Print

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

Any D&D/D20

Shadowrun

World of Darkness

Palladium

Other (feel free to post about it)

[highmax28]

Yeah, in Pathfinder Sneak Attack applies to every attack roll that qualifies for its prerequisites. That means if you have 1 extra attack per round from TWF, you get to deal all those extra d6 sneak attack dice on that extra hit. This is why TWF on a Rogue can be a viable strategy. The downside is that Rogues suffer from lower BAB from the outset, and then you stack penalties on top of this for using TWF. All those extra d6 don't mean a thing if you can't beat the target's AC. Plus this requires a full attack, meaning you're left standing in melee range of the enemy afterwards. That's another major reason why investment into AC on a Rogue isn't meaningless. Whilst still important that you aim for bonuses such as Concealment, if you want to use a Full Attack you're going to be finishing within melee range, and on the enemy's turn they can take a Full Attack against you too.

Two words:

Truestrike enchantments. The most broken enchantment in the game which is apparently how I'm supposed to target something with 40+ AC without aiming for touch...

[BlackFlyme]

Truestrike would be something like a +5 enchantment at the least, if such a thing existed.

What level are you fighting AC40 creatures at?

[SOLDIER First]

I think he means in the minmaxed game with the evil doppelgängers and such?

[Gentlefish]

Truestrike enchantments are explicitly written into the rules as something the DM should NOT allow.

[Jimmy]

Nah, it's fine. If True Strike is being added to a weapon attack, per the Magic Items creation rules, the effect costs the bonus squared times 2,000 gp. Thus a constant True Strike enchantment would cost 800,000 gp and take 800 days to add.

[Flying Dice]

As for the two weapon thing, rogues can dual weild and get two sneak attacks off, can't they? I read in a rogue build somewhere that it was the most viable option because it's hard to do an archer rogue and get sneak attack off in pathfinder (whereas in 4e and 5e, you get sneak attacks almost every time you attack. It's nuts).

Looking at the SRD's for 3.5 and Pathfinder, it seems like like you actually can get sneak attack with every hit. That seems weird to me, since in 4e and 5e you can only do it once a round (well, 4e is limited to once a round, 5e is once a turn, so you could technically get off another sneak attack on an opportunity attack, but those are a lot more rare in 5e since they're basically only when someone tries to move out of your reach, or something like a Battlemaster Fighter maneuver that lets you attack on someone else's turn). But, then, as highmax mentioned, you usually will get to use sneak attack every round in those games, since sneak attack has no limits on targets and your attack modifier is going to be pretty much the same as everyone else so long as you're all maxing your relevant ability scores.

Also, the whole, "is a Rogue getting to use DEX for damage overpowered?" thing seems weird from the 4e/5e perspective, since in those games a Rogue uses DEX for attack and damage by default (in 4e because those are what its powers use, and in 5e because they can only use finesse and ranged weapons for sneak attack, both of which use DEX for attack and damage by default). It's possible there might be some combinations from that that might be broken in 3.5/Pathfinder that I don't know about, but, as has been said, sneak attack does more damage than you get from Ability bonus, and 3.5/Pathfinder have higher damage ceilings than 4e/5e, so I don't really understand what the big fuss is about.

One of the main problems, in 3.5 especially, is that there are a shitload of enemy types that don't take sneak attack damage. So you have a much higher theoretical damage cap than you will in practice in 95% of campaigns. DEX to damage would give a 3.5 Rogue good sustained DPS in some ideal situation where they can sneak attack every round, but the reality is that it would just bring them on par with (or a bit below) martial combatants, since in all likelihood you won't always be able to sneak attack, with the added joy of precision-immune enemies.

Gods help the player that rolled up a combat-oriented Rogue and found out too late that the DM made an undead-heavy campaign.

That's part of why I liked the Rogue/Swashbuckler thing so much: it gave you a lot of the fun skillmonkey stuff that the Rogue gets, the theoretical potential to do that sneak attack damage, and all the nice combat tricks that the Swashbuckler gets added on top, including some extra damage and survivability. It's also a really fun flavor to play as a CG/NG type.

[highmax28]

Nah, it's fine. If True Strike is being added to a weapon attack, per the Magic Items creation rules, the effect costs the bonus squared times 2,000 gp. Thus a constant True Strike enchantment would cost 800,000 gp and take 800 days to add.

Enchantment for true strike blade is actually Cheap. My headband of vast intelligence was more expensive

He told me the rules for that was rediculous, especially because it involved the fact a level 1 spell, which for the rules of pathfinder state that for a permanent enchantment, you have to pay for the cost of he spell level times something, and that something is literally sustaining the spell for an hour's length.

Four rules lawyers told me this and all of them exploit it. It's the most broken thing ever and I avoid using it.

Truestrike would be something like a +5 enchantment at the least, if such a thing existed.

What level are you fighting AC40 creatures at?

Again, +1 enchantment because it's effectively using a permanent level 1 spell effect on a weapon. It's because of the level 1 spell effect is why the enchantment is so cheap. I think the same works for a permanent gravity bow effect, which just increases the damage dice as if it was from a size large weapon.

And the enemies we're fighting are scales to a broken as fuck guy because he keeps insta-killing everyone. Enemies included a level 13 Orc berserker (at level 6, where I had to fight him 1v1), a dracolich and two enemies that are level 20 summoners who are min-maxed to shit, to the point that I can't even hurt them because one of them has a mini-kraken who takes all the damage I do to his master

[BlackFlyme]

A continuous spell effect on an item, as per magic item creation rules, which are banned at most sensible tables, is Spell level x caster level x 2,000 gp, with an additional special multiplier dependent on the duration of the spell used.

With a duration measured in rounds, multiply the cost by 4. If the duration of the spell is 1 minute/level, multiply the cost by 2, and if the duration is 10 minutes/level, multiply the cost by 1.5. If the spell has a 24-hour duration or greater, divide the cost in half.

As True Strike is instantaneous, and is consumed upon the next attack, it is not valid using these rules. You could give it charges per day though.

[Jimmy]

The rules for magic item creation are just a guideline, and recommend you match the price with an existing item. In this case, the price would be for a +20 bonus to hit, not for a continuous level 1 spell. The D&D website actually addressed this specific question in a GM guide series by Skip Williams called Rules of the Game:

Use the Correct Formula: One item people frequently ask me about is a ring oftrue strike. The spell provides a whopping +20 insight bonus on attack rolls and negates miss chances arising from concealed targets. It's only 1st level, however, because it is a personal range spell with a duration of 1 round. That means you can normally manage one attack every 2 rounds when using the spell. Also, you can't bestow it on an ally (except for a familiar or animal companion) because of its personal range.

Assuming such a ring worked whenever it was needed and has a caster level of 1st, it would cost a mere 2,000 gp by the formula for a use-activated spell effect (in this case, 1 x 1 x 2,000 gp). Sharp-eyed readers will note that any continuously functioning item has a cost adjustment of x4 (see the footnotes to Table 7-33), which bumps up the ring's cost to 8,000 gp. That's a real bargain for an item that provides so much boost to a user's combat power. Much too great a bargain.

So, what would our example ring of true strike be worth? Insight bonuses aren't included on Table 7-33, but a weapon bonus has a cost equal to the bonus squared x 2,000 gp, so a +20 weapon would cost 800,000 gp. One can argue that the ring isn't quite as good as a +20 weapon because it doesn't provide a damage bonus. That, however, ignores the very potent ability to negate most miss chances. Also, the ring's insight bonus works with any sort of attack the wearer makes. On top of all that, the insight bonus stacks with any enhancement bonus from a magic weapon the wearer might wield. Still, 800,000 gp is a lot of cash and the lack of a damage bonus is significant, so some price reduction is in order. A 50% reduction might be in order, or 400,000 gp for the ring.

Would you pay 400,000 gp for a ring of true striking? I would if I could afford it. At a price of 400,000 gp, our mythical ring of true strike is something only an epic-level character could afford. That's fine, because epic play is where the ring belongs.

[highmax28]

Again, pathfinder rules breaks everything about D&D, where everything is broken as shit. And since it's a weapon enchantment, not a gear enchantment, it can potentially make it so you can't do more to it. That's the only downside, and some GMs allow you to have multiple enchantments on weapons (my GM made a terrible mistake with allowing that...)

Still waiting to hear feedback on that elementalist I made, mostly because I know how to play it and how to make it amazing, but I want to hear how other people use it. I need Guinea pigs


Oh, and in today's session of D&D, our Druid got shot at with a greatbow when the sentries spotted him scouting. When he got discovered, he flew 15ft above the dwarf bowman and turned into a black bear and dropped from the sky. Roughly 600lbs of raw bear dropped down and crushed that poor dwarf... Oh, and I made a dwarf soldier run the corner as he heard one of his companions screaming, sees me biting his face off, turns around and jumps into an abandoned building through the window to escape me.

I feel accomplished I made a hardened dwarf soldier nope so hard

[Neonivek]

Pathfinders magic item creation rules explicitly state that magic effects that do what weapon and armor modifiers do are outright disavowed and specifically states True Strike as an example of what isn't allowed.

[highmax28]

Pathfinders magic item creation rules explicitly state that magic effects that do what weapon and armor modifiers do are outright disavowed and specifically states True Strike as an example of what isn't allowed.

Can you do me a massive favor and bring up a link to where it says that? I SO want to rub it in my rules lawyer's face.

It means that the ONLY way to deal with those 40+AC enemies is to attack their touch AC. Which sucks ass... I hate my rules lawyer... I'm glad I burned his face off, but I'm sad that 115 fire damage with a blue flame blast when he was at 70hp didn't completely incinerate his body...

[Criptfeind]

I'm not totally sure if this is what Neonivek is talking about, but here on the pathfinder SRD they say that you should compare a items abilities to similar items. Specifically calling out truestrike as deserving to cost 200,000. ((Which I guess means they think it's worth a +10 enchantment bonus. I'd personally say +1 to hit is worth more then +1 damage, so maybe that's a bit incorrect, but it does make sense.))

[highmax28]

I'm not totally sure if this is what Neonivek is talking about, but here on the pathfinder SRD they say that you should compare a items abilities to similar items. Specifically calling out truestrike as deserving to cost 200,000. ((Which I guess means they think it's worth a +10 enchantment bonus. I'd personally say +1 to hit is worth more then +1 damage, so maybe that's a bit incorrect, but it does make sense.))

I think his logic is:

level 1 spell * level 1 cast (because the effect is always +20 regardless of caster level) * 2000gp * 4 (for it being measured in rounds because its effect lasts one round)

So essentially, that adds to: 1*1*2000*4 = 8000gp

Again, VERY cheap enchantment if it works that way, and since my GM doesn't know of this ruling and trusts the rules lawyer (which he never should have), they exploited the fuck out of it.

I'll bring this up to my GM and tell the rules lawyer of his fuck up. I'm so glad I now have this to finally shut down the rules lawyer in that aspect.

As for another thing that he did, was he did something thats like a lycanthrope but its like beast lord or dinosaur lord or something, and he gained the physical stats of a megaraptor, can change limbs at will to that of a megaraptor and back, and because of this, he's almost as tanky as my Kineticist who's minmaxed to shit and he's a summoner (and he has 40AC, but somehow, some way, I killed him).

Can anyone back me up in debunking or validating him doing something like this? Its kinda bullshit, especially since he says all his scores are like 30+ right now because of that

[BlackFlyme]

Closest I can find is the Animal Lord Template. Maybe he also slapped on the Dire and Advanced templates?

Whatever he's doing, it ain't allowed for players.