Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Flying Dice]

If you're trying to use Lighting Mace with scimitars everyone at the table should be smacking you with rolled up newspaper. The feat explicitly states:

Whenever you roll a threat on an attack roll while using a light mace in each hand, you gain an additional attack at that same attack bonus.

The limiting factor on the feat is that you have to dual-wield light maces, which are less than impressive with their 20/x2 critical. It's already dangerous enough in a critmaster build even when it forces you to use a weapon that isn't good for crits. If your DM intentionally houseruled it so that you could use it with whatever, they deserve to be overrun by a swarm of munchkinlings because that's fucking stupid.

[Rolan7]

I know, it's crazy...  My DM insisted that Warblade's level 1 Weapon Aptitude ability lets it work.  And I think he's right:

You also have the flexibility to adjust your weapon training.
Each morning, you can spend 1 hour in weapon practice
to change the designated weapon for any feat you have that
applies only to a single weapon (such as Weapon Focus). You
must have the newly designated weapon available during
your practice session to make this change.

It's clearly meant for fighter bonus feats like Weapon Focus and Specialization, but...  Yeah.  This book is crazy, huh?  Not taking anything from it this time around, character is complicated enough already.

[scriver]

Swashbuckler might be one of the best Rogue Archetypes: "You can use Sneak Attack with any melee attack made against a target that has none of your allies adjacent to it." Can you say 'OP'?

Well, rules say Rogues normally sneak attack anyone within 5' of an ally, so if this is a replacement, it means you have to solo, while vanilla rogue "flanks". I don't think the number of viable targets for each case is too different. (except in the case of the Swashbuckler, he's most probably going to have to "tank" its target as well).

EDIT: actually NVM since this doesn't replace the regular Sneak, but since Rogues probably anyway sneak attack every round regardless. This just means the SB *can* solo if he wants and still gets the bonus. He loses the abilities of the alternative Archetypes - Thiefs is mostly utility, but the Assassin can auto-critical at least once every battle (if he isn't the last in initiative) with advantage at 3rd level.

Can't rogues only sneak attack once per turn? Swashbucklers get to add sneak attack to every attack. meaning at least two per turn, as any buccaneer with any sense of self worth would be dual-wielding.

[Flying Dice]

I know, it's crazy...  My DM insisted that Warblade's level 1 Weapon Aptitude ability lets it work.  And I think he's right:

You also have the flexibility to adjust your weapon training.
Each morning, you can spend 1 hour in weapon practice
to change the designated weapon for any feat you have that
applies only to a single weapon (such as Weapon Focus). You
must have the newly designated weapon available during
your practice session to make this change.

It's clearly meant for fighter bonus feats like Weapon Focus and Specialization, but...  Yeah.  This book is crazy, huh?  Not taking anything from it this time around, character is complicated enough already.

See, I'd parse those lines to specifically refer to the Focus and Specialization trees both because they reference weapon training (which is explicitly what those feats are -- you've spend so much time working with that one weapon type that you're flat out better with it), and because they specify the "designated weapon". You designate a weapon when you pick Weapon Focus (Soup Ladle) or whatever, when the RAW say "Choose one type of weapon". Lightning Mace doesn't let you designate a weapon, it flat out tells you that you only get to use one weapon type.

It's like Weapon Finesse: having that feature doesn't mean that you can spend an hour training and then apply your Dex to attacks with a Fullblade. Could someone suddenly be able to use Deflect Arrows while dual-wielding daggers? Use Crossbow Sniper with a non-crossbow ranged weapon? Improved Natural Strike applied to manufactured weapons or Unarmed Strikes? Vae School for a weapon that isn't a whip or spiked chain?

So on and so forth. We've got a decent selection of feats that apply specifically to one type of weapon or attack which is not determined by the player, but by the author of the feat. I mean, if the DM's going to just shrug and let people go crazy, have fun with it, but I'd sure as hell not allow it. 

[Kadzar]

Swashbuckler might be one of the best Rogue Archetypes: "You can use Sneak Attack with any melee attack made against a target that has none of your allies adjacent to it." Can you say 'OP'?

Well, rules say Rogues normally sneak attack anyone within 5' of an ally, so if this is a replacement, it means you have to solo, while vanilla rogue "flanks". I don't think the number of viable targets for each case is too different. (except in the case of the Swashbuckler, he's most probably going to have to "tank" its target as well).

EDIT: actually NVM since this doesn't replace the regular Sneak, but since Rogues probably anyway sneak attack every round regardless. This just means the SB *can* solo if he wants and still gets the bonus. He loses the abilities of the alternative Archetypes - Thiefs is mostly utility, but the Assassin can auto-critical at least once every battle (if he isn't the last in initiative) with advantage at 3rd level.

Can't rogues only sneak attack once per turn? Swashbucklers get to add sneak attack to every attack. meaning at least two per turn, as any buccaneer with any sense of self worth would be dual-wielding.

I've downloaded the PDF for that, and I don't see any reference that seems to imply that they can Sneak Attack more than once a round. Having two attacks just gives them more opportunity to get sneak attack in (in case they miss with an attack).

[My Name is Immaterial]

Swashbuckler might be one of the best Rogue Archetypes: "You can use Sneak Attack with any melee attack made against a target that has none of your allies adjacent to it." Can you say 'OP'?

Well, rules say Rogues normally sneak attack anyone within 5' of an ally, so if this is a replacement, it means you have to solo, while vanilla rogue "flanks". I don't think the number of viable targets for each case is too different. (except in the case of the Swashbuckler, he's most probably going to have to "tank" its target as well).

EDIT: actually NVM since this doesn't replace the regular Sneak, but since Rogues probably anyway sneak attack every round regardless. This just means the SB *can* solo if he wants and still gets the bonus. He loses the abilities of the alternative Archetypes - Thiefs is mostly utility, but the Assassin can auto-critical at least once every battle (if he isn't the last in initiative) with advantage at 3rd level.

Can't rogues only sneak attack once per turn? Swashbucklers get to add sneak attack to every attack. meaning at least two per turn, as any buccaneer with any sense of self worth would be dual-wielding.

I've downloaded the PDF for that, and I don't see any reference that seems to imply that they can Sneak Attack more than once a round. Having two attacks just gives them more opportunity to get sneak attack in (in case they miss with an attack).

The wording is "any attack", not "every attack". I think that my over hyping led to some confusion.

[scriver]

Any/every, what's the difference?

[Bauglir]

Any/every, what's the difference?

"I can kill anyone" vs "I can kill everyone"

[Tack]

I thought rogues could sneak attack as much as they have stabby-for.

[My Name is Immaterial]

I thought rogues could sneak attack as much as they have stabby-for.

Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an attack if you have advantage on the attack roll.

[Tack]

Ah. Was thinking of 3.5 and pathfinder, which do allow many times a turn.

[My Name is Immaterial]

That's a confusion that I've been noticing.

Should we put 5e/3.5 tags at the top of our posts?

[Sergius]

RE: 5e

Seems to me that it just replaces the condition that the enemy needs to be adjacent to another one of my allies. It could conceivably be interpreted as replacing also the condition that it can only be done once, but that seems like a stretch to me.

Just in case, the Rogue is already balanced on the assumption that you can Sneak Attack every round, vs. pretty much every other class that gets extra attacks instead and using bigger swords. So, the Swashbuckler is just more fighty than the regular Rogue, with the restriction that it needs to be finesse and a single attack to the vitals or whatever. But the damage is about the same.

That's a confusion that I've been noticing.

Should we put 5e/3.5 tags at the top of our posts?

Well it would be nice since this is a general Tabletop thread and not just D&D, so very often people start suddenly talking about MtG or 5th Edition or whatever.

[Tack]

Yeah. Though having a Warhammer thread seems to have shooed out most of the wargamers, so that's something.

[My Name is Immaterial]

I hate to segregate the games, but should we make a 5e thread?