
Knowing what not to do is more valuable. Further, if the OP doesn't actually know not to breath the water, I'd say preventing immediate drowning is a good first step.
Merely holding your breath would be useless in trying to teach someone to swim, since they'd simply sink and remain underwater until they drowned. The death toll in swimming lessons is not as high as your methods would produce because the instructors instruct and even assist those they are trying to teach.
Knowing exactly why the figher(Or, in this case, rogue) is weak is more useful than knowing that the wizard is strong. Especially if the OP goes away with the wrong impression, which is a bit more likely than if the OP knows what's actually bad. See Sneak Attack being shut down by everything.
Knowing either is useless without a comparison to anything else. The wizard is not simply strong, nor the fighter weak; they only possess those traits in comparison to something else such as the challenges they face, or the manner in which other classes can handle them.
Instructing people in anything is far less arduous if the methods of instruction are good and complete, rather than poor and half-finished.
And I'm really not sure what you're actually trying to say here. Pro tip: It's a lot easier to communicate when you say what you mean than if you rely on vague and relatively bizarre similes and metaphors.
I apologize if I've lost you there; we seemed to be doing well with them.
What I was saying is that the "smaller pegs" that people provided were concrete character suggestions that offered a way to advance, even if they don't take advantage of all the character power that might exist within the potential space. Even though the other suggestions given were not good by your standards, they remain superior to your own suggestions by both fitting within the concept described, and by existing instead of being empty air (an absent peg fits no hole of any kind).
The person who has a peg is more successful at fitting the hole than the one like yourself who lacks a peg to offer.
Uh, no. I am annoyed by people stating the so blatantly obvious. That's exactly on the same scale of idiocy as telling me I can get to CNN's website by going to CNN's website. I Really just don't have the patience to deal with that kind of absurdity.
The absurdity of offering a considerate address to something useful and relevant to what was being discussed and saved an unnecessary detour to click on a button at a separate site of which they may or may not have been aware?
You've managed to get all worked up over the fact that someone helpfully mentioned an address. There is no good reason to resent that helpfulness.
If you're done with the armchair psychology(Which is especially annoying considering you obviously lack the credentials to make any kind of analysis on the subject), I'd really like to know how advising against something that basically doesn't work has anything to do with a competition.
I presume you are a professional psychologist capable of determining whether or not someone obviously possesses psychological credentials (I likewise presume that this is not something blatantly obvious to the layman, since stating the blatantly obvious annoys you, and if you start annoying yourself it might never end).
I offered a couple of personal observations, which is something any human can do; the idea of needing credentials for making an analysis in "armchair psychology" is certainly amusing, but I apologize if I've annoyed you.
Since you have said that you would really like my input, it's not the fact that you advised against anything, but the degreee of your aversion to constructively helping others that makes it seem as though it's some kind of competition. That's helped by an apparent need to offer the "best" answer in the form of character potency, with less regard for a good situational match. For example, it would be hard to imagine you offering something like the "A"-Game Paladin to the boards, or many of the other examples in the Optimization Showcase.
And, once again, I fail to see how either education of the newbies or advice(Correct advice, I might add) qualifies in any way as unproductive or unhelpful.
I say unproductive and unhelpful because many of your answers seem to exist as the shadow of a different poster without building towards a useful end; you simply don't add much that's new to most discussions. You're a frequent naysayer, but a rare contributor; whether or not you've got a lot of knowledge, everyone is just going to think of you as just a big windbag if you don't show it. Posts that add knowledge (by giving direction and suggestions), rather than constantly excluding it (by only denying other examples) are much better for that since you can't include it if you don't have it.
You statements are also less effective because of your attitude; people are less likely to fully consider the statements of someone who is abrasive and intolerant than someone who is considerate and capable of understanding different viewpoints, since the former correlates more frequently with ignorance than knowledge, and the latter are more enjoyable people with which to talk.
The DM should try to kill the players, just not be a douche about it. Equivalent, balanced, appropriate CR encounters? Cool. Sending Adamant Horrors and Ephemeral Swarms at a level 9 party? Not cool, just for the same reason the players pulling out Summon Mirror Mephit. It should be a fair game on both sides.
That all comes down to the DM's judgement of what is equivalent, balanced, and of an appropriate CR for their group, and not all groups are equal. If the DM deliberately uses things they know their party is utterly unable to handle, it's not cool or fair regardless of whether or not some other group might handle it differently. As the individual with the control and knowledge of both sides of any potential conflict, it falls to the DM to either adjust the challenges, or to work with the players on adjusting their characters so that the game is interesting for everyone.
I wouldn't go quite so far as saying that the DM should try to kill the characters unless everyone's idea of fun is for them to be dead. Dangerous opponents that challenge and have the potential to kill the players are certainly okay
Gee, I never would have guessed. It's not like I'm a frequent poster there(With the same name as here, in fact) or anything, nope, not at all. Thank you so much for enlightening me on this great arcane mystery that everyone knows about, nope. It's also not like clicking on the "boards" buttone at brilliantgameologists.com takes you to minmax, not at all, nor is it like it's run by the same people, and is called BG by frequenters there, nope, not at all. I was shocked to hear about this!
Hmm, it's like you resent other people for trying to be helpful
for clarification, that wasn't me.
Meh. Close enough. Now, it's his job to provide sufficient proof to make his case before it's my turn to provide a counter argument.
Wait, are you seriously still waiting for me to provide more proof of my experience? I cited a source and everything, I don't know what more you are looking for.
Wait, are you seriously still waiting for me to provide more proof of my experience? I cited a source and everything, I don't know what more you are looking for.
Sure, personal experience counts as a reasonable source. Remind me never to ever spend any time doing any research for a paper ever again.
it does when you ask someone to cite a source on the claim that begins with "In my experience...". What other source would you expect me to provide? How I guess I could point you to the numbers of DND players (Lots) compared to the number of active posters in any char-op forum (not lots). Or the optimization level of the majority of the posts on any board (Relatively low), but thats less directly "my experience".
So there is our miscommunication. You took me stating "in my experience" to mean "Everything ever" when all I intended was "In my experience", which would be implied by the use of "In my experience" at the beginning of the sentance, and not the words "In every game ever".
Theoretical, as in "High level proof of concept". I believe minmax had a subthread devoted to it, but I can't seem to find it anymore. Now my best guess would be it was merged with this one http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?board=27.0 .
==Aelryinth
Except for the fact that certain unnamed parties are repeatedly claiming that breathing the water is amazing and good for your health. Until this is taken care of, it's difficult to go further.
If you provided decent suggestions of your own, you wouldn't find it so difficult to get past simply denying other suggestions; if you believe others are capable of working things out for themselves (as you've indicated) then they will be able to tell which suggestions are better if they're adequately explined.
It's much more useful to know that Healer, Fighter, and Truenamer are bad than it is to know that Wizard, Cleric, and Druid are good.
Why is it more useful to know that the healer, fighter, and truenamer are bad than that the wizard, cleric, and druid are good?
No. I just think the OP should figure some of it out for himself. Hand-feeding the whole thing is both tiresome, annoying, and totally dependent on one's ability to form very long, complex instructions on the internet without any miscommunication. It's much safer, easier, more convinient, and generally better for the learner if they figure parts of it out on their own. Now, if the OP wants to ask any specific points, I'm glad to give very clear, very specific answers, but, between damage control, lack of confidence in anyone here's ability to communicate very clearly on the internet, and laziness, it's much easier to nudge ang guide the OP than give him everything on a plater.
That's where the art of communication really excels; if you've got a good grasp of the ideas, their basics can be communicated in a brief manner that encourages the reader to investigate further or ask for more information on specific points.
You shouldn't lack confidence in your ability to communicate on the internet, since none of us would be talking right now if we didn't believe in our ability to communicate, and expressing ideas is only hard if they're difficult ideas, or if you focus on the wrong points. A good general outline of an idea is easy and encourages inquiry.
Meh. People are boyant. If he didn't figure out that breathing air was important, he'd pass out, float, and be fine. Then he not only knows that you kinda need to breath, but then you can start moving on from there.
People frequently drown despite passing out, which is why instruction is important. Andany instruction not to breathe water would be useless if he'd passed out.
The fighter is simply and objectively weak. The wizard is simply and objectively strong. The reasons are pretty obvious.
Is there an imaginary scale of strength that was developed according to some divine law, or is it simply the result of subjectively comparing the fighter and wizard to a variety of challenges?
Who said I was finished. I just am not going to hand-feed the OP everything. He figures out(Or someone else tells him) something, then we go forward.
It's unlikely that you'll contribute anything of use to the OP on this point. If he goes further, it's because he worked something out, or because someone else helped him, and he consequently has no need for you.
But, in this case, it's more, to continue on that thought, like people are giving him feces and telling him to put it in the hole. Sure, it'll "fit," but it isn't the way to go about this. The rogue/wizard build is a perfect example. It will get shut down by everything.
You didn't provide anything better than feces in that respect. Feces might sometimes fit the hole; nothing never will.
Education is not totally one-sided. It's simply far too much effort, takes too much time, and really isn't very reliable over the internet. The educator puts stuff out there, the educatee works with it, comes back, and then the cycle repeats.
That's lazy and one-sided teaching; you throw stuff at the student and hope they get it; tough luck if they don't learn anything since none of the principles were ever explained and because you can't be bothered to address any difficulties they might have.
Education doesn't occur passively; it's an interaction between the teacher and the student, and the teacher refines their own understanding in the process. If you never learn anything as a result of teaching, you might as well just be bleeding out.
Yes. Everyone already knew that. I don't have the patience for that any more than I have the patience for someone "clarifying" the definition of Keynesian economics in a discussion on economics. It would honestly be even more absurd than someone touting Supply-Side in said discussion.
That does explain some of your shortcomings at instruction; you're failing to imagine the possibility from the viewpoint of someone who isn't familiar with the topic.
For example, in the discussion on economics, what happens if someone involved wasn't familiar with the ideas behind Keynesian economics? They're clearly in the most need of instruction, but by your own claim, you'd run out patience before being able to instruct them on anything.
Took a psych class, and have a working understanding of the basics. Which is really enough in this case.
I've never taken a psyche class, and my observation and the thoughts of others are my own.
Without credentials, though, how do you know that your understanding of the basics is enough?
I am not averse to helping others in any way. The problem here is three-fold. First off, the player is sufficiently vague in his desire that it's really difficult to work with. Second, the DM has already banned anything that could possibly make anything that decently resembles what he wants that will have average damage a round above 3.5 or so.
My objective is never "the best." The aim is always "sufficient." A-Game Paladin is sufficient for a large number of games, though it does cross some lines even I won't even touch(Words of Creation), while missing out on some very obvious, hugely useful fixes(Like Serenity). While my aim is at "sufficient," I cannot condone builds that are objectively incredibly weak, especially if they are being billed as good. See Sneak Attack.
That's interesting. You seem to be saying that the goal was impossible to achieve under the circumstances, yet you were determined to deny any offered builds even though all options would inevitably be insufficient by your own standards.
If you can't tolerate the existence of any insufficient build, why does the exact means matter?
Quite simply, there is frequently little to contribute. There are a few incredibly competent people here, and if I'm beaten to the punch, there's little I can do but point out exactly what is wrong, which is, as I've previously said, more useful that pointing out what's right.
And you still have never actually said why "naysaying" isn't "contributing."
My apologies, I too can fall prey to believing that something is obvious when it is not. A contribution is fundamentally additive, not subtractive. Simply denying the validity of something attempts to remove that element, but without including the reasoning behind the removal and/or suggestions of an alternative, nothing has been gained in the process.
I may be abrasive and intolerant of incompetence, but I do have one much more important trait: I am right.
Anyone can state that they're right or wrong. You simply lack the determination and communicative skill to prove it one way or the other.
I like to be tolerant of those with impaired competence at communication, as well as those who misdirect their efforts. In your particular case, your abrasion and intolerance burn up your energy like a badly-fitted part in a machine, leaving you precious little energy for clarifying your points or convincing others of their validity (even though it requires relatively little effort in most cases).
But it is not the DM's job to bow to another player's incompetence, such as having effectively every single point of damage coming from something close enough to everything is immune to.
Bow to it? It's not like one is the servant and the other the master.
The DM accomodates the ability of their players because they are in the position to do so and because it serves their own interest in running the game the way they want. They are a servant only to their own goals.
Perhaps they adjust the opponents, perhaps they adjust the characters. The methods are up to them.
I wouldn't go quite so far as saying that the DM should try to kill the characters unless everyone's idea of fun is for them to be dead. Dangerous opponents that challenge and have the potential to kill the players are certainly okay
Seriously, did you write this part before the above part, or did you simply not read the last section of my post? I'm inclined to believe the latter, but I'm not sure. Or is the problem here the very simple concept of "fair game?"
The last section of your post was a sidenote about dracoliches.
That aside, you don't seem to have understood my point. The idea that the DM should kill the players is a generally bad one, whether it's a fair game or not and regardless of how they behave about it. The threat of character death and the very real possibility of it if the characters fail are certainly valuable, but it's not something you have as a goal because it's fundamentally undesirable. There's a distinction between the DM including dangerous challenges that try to kill the characters and actually having the DM genuinely try to kill the characters off.
You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Post button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
How much text did I devote to explaining why sneak attack sucks?
More than you devoted to providing any alternatives, which is unfortunate, since your criticism of sneak attack was one of the areas in which you did provide a reasoned response, albeit one coloured by your own perceptions (as any of ours are; by your standards I would imagine you haven't played in too many casual games, since there are certainly those in which rogues perform acceptably, despite their general shortcomings as a class in the broader sense).
Or, basically, the OP came here for help. That means he believes the people here are more knowledgable than him. So, when "more knowledgable" people tell him that breathing water is great for health and longevity, anyone with any decency should get in there and explain to them that it is not such a good idea.
There's actually a slight discrepancy there, since breathing water is directly counterproductive to swimming (at least for humans), rather than merely less productive. Sneak attack remains superior to the absence of sneak attack, unless you provide an alternative.
A rogue's doggy-paddle might not match a full-speed freestyle, but it's better than drowning and still faster than floating. Provide instruction on the faster strokes, and maybe someone will decide a doggy-paddle isn't quite what they need.
Because, once someone understands what's bad, they can make judgements for themselves on what level of "good" they're comfortable with, as well as let them more easily eyeball how bad or good their complex multiclassed builds really are.
Also, the Wizard, the Cleric, the Druid, and so on are simply so much better than everything else, it really won't do any good to start there. The OP might come away with the wrong impression. Or misunderstand why the Cleric and Wizard are so good.
A firm grasp of what is bad allows the person to understand the difference between mediocrie, decent, and good.
That argument is directly reversible, since you can equally claim that understanding what is good allows someone to see the bad. They might come away with the wrong impression just as easily from good as bad, and might equally misunderstand why something is so bad.
It's just as easy to explain why something is good as why it's bad.
And imparting an understanding of what is bad is just that.
Imparting an understanding of what is good is at least equally valuable for discerning differences between good and bad, and there are inevitably fewer ways to achieve success than failure, which is why it's easier to explain the good principles than the bad.
Meh. If he passes out, he'd have someone there, the instructor, to go an pull him out of the water. And now, if he wasn't capable of figuring it out on his own, he knows that he kinda needs air. Much easier for me and much more useful for him.
Since you were the one trying to provide instruction, he'd have drowned because helping him was too much trouble.
And, quite simply, I'd really much rather be in a forum of competents who dislike me than in a forum of incompetent sycophants.
A reasonable position, though their competency won't be due to your own efforts.
And he can figure out which peg to try next on his own, but he won't have his hand and toy covered in ****.
Without guidance on the good, he'll just be putting his hand straight into the next pile of feces thinking it's a usable peg.
And if you give the student everything, they're likely not to learn at all.
The ideal is neither almost nothing, nor everything, but a medium between the two extremes where the student learns broader ideas that they can apply to specific tasks.
And it's exactly the opposite of one-sided teaching. I require the student to give something back before I continue. I've done some real-life tutoring, and it's worked quite well. It's a more efficient use of my time, and a better eduation for him.
That's not entirely invalid, but let's look at that in this current situation.
Pick any post where you gave instruction to the OP. What response would the OP be giving back and how would that response depend on the information you gave?
Because, if you track that part of the conversation, I was, to continue the metaphor, talking with a couple of people who were(supposedly) already economics students. Also, google exists for a reason, and, quite simply, anyone who didn't know could google it in less time that it would take me to personally provide a link.
Why assume that they're economic students? That level of knowledge would be inconsistent with the level of knowledge where you feel it necessary to instruct people not to breath water (one situation assumes basic competency, while the other assumes the lack of it).
If you're genuinely better informed about a subject, you should be able to locate relevant information about it faster than someone without any knowledge of it (unless you're especially slow at typing, or have some other handicap that would slow you down).
Because I'm not trying to psychoanalyze anyone. Or I have a relatively accurate understanding of my capabilities. Or because I've studied it on my own time. Or I've dealt with enough psychopathslogists that I can recognize it. Take your pick.
I'll take all of them.
You're not trying to do an official psychoanalysis of anyone (which is obvious since you don't have the credentials), you presumably understand that lack of capability, you might well have studied it on your own, and the last one implies a criticism of psychologists while you've indicated that I'm clearly not one.
Like you, I'll be sticking to guesses based on my own judgement, which is basically the same method we use regardless of any official training (which is simply another knowledge source and maybe a certificate). I would say, however, that I still have a lot to learn about my capabilities, and I probably always will.
you'd have noticed that I said "with [Factotum, Artificer, etc] banned, it's impossible." Now, if you'll notice, the DM has that lovely knee-jerk "C0R3 1Z T3H BA7ANC3D!!one!" So, my solution was to answer the test, rather than the question. If what he wants is impossible, change the game. In this case, make a Druid, core-only, and fix the DM. Once the DM is shown exactly how bad a druid can be, offer to bring in a balanced Factotumm or something, that can do what he wants.
Hmm, bloodstorm blade might cover it if you just want to throw potions around (though I would agree that the DM seems rather close-minded about the real potential of various classes and if there's an element of distrust for unfamiliar sources, the Tome of Battle is likely to be excluded as well), or a completely regular sorcerer/wizard with a minor flavour change (little, if anything, about regular spellcasting would change if you're allowed to describe lobbed spells as actually being potions).
The actually impossibility is untrue, since you can certainly make a build with the right flavour even with options you might consider to be subpar; their actual performance in the game depends on what kind of game it is, and if the DM is as uninformed as you think, even a quite modest build can do well.
I would call an apendectomy when needed "contributive" to one's health. Wouldn't you? I would call removing cancerous tissue "contributive" to one's health. Wouldn't you?
Bad builds akin to damaged tissue. Bad builds while the person is learning, if you convince him it's good, is much like a cancer, or a disease. Break the habit. Teach him what's good, and what isn't. Preventing the bad build from taking is needed.
It's the comparison with this situation that I'd disagree with. A weaker element isn't the same as a detrimental one. If, for example, that damaged tissue is in the heart, you're still better off with it than no heart.
Teaching what is good and what isn't is certainly valuable, just remember that it's a spectrum, not a polarized state.
Um, no. I've demonstated I'm right. I do not post until I am sure I am right. Because I am right. It really is that simple. I have already established that that build is trash. 'Cuz, yanno, it is.
Demonstrating something only to your own satisfaction is nothing but personal gratification. It's easy to achieve within the confines of your own head, the challenge lies in convincing others.
Quite simply, as I've already explained and supported by fact, that rogue build(Along with almost all rogue builds, really) is trash. It's that simple. I'm pretty sure my record speaks for itself on the fact that I am right. So, got any sort of counter, or are you just going to keep ineffectually pounding on that poorly-placed nail?
I disagree on the effectiveness of continuing, but I'm happy to continue hammering until you're properly placed. Though I've never denied that the rogue is not as strong as a number of other classes.
I don't really remember much about your record; your approximate attitude stands out for obvious reasons, but there tends to be little information that's memorable in your posts, partly due to it being overshadowed by that behaviour (you'd be more convincing without the personal ego-stroking and derision towards other posters).
And it' not the DM's fault if a player is so grossly incompetent that they show up to a game without any source of damage other than sneak attack. The DM shouldn't have to bother sending enemies that are below CR by 5 or so to "challenge" that particular character.
They don't have to; how the DM handles it is up to their own discretion. As I noted, if the DM feels the character isn't up to the challenges, they can certainly work with the player on improving their character.
The DM shouldn't kill the players, the DM should try to kill the players. There's a difference. If there's no chance of losing, I really don't see the point in a game. If you don't want a chance to lose, there are several very easy games I can recommend, but I seriously suggest against D&D, at least 3.5. 4e on the other hand, might be good for you.
The chance of death should certainly be a real threat, just not a goal that the DM actually aims at achieving. There is a difference between a DM that aims to kill the characters and a DM who aims to challenge players (with the possibility of death).
As for the editions, while I liked the fact that 4th Edition encouraged me to customize the flavour of powers (as a side-effect of the design), and admired the elegance of some of its mechanics (the time stop power in particular achieving its effect with beautiful simplicity), I find the broad flexibility and structure of 3.5 to be more interesting, along with the simulationist baseline that allows it to be slightly insane in certain areas, even if those areas may never see normal in-game use (like heavily-templated lycanthropes, Pun-Pun, or the LCB).
Demonstrating something only to your own satisfaction is nothing but personal gratification. It's easy to achieve within the confines of your own head, the challenge lies in convincing others.
This is beautifully quote worthy. *applauds*
You can review the Code of Conduct here: company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Can I get a list or some sort of compilation of "all the ways sneak attack sucks". i guess really just a list of ways to be immune. I've got fortification, which in another thread you chewed someone for taking, and being undead/a robot. I guess concealment/displacement which is really common on casters, but not really on everything else.
I'd also point out that my entire build was "Rogue 20 with TWF and rapid shot" and I sort of assumed someone would haste him. Thats all core, so no DM is batting an eye when you roll up with it.
If I spent time actually putting effort into a lot of the rest, it could probably have methods around "immune to sneak attack", but I kind of want to wait for you to come up with your list of ways before I bother.
Also, again never said it was equal of fully optimized druids or wizards. I said it was competitive. (and that inexperienced DMs will probably freak out)
You can review the Code of Conduct here: company.wizards.com/conduct
Please remember to keep your posts polite, on topic and refrain from personal attacks. You are free to disagree with one another as long as it is done in a respectful manner.
Fortification
Construct
Plant
Ooze
Undead/Deathless
Uncanny dodge (which tends not to work with a Rogue 20)
And I think the MoMF and/or War Shaper has a class feature that gives fortification-type defense.
- Fortification - Heavy is expensive, and he shot it down as stupid in another thread. Many creatures/foes do not actually wear armor, so it may not be applicable.
- Robots - Augment crystal, dungeonscape feature, or wand of robotstrike
- Plants - Alternative class feature in dungeonscape
- Oozes - Alternative Class feature in dungeonscape
- Zombies - Augment crystal, dungeonscape feature, complete champion "Deal 2 damage instead of sneak attack die to zombies", wand of gravestrike.
- Being a level 24 rogue. Obviously better than being a level 20 rogue.
The AFC in dungeonscape lets you do half damage, but its still worth looking into. (You also have to drop the flasks and switch to daggers) It also probably doesn't help with most oozes. It also debatibly works against fortification or really any form of "Can't sneak attack me".
- For displacement/concealment there is trueseeing. Either a wand or an item. Also, pierce magical concealment feat if you find it comes up a lot.
*Edit, corrected truestrike to trueseeing.
2) Um, broken 'good' or broken 'bad'?
3) And creatures who don't have those immunities are probably going to die in one round. Note that, say, demons and devils, with energy resistance, are perfectly vulnerable to Holy Water damage, instead. This is because we're dealing with touch attacks, so, like, every attack is going to hit. Kind of similar to melee attacks if they are all touch attacks...it's like a free +20-30 to hit, sometimes.
==Aelryinth
2) Broken in the sense of good.
3) I don't understand what makes you think that monsters will magically fall down in one round. I mean they won't be dying to a bunch of 1d6 flasks without SA that's for sure.
4) Please refrain from comments like "This is because we're dealing with touch attacks, so, like every attack is going to hit." I'm fairly sure that everyone following the conversation at this point understands at least that much of the premiss.
5) I'm NOT saying the build isn't OKAY. In fact it's one of the few ways to play a decent core rogue. However, as I said before when a DM is limiting one to core with statements like "Spellthieves are one of the most broken classes in the game" I'd advise against playing what amounts to an easily shut down gimmick. Sure you get to SA (assuming you don't mind being ranged based and limited to within 30ft of the stuff that's actively trying to eat your face as well as managing to get SA with ranged in the first place which is no easy feat) using touch attacks and that's awesome. The downside is that it's a simple change for the dm to throw in some of the SA IMMUNE foodgroups -see above- in order to ship your build right back down to suckvill and all the counters a rogue could bring to the table -see even more above- WON'T be available. In which case Druid/Wizard/Cleric 20 become a much better roflstomp option as they aren't so easily shut down.
CONGRATULATIONS! You've listed a number of ways to make SA not suck using splat books! Now please explain how those are relevent to your argument that a flask throwing rogue 20 in a CORE ONLY game is "broken".
Since when was that my argument. I said rogue 20 with twf and rapid shot was one of the best rogue builds around, and it happens to be core. And that inexperienced DMs would see it as overpowered (or use the term broken to describe it). If your DM declares the game core only, you are in the exact same situation as pretty much every other rogue. Unable to deal with plants and oozes.
I then listed a variety of core and non-core methods to avoid sneak attack prevention. Most of those methods were non core, but thats fine. My only mentions of core rogue 20 was that being core only makes it very attractive when you have a restrictive DM.
(OP, if you want advice on future builds, I'd recommend a new thread for those specifically. This is very off topic and I doubt it will come back)
I think after you add up all the OTHER major types and match them against your three, you'll find 20% to be generous. Unless you are playing an undead-heavy campaign, of course, which is no more valid then playing hobgoblin-heavy. Also, elementals tend to be encountered singly or by summoning, and constructs in ones or twos as well. In pure numbers, only the undead are going to be frequent, numerous and repetitive...but there's multiple types of others that fit that category.
And if they get hit with d6 flasks with SA, they are pretty much toast.
And if the DM wants to shaft ANY PC class, it's generally not difficult for him to do so, so that's a bad example. There's many, many ways of getting SA on demand for a cunning rogue.
And not being hostile, it's premise, not premiss.
==
BTW, someone check for me, as my Spell Compendium is about 500 miles away...the Scintillating Scales in the SC, as I remember, is Cha to AC/deflection bonus, for a dragon. The Scint Scales from one of the Dragon splatbooks was Nat Armor converted to Deflection bonus. Am I correct?
===Aelryinth
SC version converts Natural Armor to deflection, I don't have Draconomicon, so I don't know what that version does.
The Draconomicon version (pg 80) gives a deflection bonus equal to the CON modifier. It also reduces natural armor by half that amount. Considering a dragon's CON score that isn't nearly as much as its natural AC it may not be so great but it is still better then the DEX score would allow.
Flavor is ultimately the deciding factor for me, and I have plenty of ideas for characters I want to try out that don't involve the all-or-nothing approach that it seems this alchemist concept would offer.
In case it's ever helpful for the original concept, it did occur to me that you could try the flask-throwing with something like a bloodstorm blade (if Tome of Battle is allowed), or you could simply flavour a regular spellcaster to be throwing potions to deliver the effects of their spells (which works even in a core-only game, as long as the DM is okay with the description; there's no real reason something like a fireball can't be an explosive potion, except maybe for its range).
I wish I could have been of more help on this one, but I was kind of late to the table, figuratively speaking.
I'm just going to lay it out.
Why the build is bad:
-Rogue isn't a good class.
-SA is situtational
-Ranged SA is even more situational
Why the build is good:
-SA on touch ac
My verdict:
The cons far outweigh the pros, don't bother.
Yours (so far as I can tell)
Pretty good, I mean look at the damage potential!
We should probably just agree to disagree.
- Robots - Augment crystal, dungeonscape feature, or wand of robotstrike
- Plants - Alternative class feature in dungeonscape
- Oozes - Alternative Class feature in dungeonscape
- Zombies - Augment crystal, dungeonscape feature, complete champion "Deal 2 damage instead of sneak attack die to zombies", wand of gravestrike.
Notice something about all of these? They all use weapon enhancements. Guess what doesn't work on flasks
Weird, because I swore alternative class features and wands weren't weapon enhancements. Maybe I'm crazy though.
Augment crystals were a grand total of two of the things I listed. Thats a good point on them though, in that they won't work on flasks. Luckily I listed a lot of non-augment crystals.
A dagger is 2 gp. I don't think the 4gp spent to engage in melee will ruin you. In fact, I'd bet the DM throws some magic daggers or short swords in as treasure and you can just keep whatever you happen to find.
Why would I dump str? that seems like a bad idea. Dex > Con > Str > Int > Cha not at 10 > Wis is probably my stat order for a flask thrower. Con and str could even potentially be swapped.
Diplomancers are generally considered in that realm of "This rule is stupid so don't use it" that most groups play by. As in, its not hard to make anything you can roll a check against automatically fanatical in seconds, so we won't use these rules. If you are going to go UMD, just play a caster for real instead of pretending and save yourself the effort.
A dagger is 2 gp. I don't think the 4gp spent to engage in melee will ruin you. In fact, I'd bet the DM throws some magic daggers or short swords in as treasure and you can just keep whatever you happen to find.
Have you even read how augment crystals work?
Note the mention of magic weapons.
Note the mention of magic weapons.
Note the mention of 4GP.
Also, pro tip: Relying on the DM to drop a super special awesome weapon in your lap just for you is not a smart move.
Funny thing that quote, I could have sworn it consisted of more than the first sentence. Secondly the most you need enhancement wise to use the highest tear weapon crystal is a +3 weapon. Seeing as how the dagger is pretty much one of the most common weapons in the game I don't think getting at least one with a magic enhancement on it is far fetched, and even so it's only 18,000 gp, not that expensive of an investment for around the levels most SA immune creatures become common. Even better, get an item made that grants continuous grave/golem strike (I'm away from book at the moment but as 2nd level spells it shouldn't be to costly to make into a permanent item).
Also, If your playing a rouge and have no means to dispel enemies it's probably because you haven't had need dispel anyone, otherwise I don't think I've ever played (or seen for that matter) a rouge based character without a means to dispel at mid to late levels.
Funny thing that quote, I could have sworn it consisted of more than the first sentence. Secondly the most you need enhancement wise to use the highest tear weapon crystal is a +3 weapon. Seeing as how the dagger is pretty much one of the most common weapons in the game I don't think getting at least one with a magic enhancement on it is far fetched, and even so it's only 18,000 gp, not that expensive of an investment for around the levels most SA immune creatures become common.
Pro tip: Daggers aren't common weapons, at least not magic ones. You know why? They suck. There is no good reason to ever enchant a dagger.
Second of all, you're totally chill with the idea of just waiting for your DM to drop a very specific piece of 18K loot into your lap?Even better, get an item made that grants continuous grave/golem strike (I'm away from book at the moment but as 2nd level spells it shouldn't be to costly to make into a permanent item).
Beyond the fact that the wording of Grave Strike prevents that? The fact that custom items are sketchy at best?Also, If your playing a rouge and have no means to dispel enemies it's probably because you haven't had need dispel anyone, otherwise I don't think I've ever played (or seen for that matter) a rouge based character without a means to dispel at mid to late levels.
I must say, I've never played a makeup-base character before.
And how are you going to dispel? With scrolls and wands? Or, in other words, jank items with pathetic CLs? Yes, I am SO sure it'll save you from the enemy NPC five levels below you.
How exactly do daggers suck? there a light weapon which means you can use them in grapples, a light weapon is your only hope of cutting your way out of something that's swallowed you whole, they can deal piercing and slashing damage meaning they can as a mundane weapon overcome two separate DR's, three if you make them of a specific material, you can use them as ranged weapons, as simple weapons almost any class can wield them, the list of their merits goes on and on. Most characters I've seen carry one as a backup weapon which for all the reasons I listed and more. Even as a primary weapon it has many merits, from the use of shadow hand maneuvers to master throwers, all around, a decent weapon.
secondly what in the wording of grave strike states that it cant be made into an item, and why would getting one made be sketchy? Half of your arguments in other threads involve getting intelligent body slot items made so they can supposedly grant their weapon quality and intelligent item effects as extraordinary abilities due to them being "natural abilities" of a construct and using obscure 3.0 armor stacking rules. I think asking a DM if you can get goggles of grave strike with about 3 or 5 charges a day as a use activated item would be within the realm of reason. Finally in regards to the despelling items, wizards get scribe scroll at level 1, and scrolls are relatively cheap to make even at higher caster levels, odds are the group wizard is going to have a few set at his caster level, and letting you have access to them is far from unreasonable as it benefits everyone to have more than one person be able to de-buff enemy spell casters.
Back to the wizard and the rouge (almost sounds like a cheesy love novel huh?) and their symbiotic relationship. Rouges disarm traps without the use of spells at lower levels when the per days are fairly limited, scout without the aide of magic so the wiz knows what to prepare for, and if someone gets in the wiz's face the rouge who most likely has one of the higher initiative mods walks up behind the problem and flanks (read: shanks) him in the kidney to take he heat off of his squishy-ness for a round well the melee specialist (or whatever is replacing his role if you don't have the standard four boxes in your party) gets into position to lay his hurt down. Meanwile the wiz buffs the rouge when needed, mage hands a few stones onto a pressure plate when the rouge doesn't think he can disarm the trap or that its too dangerous to work on. Identifies loot, tells him what creatures he can and cant shank effectively, and dispels any pesky enemy caster who thinks that after level 6-8 a level 2 spell will matter to the standard adventuring group.
Now on to the custom item argument. Baring the fact that you preach of tinfoil hats, intelligent items that for some reason never try and dominate you and so on in other threads, there is nothing scetchy about getting a charged item to help pass an immunity. they're so common a DM litiraly has to be trying to nerf the rouge (which would speak magnitudes of his skill as a DM in the first place) if he shoots the idea down. As for this supposed technicality on why grave strike cant be made into a item, I'm not seeing it. The only thing I can note is that it has the good descriptor, so odds are it would be a alignment specific item (not to much of a pain if it even comes down to that).
Well it's 5 am in the morning for me and I don't see much else in your rebutle that marits a responce, though I'll double check later just in case, I'm wrapping this post up for the moment. In the famous words of Yako Warner, "goodnight everybody".
CJ, you've typed yourself in circles. And shown that you have no clue what you're talking about.
A greatsword is the only 2H weapon ever used, huh? Way to completely discount the guisarme, spiked chain, and scythe.
And "custom items are sketchy", but "intelligent items are totally ok, and you can totes specify what kind of stats it gets".
Now, I'm sure you'll try to insult your way out of this - it's what you do - but maybe you should step back and stop with the "I is alwayz rite!!!1!"
Nailed it!
WOW, you must be one of those divination god wizards CJ keeps mentioning 0.o
As for you CJ, I''m busy atm, but I'll get around to responding to you later. ta-ta.
Meh, poor wording. Allow me to rephrase: Greatswords are the only two-handed weapon ever used outside some gimmicky builds.
Greatswords have solid base statistics, but they're not all that "great" otherwise, since they only have a point or two of base damage over other two-handed weapons (while the majority of your damage has nothing to do with the base weapon), and lack any particular special features that might be of use.
If you're not going for one of those gimmicky builds, your exact choice of base weapon makes very little difference. If it wasn't for a couple of useful things (Leap Attack is the main one that comes to mind) directly specifying special benefits for two-handed weapons, you'd even be better off with a one-handed weapon, since you've got the added choice of using it in either one or two hands depending on what you want at the time.
And a shield is absolutely the only thing that can be done with a free hand. No one ever uses potions, or wands, or another weapon. Nope. Nor do they ever cast spells with somatic components. No sirree, never.
And don't bother telling me how "sub-optimal" those options are; not everyone plays in games with nothing but Tier 1, ever.
Power attack, bro. Two-handed weapons are better, because they have higher damage and there is no good reason not to use them. The greatsword is the best two-handed weapon. There is simply no point in using anything else.
You can use Power Attack just as well by holding a one-handed weapon in two hands, and the damage from things like Power Attack makes the base damage largely irrelevant. You can get weapon trips, reach, and similar benefits from other two-handed weapons, which are generally more useful than a couple of measly points of average damage.
I mean, what are you going to do with a one-handed weapon? Use a shield?
Occasionally, though as I've previously observed in other threads, shields have the potential to apply magical enchantments in a way that's largely underused, and there's no particular need to avoid using your shield arm in order to gain that advantage.
There are certainly other things you could hold with that offhand, however, from hanging onto a rope to employing a particular magic item, and if you're potentially occupied in that manner, it's nice to be able to retain your attack potential while doing so (you can Power Attack to full effect with most one-handed weapons, but using your two-handed weapon in one hand isn't an available option).
Funnily enough, some of the more important benefits of using a two-handed weapon are attached to those gimmicks, where an extra +4 to a disarm or sunder attempts is extremely useful, whether you're the attacker or the defender. The heavy flail, for example, can allow excellent disarming (with its total +6 on disarm attempts) for no particular investment, and still has all the regular two-handed advantages.
Human Rogue 1/Wizard 4/Unseen Seer 8(Complete Mage)/Arcane Trickster 7(DMG) (Or Rogue 1/Wiz. 3/Spellthief 1/US8/AT 7, whatever works best)
While aside from Practiced Spellcaster (and maybe Open Minded(from Races of Destiny) at Lv.3 for extra skill points), any feat is pretty much free, though I would suggest grabing Persist Spell later on.
The Advanced Learning of the U.S. should be: Hunters' Eye(from PH2), Gravestrike, and Vinestrike (both from Complete Adventurer). Between these 3 spells, Golem strike, Wraithstrike (both also from Complete Adventurer), and Telekinesis(so as to stealthly drop poitions on foes, or toss a storm of potions all at once), you'll be able to sneak attack most anything out there. For everything else, there's TK and good old fashioned energy damage (the later choice for Elementals, mostly). For more fun, get an item that allows you to use/cast Divine Power in some fashion. For other tips, check out Tempest Stormwinds' build "#1 Snoipah" in his sig.
@CJ: Chugging a potion, casting a spell, signaling in Drow Sign language to GTFO of Dodge cause the "boom mage/boomstick" is about to AoE the battlefield, use a magical item (wand/scroll/etc.)... I can think of many things to have a hand free/use a one-handed weapon for.
Edit: Ninja'd by Slagger.
To the OP: I believe I have a decent build for you if you want to go down the Rogue/Wizard path. I can't quite recall what your original levels were though. My build is essentially this:
Human Rogue 1/Wizard 4/Unseen Seer 8(Complete Mage)/Arcane Trickster 7(DMG) (Or Rogue 1/Wiz. 3/Spellthief 1/US8/AT 7, whatever works best)
While aside from Practiced Spellcaster (and maybe Open Minded(from Races of Destiny) at Lv.3 for extra skill points), any feat is pretty much free, though I would suggest grabing Persist Spell later on.
The Advanced Learning of the U.S. should be: Hunters' Eye(from PH2), Gravestrike, and Vinestrike (both from Complete Adventurer). Between these 3 spells, Golem strike, Wraithstrike (both also from Complete Adventurer), and Telekinesis(so as to stealthly drop poitions on foes, or toss a storm of potions all at once), you'll be able to sneak attack most anything out there. For everything else, there's TK and good old fashioned energy damage (the later choice for Elementals, mostly). For more fun, get an item that allows you to use/cast Divine Power in some fashion. For other tips, check out Tempest Stormwinds' build "#1 Snoipah" in his sig.
@CJ: Chugging a potion, casting a spell, signaling in Drow Sign language to GTFO of Dodge cause the "boom mage/boomstick" is about to AoE the battlefield, use a magical item (wand/scroll/etc.)... I can think of many things to have a hand free/use a one-handed weapon for.
Edit: Ninja'd by Slagger.
I already suggested a similar build but his DM shot it down cause it involved spell thief, which according to him is broken.
PS: haven't forgotten about you CJ, I'm just busy at the moment, I'll get a full blown reply to your zany antics soon hopefully.
I mean, what happens to a returning splash weapon? I can think of a couple of possibilities, but they don't quite seem satisfactory.
Also, pro tip: Nothing I can think of that could possibly qualify as T1 uses a greatsword.
You wouldn't call a cleric as T1?
Odd. I could have sworn that clerics automatically gained proficiency with their deity's favored weapon & the War Domain only granted Weapon Focus. Guess not.
Well, there's always Zarus.
And what are you going to use one-handed?
Seriously, there's no reason not to go for those "couple of measley points of average damage," because you'll be fighting two-handed anyways.
The one handers have rough equivalents for most of the two handers anyway, and pretty much anything is better than the tiny damage bump if you've got half a use for it. You go for the base damage if you're at a low level where it matters, or if you just can't get the use from anything else.
There's an item for that bizarre rope example. Plus, of course, there's the fact that you really shouldn't be caught with your pants down like that.
So you can have a separate item, or just a more generally useful weapon, or both, since you can't always expect to be ready for everything.
Disarm? Sunder? Yeah, no. The only combat maneuver that's anything resembling decent is tripping, which is a situational gimmick that only really works against humanoids, and grappling, which only works if you're a PsyWar or Totemist in a 1v1 situation, and in either case, you have better things to do.
Disarm and sunder serve roughly the same purpose in disabling gear, which is useful if you're canny enough to work out which bits of gear your opponent finds important (generally non-weapon items, since they're easy to hit). Disarm has the advantage of being opposed by an attack roll, rather than working against AC, which allows an alternative method of weakening an opponent who has invested in the more common defenses.
And, of course, it's handy for those occasions where you don't want to kill the opponent outright, which is more likely with an intelligent, gear-using foe.
There is the fact that Alchemist's Fire and co aren't actually weapons, so I'm pretty sure BSB doesn't work.
Mechanically they're splash weapons, and while their use would certainly be dubious with most of the abilities unless the DM specifically allowed it (and you do throw splash weapons, so it's not completely unreasonable), the Returning Attacks ability is less strictly written. Given an appropriate answer for the issue of returning splash weapons, a DM could readily decide whether or not to allow their use for the rest of the class abilities (which similarly bounce thrown weapons about the place).
And of course you completely looked past the point that a one handed weapon wielded two handed gets all the damage bonuses of 2h weapon, but you can one hand it and use a shield without a problem when defense is more essential. Especially since pre-10th you aren't going to own an Animated Shield.
==Aelryinth
And I dunno, +2-5 AC pre-10th is a lifesaver. Maybe not in the games you play, but certianly those 90% of others do. At higher levels, +12 AC is also awesome.
Ah, but you're playing Schroedinger's, always with the money and gear to perfectly solve every solution on the spur of the moment as it happens. i keep forgetting.
==Aelryinth
==Aelryinth
Except you gain nothing from not taking taking the +3 damage.
Sure you do, you in particular just don't like the options involved. It's at least as useful to have a couple of dirt cheap AC points from a shield as it is to have a a couple of points of damage.
Spoken like someone who's never heard of a Handy Haversack
Spoken like someone who's never heard of a weight limit or a gold piece cost (for the more expensive, but more useful, stuff).
Also, it would be kind of a shame if someone destroyed that backpack since its AC is pathetic and it's not particularly tough.
They're both wastes of actions that serve no real purpose and require some not insignificant investment.
They do require some investment for best use (Combat Expertise being the main drawback on the disarming front, since it's not as useful in its own right as Power Attack), though if you don't want to use them, you've also removed a couple of the more important reasons to actually use a two-handed weapon in the first place.
Nonlethal damage says hi.
Also, Speak With Dead. Also Sleep and co. Also Dominate. Also Stone Shape. Also about a bajillion other spells or pieces of mundane gear.
Nonlethal damage says "you'll have to beat me completely unconscious before I stop fighting back at full strength", assuming I'm not immune to nonlethal in the first place.
The others are things for which immunities or other preventions can readily come in to play; heck, mind control in general is readily blocked by a 1st-level spell. When your opponents rely on gear (which is what we're talking about), nothing is quite so effective as removing that gear and it's basically easy while being difficult to prevent.
Uh, no. Aren't you familiar with the +25 rule? Either you make your AC around level+25 or higher(The exact figure changes at any given level), or you don't bother having any AC.
Shields are one of the cheapest ways to achieve that, and pretty much anyone can get one with no real downsides for a pittance.
"As" does not mean "is." It can be thrown "as a splash weapon." That does not make it a splash weapon.
Sure it does; it just means it's not a splash weapon when you're not throwing it. You throw it, it deals splash damage, it's a splash weapon.
For comparison, a flask of acid poured onto something isn't a splash weapon, since it's not being used as one.
I really fail to see what my superior knowledge has to do with this conversation.
It does seem to be a case where the more useful pieces of knowledge that you might be able to contribute have failed to make contact with this conversation in a number of areas.
When you start to develop a spontaneous inability to identify splash weapons (and as a common core item, they shouldn't be hard to recognize if you consider yourself "pro" as a result of your reading skills), you might want to consider whether your attitude is getting in the way of any real objectivity.
It would be a shame one was incompetent enough to actually let their Haversack get sundered. Or if the DM was bad enough to actually do it.
If you can get close enough to your enemies to attack them, it's safe to assume that they can do the same, and sundering is a legitimate tactic that is simply rendered much more effective if you put all your eggs in one basket (or one haversack).
A good DM can readily use sunder as long as they're still covering the appropriate equipment requirements in the long term (it becomes bad if they destroy items and leave it as a more lasting drawback for the player).
There's one real reason to use a two-handed weapon. Damage. It's pretty simple.
The amount of damage contributed by the weapon itself is negligible, so it's more important to have the two-handed weapon for its support of specific effects that require a two-hander than its own damage.
If you're already well-covered on the pure damage front, you might as look into some diversity in the form of tripping, reach, and other options, and fortunately two-handed weapons offer some good choices to support these.
So, please explain what this magical buffed-out thing I'm not allowed to kill could possibly be. I'm curious.
If your knowledge of high-level enemies is what you claim, you shouldn't have any difficulty coming up with some candidates. I can certainly provide a few suggestions if you're in need of my help, but I'll allow you the chance to assert yourself in this regard since it seems to be your preference.
A serious loss of damage for basically no AC isn't a downside?
You can always ditch the shield if you really don't need it at the time, and there's no drawback to simply strolling around with one, especially when there are options available to make switching easy.
Similarly, it's entirely possible that you've got more tricks up your sleeve than just a two-handed smash, since you can cover the basics of that without too much investment (and naturally, Tome of Battle eases the two-handed dependency).
I really fail to see what my superior knowledge has to do with this conversation.
It does seem to be a case where the more useful pieces of knowledge that you might be able to contribute have failed to make contact with this conversation in a number of areas.
Explain
I'm not clear on what about this doesn't make sense to you.
Difference between "as" and "is," bro. Unless you care to provide me a piece of text specifically referring to Alchemists Fire or Acid as a weapon, in which case I'll gladly admit I was wrong.
If they're not splash weapons, what is a splash weapon?
Oh, and we were talking about a Falchion, not splash weapons, for crits, so Sneak Attacks had nothing to do with it, mmmkay? And really, looking at all the enemies above 10th, the ones you can't make vulnerable to crits with cheap Augment Crystals is really, really small. NPC's can't afford fortification armor, which is the only broad defense out there, too.
Aaaand the '+25 rule'...which is most easily done by having a shield. You seem ignorant of this fact while making my argument for me.
And relying on miss chances can get you very dead very quickly as soon as something with appropriate senses goes after you with Power Attack, since I know that's going to be your defense.
==Aelryinth
Also, pro tip: Nothing I can think of that could possibly qualify as T1 uses a greatsword.
You wouldn't call a cleric as T1?
Please show me a god with the War domain that favors a greatsword. I don't play clerics very often, but I can't think of one.
You can worship a concept and pick your own domains. I pick "Being a badass in melee combat" as my concept. My first domain is the war domain and my favored weapon is greatswords.
You can review the Code of Conduct here: company.wizards.com/conduct
Please remember to keep your posts polite, on topic and refrain from personal attacks. You are free to disagree with one another as long as it is done in a respectful manner.
You can worship a concept and pick your own domains. I pick "Being a badass in melee combat" as my concept. My first domain is the war domain and my favored weapon is greatswords.
You know, I actually didn't think of that. I stand corrected.
There's also Zarus, for those DMs who require you to have a deity out of the books.
Killing a guy's satchel or backpack doesn't kill him, or prevent him from killing you.
Neither does hitting him with any other kind of debuff (debuffing being the functional effect of sundering).
Let's see, Black Tentacles, Force Cage, Hold Monster, even Stone Shape should work here.
Or, as I've said, if it's kitted out with enough WBL to be effectively immune to all that and then some, I just say screw it, count my blessings, kill it, loot it, and spend a bit of time divining my way to the next plot hook.
Forcecage is the only one that's even remotely inconvenient, and most of the effects can be resisted with spellcasting (remember your claim about how so many foes have it?).
By the way, the upshot of your divination result about the next plot hook is "you need to capture that enemy alive". You wouldn't be trying to take them alive in the first place if it wasn't important, and it's a failure if you can't manage that.
As for the worth of not killing something, that's basically situational, and appropriate situations abound, but it's not something that's dependent on them being a particular kind of enemy.
Nope, not seeing it.
Indeed you're not, so let me spell it out for you. The need to avoid killing something is usually because you want it alive for some particular purpose, rather than because of something inherent to its race (unless it's got some equivalent of death throes with particularly bad effects). Today, you might need to capture the head mind flayer alive for its information, tomorrow it might be fine to just stab it; the need is because of the situation, not the creature.
It's always an inferior option to a two-handed weapon, there's no point in spending a dime on a shield. There are no circumstances where it's better(Unless you're going to homebrew a gigantic doom monster that can only be damaged by shields, or something equally as absurd).
It's often an equally good option, so there's good reason to spend a fraction of gold on a shield. There are plenty of circumstances where it's better (unless you're going to homebrew a gigantic doom monster that can only be damaged by two-handed weapons, or something equally as absurd).
Your empty claims work exactly the same in reverse.
To clear away the clouds of confusion for you, the reason you've failed to see any relationship between your (hypothetically) superior knowledge and this conversation is that you haven't been using it.
The fact that some people here believe sneak attack and shields are decent kinda disagrees with you.
For two-handers in particular, there are a few reasons to use them, and if you're not bspecifically buying into those (for example, many Tome of Battle elements don't care what you're using) you're better off with a one-hander.
By your own claim, you weren't even able to consider spellcasters as a possible foe with a lot of appropriate defenses, despite the fact that you personally claimed spellcasting was common amongst high-level foes. Consequently, I have extreme doubts about the superiority of your own knowledge.
It may indeed be technically correct to say that a flask of acid is not fundamentally a splash weapon, in the same way that a tower shield is not total cover. However, when the flask is used as a splash weapon, or the tower shield is used as total cover, they provide the relevant benefits in every way that counts.
Except for the important fact that a flask of whatever isn't actually a splash weapon.
It is a splash weapon when used in a specific way, in the same way that a tower shield is total cover when used in a specific way. If you use the flask of acid in some other way, such as drinking it, it's not a splash weapon.
What was that, again? Oh, yeah: Reading is pro. Rules are pro. Pro tip: lrn2play, n008!!1!eleventyone1!
Translation: "I have no idea what an effective debuff is."
If their gear is useful to them, it's worth disabling (and why would your opponents be using completely worthless gear?). If it's not at this exact moment, you simply don't do it. You simply apply your best judgement as to what and when to attack.
You mean if they prepared a really crappy Cleric spell, or are kitted out with some sweet loot. In the first case, I don't think they're gonna be much of a problem, and in the second case, count my blessings and just kill them for their loot and go about it some other way.
If they've prepared common and rudimentary effects that are easy to obtain, and likely to be used against those kind of effects because they work.
Spoken like someone who has never actually bothered with divining stuff.
Look, bro. Scrying. Circle Dance. Twenty Questions with the Universe. Yeah, if that's all you can get, urdoinitwrong.
Spoken like someone without a real answer.
Divination has its purposes, but the best (and least resistable) effects depend greatly on the DM wanting to give you an information handout. Maybe that's been the case for you, but divination is typically useful, but not all-powerful.
Keeping it alive for its information? Three words, bro: Corpses. Never. Lie.
Short memory, hmm? Corpses get to resist, assuming that the creature in question leaves an intact corpse capable of speech and no measures have been taken to prevent you accessing them.
There is never any circumstance ever where your, what, three or four AC is superior to the massive damage boost from two-handing it. Ever. And any point after that, you can just have an animated shield, so the point is moot anyways. Shields are garbage unless animated.
Animated is a waste of money if you don't need it, and two-handing is only useful if you've built for it. Otherwise it's a waste.
If you're not using it much, or want some flexibility, or (if you really know about shields) are doing without the animated part since it's still able to be used, they're very worthwhile.
Damage is always superior. Period. That's it. A dead enemy can't kill you. An enemy with an eighty percent instead of ninety percent chance of killing you? Can still kill you.
Unfortunately for you, there are several methods to render the direct application of damage useless, so you're incorrect in stating that damage is always superior.
In addtion, while killing an enemy does stop it threatening you, it does require 100% effectiveness, or the enemy retains their full fighting strength. Weakening the enemy or limiting its actions immediately reduces its ability to harm you, even if it's still alive.
And on the more extreme end of things, once you have a certain amount of damage output, you really don't need any more in order to kill things, so you might as well diversify a bit in order to handle occasional challenges that are well-protected against the direct application of damage.
Translation: "I have no idea what I'm talking about."
I wouldn't go quite that far. You know a few things, but you have some pretty glaring holes in your knowledge and some heavy prejudices that prevent you from learning new ideas.
Seriously, no. Situational defenses are only good with contingent spells or WBL, and if your enemies have enough wealth to shut down most of your offensive options, I am jealous. Because, seriously, if your casters are actually shut down by something with inferior WBL, they really suck, and more wealth means you can just curbstomp higher level things, unless the DM gives them more wealth, in a constructive cycle.
And if your enemies magically have a bunch of buff time to get everything ready, then just rofldispel them and murder them. It'll work out fine in the end.
It's actually quite surprising what you can get on a modest budget if you've got a decent idea of what sort of effects are the most problematic. And as with players, spellcasting foes can put up buffs that are hard to dispel if they want to.
As!=is, bro. English is pro. I recommend you take a basic class in it.
Had you a true understanding of that, you'd realize that this use of "as" (in the context of both the flask and the tower shield) allows the item in question to assume the qualities of the subject whose nature it assumes.
In other words, stating that something like a tower shield can be used "as total cover" means that it functions as total cover, in the same way that using a stone as a doorstop still allows a door to be held open. For another example, let's compare the wording of the acid flask to the heavy shield (specifically its ability to perform a shield bash):
- "You can throw a flask of acid as a splash weapon."
- "You can bash an opponent with a heavy shield, using it as an off-hand weapon."
Note that both sentences use the word "as" in the same manner, assigning the properties of the relevant weapon type to the object in question, given the appropriate circumstances. When used to bash an opponent, a heavy shield may be considered to be an off-hand weapon in all ways that matter, and when a flask of acid is thrown, it may likewise function as a splash weapon for all relevant effects.
Translation: "I have no idea what an effective debuff is."
Just as devoid of any real argument as before.
Again, any good protection against a party is worth enough, it's easier to simply kill, loot, and divine.
I mean, look how much FoM rings cost. Yeah, if you're throwing that at my level 7 wizard, who am I to say no?
Spells are easier, scrolls are cheaper if you're not worried about the effect being dispelled, and some of the enemies simply won't need to add items.
Look up Contact Other Plane. If you're anything resembling competent, the only way for you not to get answers is if the DM cheats.
Incorrect. Although "don't know" does have a column, it's also possible for a question to be impossible for the questioned entity to answer because they lack any ability to know (as opposed to having the potential, but lacking the answer).
Should the DM decide that the entity couldn't possible know the answer (for example, even greater deities usually don't know what will happen in the future, or a lot of details about specific individuals unless they've been directly involved with them), you'll simply get a random response. It's not the DM somehow cheating, since it's entirely valid according to the spell, and control of the information and who can possibly know it is up to the DM in the first place.
It's also possible for the entity in question to tell the truth while giving you information that isn't correct in a more objective sense since the entity itself is misinformed.
Contact other plane inherently places complete control of information in the hands of the DM and there's nothing you can do about it short of picking appropriate entities and asking them for information that they're likely to know.
Lolyeah, resist. You mean, their flat bonuses with no gear? Yeah, I'm so worried. It's not like casters have ways of laughing at saves or anything, no siree. And if you let the enemies sufficiently deface the body, urdoinitwrong.
The save is from when they were alive, which would therefore include their gear. There are certainly ways to boost your save DCs, but you're inherently cut off from some of them (though more debuffs for the target than personal buffs) and it's not like speak with dead is a particularly high-level spell.
As for defacing the body, there are enemies which it's inherently impossible to ask, due to the natural state of their bodies, and it only takes a single attack to deface a body (which is easy for anyone around to do, and the spell has a long casting time). Assuming, of course, that they haven't simply covered for the event of their death in some other way. If they're really determined to keep the secret and have more than a handful of Hit Dice, they could simply curse themselves upon death (a dying curse can target anyone, and a last bitter "you shall never have my secret" works nicely as a way to spite your enemies).
Shields are garbage. Damage is the only thing that matters. Period. I can only conclude you've never played anything in melee.
That's probably because you're not very imaginative about the possibilities.
I could conclude that you've simply never tried building for anything other than damage, but I'm sure that there are other reasons for your attitude.
What are you going to do, bring out greater Ironguard? Yeah, good thing everyone and their dog has been carrying around non-metal swords for several levels.
Unlikely; most swords are still made from metal in spite of that spell's existence, and there are certainly other methods (since you are so well-informed, I will assume you're aware of them).
In addtion, while killing an enemy does stop it threatening you, it does require 100% effectiveness, or the enemy retains their full fighting strength. Weakening the enemy or limiting its actions immediately reduces its ability to harm you, even if it's still alive.
Guess what a shield doesn't do. Oh, yeah, any of the above.
True, yet it doesn't really hinder them, since the weakening options don't rely so heavily on two-handed weapons.
And once you have enough to reliably one-shot the Big T with one hand, it really doesn't matter. But until then, shields are trash. Even then, shields are trash, it just doesn't matter.
It would be wasteful to aim at taking out the toughest possible enemy with one hit, especially when you're part of a team. Picking the worst possible way to fight your foes (like going for melee damage against foes who excel in melee) isn't a clever move.
Optimization is as much about the efficient application of power as its actual amount. Investing excessive effort towards an unnecessary goal is wasteful when you could be gaining other benefits.
Reading comprehension fail. Why am I bothering with you?
I assume you're aiming to think up a decent comeback one of these days.
Though I should tell you not to waste your efforts; simply stick to sound and well-reasoned arguments supported by evidence and you won't need to wear yourself out striving at wordplay.
Yes, there are great things on a modest budget. All those great, cheap things have limited uses, to the point an organized and prepared party can render them useless.
In other words, if you're beaten by a Third Eye, you probably deserved it.
In general, limited-used items provide more than enough protection (and certainly enough to cause their opponents to lose time breaking down their defenses) while enemies have the advantage of not being strung to a strict budget in the same way as a player character.
If you cannot tell the difference between the shield and the flask, I suggest you purchase books in whatever your native language is, and hope they had good translators. Hint: usage of the comma.
The comma makes no difference whatsoever in this case, since the subject being used as the weapon is not changed by its placement. As the two sentences state, we've got a thrown flask of acid, and a bashing heavy shield, each being used as a type of weapon when they're not normally a type of weapon.
I am, however, curious about your own interpretation for the acid flask, since it may shed some light on the source of your misconception. If you don't think the setence in question means that a thrown flask of acid functions as a splash weapon, what is it trying to say?
A splash weapon is a ranger weapon that breaks apart on impact, splashing or scattering its contents over its target and nearby creatures or objects. Most splash weapons consist of liquids, such as acid or holy water, in breakable vials such as glass flasks.
Seriously, dood. If you're not Bill Clinton, there's nothing "questionable" about the wording.
Unless, of course, you're only looking at in a questionable manner to avoid being proven wrong.
When you start to develop a spontaneous inability to identify splash weapons (and as a common core item, they shouldn't be hard to recognize if you consider yourself "pro" as a result of your reading skills), you might want to consider whether your attitude is getting in the way of any real objectivity.
Difference between "as" and "is," bro. Unless you care to provide me a piece of text specifically referring to Alchemists Fire or Acid as a weapon, in which case I'll gladly admit I was wrong.
Litiraly going to the SRD and clicking two links brought me to this:
“Acid
You can throw a flask of acid as a splash weapon. Treat this attack as a ranged touch attack with a range increment of 10 feet. A direct hit deals 1d6 points of acid damage. Every creature within 5 feet of the point where the acid hits takes 1 point of acid damage from the splash.
Alchemist’s Fire
You can throw a flask of alchemist’s fire as a splash weapon. Treat this attack as a ranged touch attack with a range increment of 10 feet.
A direct hit deals 1d6 points of fire damage. Every creature within 5 feet of the point where the flask hits takes 1 point of fire damage from the splash. On the round following a direct hit, the target takes an additional 1d6 points of damage. If desired, the target can use a full-round action to attempt to extinguish the flames before taking this additional damage. Extinguishing the flames requires a DC 15 Reflex save. Rolling on the ground provides the target a +2 bonus on the save. Leaping into a lake or magically extinguishing the flames automatically smothers the fire”.
Subsequently I can’t help but laugh at how you argue at this particular moment because you’ve talked yourself into something of a corner (for you see, I too can bold things in order to prove a point, but in this case I’ll only need to do so with a single word, however I believe I shall italicize it an underline it for added effect).
Also from the SRD:
“Intelligent Items
Magic items sometimes have intelligence of their own. Magically imbued with sentience, these items think and feel the same way characters do and should be treated as NPCs. Intelligent items have extra abilities and sometimes extraordinary powers and special purposes. Only permanent magic items (as opposed to single-use items or those with charges) can be intelligent. (This means that potions, scrolls, and wands, among other items, are never intelligent.) In general, less than 1% of magic items have intelligence.
Intelligent items can actually be considered creatures because they have Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores. Treat them as constructs. Intelligent items often have the ability to illuminate their surroundings at will (as magic weapons do); many cannot see otherwise”.
Now, unless you’re trying to argue that a flask of acid isn’t a splash weapon, well saying that an intelligent magic item is a construct (as you argued in another thread) then I think you need to check source material more often before jumping to claim what something is and isn’t. I’ve also noticed several other instances in this argument of yours alone in which you have contradicted things you’ve previously said, but I don’t feel that I should be bothered to point them all out at this moment.
I think that you just lost some credibility here CJ.
You've neither provided any evidence to support that claim of ubiquity, nor have you specified the kind of crystal (as the two core types, deep crystal and mundane crystal, are both considered to be made out of metal).
I'm pretty sure you're wrong about this, Slagger. I know that Riedran crysteel is stated as being metal, but I don't remember either mundane or deep crystal as being ruled as such.
When you start to develop a spontaneous inability to identify splash weapons (and as a common core item, they shouldn't be hard to recognize if you consider yourself "pro" as a result of your reading skills), you might want to consider whether your attitude is getting in the way of any real objectivity.
Difference between "as" and "is," bro. Unless you care to provide me a piece of text specifically referring to Alchemists Fire or Acid as a weapon, in which case I'll gladly admit I was wrong.A splash weapon is a ranged weapon that breaks apart on impact, splashing or scattering its contents over its target and nearby creatures or objects.
Seriously, dood. If you're not Bill Clinton, there's nothing "questionable" about the wording. Unless, of course, you're only looking at in a questionable manner to avoid being proven wrong.
Done, yet you still won't admit you're wrong. In the words everybody's favorite Senator, wouldn't that make you a "lying liar who lies"?
"Most splash weapons consist of liquids, such as acid, blah blah blah""Most splash weapons consist of liquids, such as acid, blah blah blah"
"Most splash weapons consist of liquids, such as acid, blah blah blah"
"Most splash weapons consist of liquids, such as acid, blah blah blah"
See the difference between all of them? Still no? I suggest you retake your ESL classes, brah.
You really want to parse text? Here, let me tell you what it means, since you can't be bothered to figure it out yourself, cuz that would mean you're wrong. And all I have to do is define what the "questionable" words mean (in parentheses of course):
Most (a majority, but not all) splash weapons (defined in the previous sentence of the DMG) consist of liquids, such as (including, but not limited to) acid or holy water, in breakable vials such as (including, but not limited to) glass flasks.
Let's see... Splash weapons are clearly defined, and one of the items listed in the very limited description is "acid.. in... flasks". And yet you still want to play word gamse instead of admitting error.
BTW, Slagger speaks better English than you or I do, since we speak American. Or are you one of those pretentious douches that like to use "queue", "bobby", and "boot"?
I know that Riedran crysteel is stated as being metal, but I don't remember either mundane or deep crystal as being ruled as such.
I'm basing that on the fact that it's given in the entry of each material as the reason druids cannot wear armour made of it. Here are the relevant quotes:
"Because deep crystal armor is considered to be made out of metal, druids cannot wear it."
"Because mundane crystal armor is considered to be made out of metal, druids cannot wear it."
It doesn't specifically state that all items of deep crystal or mundane crystal are considered to be made out of metal (only armour), but if you need to answer one way or the other as to whether or not deep crystal and mundane crystal are metal, I'm not aware of any other evidence. Nor is there any logical reason for non-armour items made of the same material to not be considered as metal, since the nature of the material itself is the only reason for druids being unable to use it as armour.
"Because deep crystal armor is considered to be made out of metal, druids cannot wear it."
"Because mundane crystal armor is considered to be made out of metal, druids cannot wear it."
It doesn't specifically state that all items of deep crystal or mundane crystal are considered to be made out of metal (only armour), but if you need to answer one way or the other as to whether or not deep crystal and mundane crystal are metal, I'm not aware of any other evidence. Nor is there any logical reason for non-armour items made of the same material to not be considered as metal, since the nature of the material itself is the only reason for druids being unable to use it as armour.
That is absolutely bizarre. The part you quoted about mundane crystal comes from its second paragraph. The first paragraph includes this gem (emphasis added)
Mundane crystal can be used in place of metal in weapons or armor...
If it's "in place of metal", wouldn't that mean that it's not metal?
Honestly, my interpretation is that WotC wanted to restrict druids from wearing crystal armor, but decided to use the worst possible wording to do so.
If it's "in place of metal", wouldn't that mean that it's not metal?
It sort of makes sense; it's not metal, but it is considered to be metal.
Honestly, my interpretation is that WotC wanted to restrict druids from wearing crystal armor, but decided to use the worst possible wording to do so.
It's certainly possible, and even likely. It seems like they couldn't come up with any better reason to exclude crystal than by considering it to be metal, so they made it metal.
That is absolutely bizarre.
Also bizarre is their statement that "Any item could potentially be made with mundane crystal." (with the same stated for deep crystal) when the other core special materials specifically note that you can only use them for items of the appropriate material.
Crystal books? Crystal torches? Crystal clothing? Crystal trail rations? The innate special properties of this crystal are truly marvellous.
If it's "in place of metal", wouldn't that mean that it's not metal?
It sort of makes sense; it's not metal, but it is considered to be metal.Honestly, my interpretation is that WotC wanted to restrict druids from wearing crystal armor, but decided to use the worst possible wording to do so.
It's certainly possible, and even likely. It seems like they couldn't come up with any better reason to exclude crystal than by considering it to be metal, so they made it metal.
"The special process required to forge crystal into weapons and armor means that, like metal armor, druids are prohibited from wearing armor made from (deep) crystal."
That is absolutely bizarre.
Also bizarre is their statement that "Any item could potentially be made with mundane crystal." (with the same stated for deep crystal) when the other core special materials specifically note that you can only use them for items of the appropriate material.
Crystal books? Crystal torches? Crystal clothing? Crystal trail rations? The innate special properties of this crystal are truly marvellous.
Mundane crystal, the alchemist's dream!
1) How is the definition of a splash weapon "questionable wording", but the definition of crystal weapons as not metal inviolate? As I've said before, I think you're right about crystal weapons, but WotC's definition of crystal armor as metal was the worst possible to make that clear. Do you perhaps have access to errata that makes the intent clear?
2) Why is an intelligent item that is "treated as" a construct in fact a construct, while a flask of acid that is "thrown as" a splash weapon not in fact a splash weapon? If as != is for one, why does as = is for the other?
3) If "custom items are sketchy", why are intelligent items totally ok? Are we using different definitions for "custom item", maybe? I would define a custom item as a magic item that does not have a "normal" effect found in the DMG or MIC, which would include, for example, both items with wonky bonuses (+10' competence bonus to land speed, say) and intelligent items that are being custom made, as opposed to the ones already found in the DMG.
You can review the Code of Conduct here: company.wizards.com/conduct
Remember to keep your posts polite and on topic and refrain from making personal remarks or attacks.
Two handing is idea for every case that you actually want to kill something in melee with a weapon, unless it's a gimmick.
Describing something as a gimmick doesn't alter its validity as an option.
An animated shield is good if you're close to that magic +25.
If an animated shield is good, then it's incorrect to say that shields are useless. The only real concern is the downside of holding one, which isn't a problem if you're using a build that doesn't rely on two-handing (in which case you have more money to spend on achieving that AC, since you're not dropping money on the animated quality).
Crystal Armor is considered metal.
If armour made from crystal is considered metal, why should any other item made from crystal be considered any differently?
Because the rules say so.
The rules do not contradict the idea that crystals are considered to be metal; if armour is considered to be metal due to being made from crystals, then any other item is likewise considered to be metal if it's made from the same material. For mundane crystal in particular, we even have the further statement that "The fortified crystal possesses the properties of a similar masterwork steel weapon or armor, except for visual appearance." securing the idea for weapons as well as armour, and deep crystal is simply a superior grade that only differs from mundane crystal in specifically-stated ways (hardness, hit points, ability to channel psionic power, and cost), so it likewise possesses the metallic properties of mundane crystal.
Unlike other examples, this isn't a case where the statement is limited to a particular condition (such as "considered to be metal for the purpose of a druid's spiritual oaths"); it's a flat statement that the metal armour is considered to be metal, and as the armour's status as metal is entirely due to its material, that material is considered to be metal.
The natural consequence of establishing that a material is considered to be metal without limitation is that it will always be considered to be metal unless stated otherwise. You could certainly argue the basic idea of crystals being treated as metal in the first place, .
If it really comes to it, you can just do nonlethal with it. Damage is the only concern for melee. Tripping is always inferior, but is passable if your damage doesn't suck, but there's no reason not to two-hand your trips, too.
A couple of major creature types are immune to nonlethal without even trying, and if you're using a damage trade like Power Attack, the attack penalties on the exchange to nonlethal cost you damage.
While you can indeed trip with a weapon, and there are two-handed weapons that are good for tripping (not the greatsword, obviously, but still useful two-handers), unlike disarming or sundering you don't gain any additional benefit from tripping with a two-hander; you simply use whichever weapon you've already chosen.
Those options aren't really an issue of one-handed or two-handed (and for disarming and sundering they favour two-handed), though, since you've got weapons that are useful for it in both categories. They're an issue of your specific choice of weapon in either category, while one-handing vs. two-handing is more of an issue of what you'll do with your other hand.
There's a difference between "can" and "Think it's worth it to bother." In this case, given your belief that crystals are metal, that scrolls are good for buffs, that shields are good, and so on, I really don't think you'll actually understand a proper response. So, this is easy and less boring.
The belief that crystals are metal isn't mine (in fact I think the basic idea is silly), it just logically extends beyond armour since it's not tightly written.
Scrolls are only good for certain kinds of buffs (typically those where the disadvantages of a low caster level are less importan) and are obviously easily dispelled, which limits when you use them, but doesn't eliminate their use entirely. Shields are similarly situational. If you use any of them when they're not appropriate, you'll naturally be using them poorly.
Also, Onesite has a disturbing tendency to devour the few polite, long, exact, and entirely explicit posts I bother to make. So, why bother when I can be short, concise, and give enough that anyone who understands the ruels will know what I'm talking about?
As a useful tip for saving yourself from eaten replies, I suggest simply copying them before you submit a post; it's a convenient habit to develop and I kick myself if I ever lose a post as a consequence of forgetting it.
Moving on, your understanding of the rules doesn't match with the understanding of the rules that other people possess, particularly since much of what we're discussing is our opinion of the implications of various parts of the ruleset, rather than just what any given segment states within the official text. Therefore, you need to explain yourself if you hope to be understood, rather than assuming everyone else looks at things in the same way (there wouldn't be much to discuss if we were already identical in thought).
It's quite clear what you're trying to say, and it should be equally clear to you what others are trying to say. But as long as you're only using statements of position instead of trying to reason with anyone else, you're simply wasting your time and effort.
Convincing others is a process of engaging with their currently held position in order to alter it, and comparing their position to your own in a manner that demonstrates the merits of each position. Ultimately, the aim is to show one position as more correct.
Because it's worth some time, but not a lot.
If it's worth any time, then it's worth applying that time effectively.
Really? Here's an idea: Why don't you add length of thread into that comparison? Hint: It's much more bothersome to repeat the same thing over and over when you should have gotten it the first time.
Naturally, but you're only bothering yourself by your determination to stick to an ineffective method.
After all, it's not that I don't understand your position, but that I disagree with it, and you've failed to offer me any reason to think otherwise by continually stating that you're correct without adequate evidence (reasoning is not simply a personal statement about your own validity, after all).
The reduced answers have the advantage of allowing you to defend your position from scrutiny, but they don't give you much with which to attack. Ironically (given the discussion about two-handed weapons), while your responses certainly imitate the straightforward attack of the greatsword, your strikes lack genuine impact because you're not committing to your blows.
A better example would be a lance, I've knocked you from your horse, and you refuse to actually get up while claiming I missed.
In a sense, I couldn't have stated it better myself, except in reverse. You're claiming that you've knocked someone from their horse when you've simply missed.
In a discussion, success is determined by convincing others to change their position, and all you're doing here is making yet another claim of personal success without managing to convince anyone. As I haven't changed my position yet, I'm obviously unaffected regardless of whether or not you think you're correct.
Naturally, I can't claim that I've succeeded, since the discussion is ongoing, which is why I won't bother doing so. If I succeed in establishing my points as valid to the satisfaction of others, those people will be aware of it.
Gimmicky builds are less efficient than builds that focus on efficiency.
Why is it impossible for a gimmick to focus on efficiency?
*Facepalm*
*Chicken Pot Pie*.
Crystal armor is metal. Crystal is not. That's the end of it.
The upshot of the description is that all crystal is considered to be metal. It's a stupid idea in the first place, but it's accurate according to the text (especially the part about the crystal having the properties of steel weapons or armour).
You're making it sound like you can actually miss.
Of course you can, for a variety of reasons (otherwise ideas like that 25 AC thing would be pointless).
Translation: "I've never read improved trip. Or CJ's posts."
Translation: "I haven't got a meaningful response, so I'll pretend no-one else has one."
There is never anything worth doing in your off hand. Nothing you can do can compare to the simple increase in damage.
I can only assume you're not familiar with the situations in which damage becomes irrelevant during combat (one of which is a two-handed build, so you really should be familiar with it).
Yes it does.
No, it doesn't. To save us some time, refer to this simply step-by-step guide for handling this particular brand of pointlessness:
- Yes it does.
- No, it doesn't.
- Repeat.
Shields aren't situational. Shields are garbage.
Shields are situational (as is almost everything). Shields aren't garbage.
See the step-by-step guide above for further information.
Too much work. I'm lazy and busy.
If you were truly busy, you wouldn't be posting here. All you'll be busy with is wasting your time with laziness if you can't act efficiently.
So I was in error to assume that people possessed the basic ability to read?
You're in error because you haven't been able to see situations from anything more than one angle, and prefer to post poor attempts at insults instead of making a proper arguments.
I really see no need in bothering with explaining things that are as basic and ingrained into the system as shields sucking or fighters being inferior to wizards.
Yet you're fine with explaining at great length your inability to understand the need to support your arguments if you want anyone to treat them as more than a storm of hot air.
No-one was arguing about fighters or wizards; if we were to really bring that up, then no-one uses two-handed weapons ever, because they're inferior to being a wizard (while, ironically, wizards can use shields just fine).
And, if someone doesn't understand the utter basics, I have neither the time nor the desire to first convince them that they don't know what they're talking about and then educate them.
I someone lacks the time and desire to teach themselves the utter basics, I am happy to convince them of their error and help them to learn a more useful approach.
Without determination and effort, failure is assured.
Because it's worth some time, but not a lot.
If it's worth any time, then it's worth applying that time effectively.
You're assuming I'm here entirely out of altruism, and not boredom.
You're assuming you know my assumptions.
But whether your motive is boredom, altruism, or something else entirely, if it's worth doing, it's worth doing well. And you've already indicated that it's worth doing.
Since you appear not to understand the basic concept of rocket tag, I'm not sure if it's actually worth bothering.
Since you appear not to understand that your current method of argument will only bore you and wear you out, I'm not sure why you're so attached to it.
I'm correct. That's really all that matters.
You're wrong, though it doesn't matter since you can always change.
If you don't want to post a more meaningful response, refer back to the step-by-step guide.
Denial or obliviousness. Not my problem, either way.
Ironically, that's a statement combining both denial and obliviousness.
You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Post button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Now to bring this back to topic, what is the topic? I know I get lost reading walls of text especially when they are little quote (with or without more little quote), little responce, followed by moreo little quotes and responses. I may be guilty of that from time to time but I really don't try to make a habbit of it instead as opposed to almost all of my posts looking like that.
Four posts between the Orc's. You'd almost think he's a regular contributer on these boards.
Now to bring this back to topic, what is the topic? I know I get lost reading walls of text especially when they are little quote (with or without more little quote), little responce, followed by moreo little quotes and responses. I may be guilty of that from time to time but I really don't try to make a habbit of it instead as opposed to almost all of my posts looking like that.
Ha ha, I know what you mean. Long and short of it, the op asked for help with a splash weapon throwing build (a mad alchemist as he put it), his ideas got shot down by the DM, and somewhere in between CJ started an argument about sneak attack being awful, and that escalated to him basically doing what he always does, saying that pretty much everything is awful but what he thinks, and everyone who disagrees is wrong. CJ's last three or more posts pretty much consisted of "I'm right, your wrong, I could prove it but I don't feel like putting effort into it". The op already said he didn't get any help from CJ's post and had abandon the concept in lue of another one but, well, arguments just have a way of carrying on. To be honest I don't know how slagger does it, he must be Buddha behind a key board as far as I can tell.
Anyway, like I said though the op already said he was moving on to something else so aside from the debate in the thread there really isn't much else to contribute to the original topic.
