|
I think you should investigate True20, it removes the stat numbers completely and leaves you with only the "important bits".
S
Hmmm, that may have come across as terse. I wasn't meaning it to be or be seeming to belittle True20. True20 is a fantastic take under OGL of 3e, and I would use it rather than d20 Modern in a heartbeat.
S.
Agreed with all on the differences, and on the innovation (to a point for my old group it was about the same in all instances).
Again my only issue was the thought that somehow powergaming and what not only happens/happened in 3.x and that the previous editions allowed more role playing somehow by having less rules (which just as easily led to draconic measures and homerules or super lax monty hauls).
Again it's just the "good ole' days" syndrome annoys me to no end (in all cases -- like that country song where he talks about how good it was back then... you know back when racial prejudice was acceptable public policy and we didn't have a cure for syphilis).
Perspective isn't a friend of yours, is it? Equating AD&D with segregation is a stretch, don't you think?
I'm glad you're all about the "new and shiny". Too bad we live in a disposable society now, the "new and shiny" is only going to last long enough for the newer, shinier stuff comes along.
Why aren't you playing 4e again? It's newer and shinier than 3x, so it must be better, right?
That's not what I'm saying at all and I'm not equating AD&D (a game I still enjoy) with segregation, I'm pointing out people wax on and on about the old while ignoring the bad that happened with it. 1st and 2nd had it's powergamers, munchkins, and problem players just as much as 3.x does. It's not systemic it's an issue with the people playing. Since it's not systemic 3.x has not caused, or worsened the problem, it has merely not solved it. Which is fine, as far as I can tell no system has solved it yet.
4th has all sorts of problems of it's own and I probably won't play it for a multitude of reasons.
Stefan,
It came out fine I understood what you where saying, and I don't mind that 1st and 2nd where how they were. Both were a different game than 3.x is. However my point is that claiming it was built for "sub optimum" is a false statement: Most characters were not sub optimum, and the stats had too little effect to say having low stats meant something. Those low stats do not equate to "good" role playing, they just mean low stats. Role playing has little to nothing to do with the math -- however the math can have a lot to do with the results of actions (indeed almost everything) and to say that the character was 'good role playing' just because it had low stats is ridiculous.
True20 isn't really my speed either, but it is a good system and if someone were running one (and I had the time) I would play it. Just like I would still play 2nd ed, however I would go in with different expectations that I would for a 3.x game (which uses linear probability instead of bell curve) and probably a different mode of play. Not better not worse, just different.
Over all that's my point, none of these are better, and most of them are not worse than the others. They are all simply different.
|
|
It came out fine I understood what you where sayingHowever my point is that claiming it was built for "sub optimum" is a false statement: Most characters were not sub optimum,...
Cool, was a little worried I came across as an ass. You are right because optimal depends on what you are referencing against. Creatures are designed in each edition to on the whole challenge character made under that system. The point was that other than with DM giving away too much magic stuff it was more difficult to build/design/make a 1e character that could do what the OP's can against a similar foe (i.e. the largest red dragon in 1e).
S.
I think it's funny how this discussion is going.
I know a lot of people think 3.X relies too much on magic items and equipment to deal with encounters of an appropriate CR. Then I make a build that ignores equipment and some people seem to find 3.X too reliant on the character's innate abilities. This build wasn't initially supposed to be equipment-less to get the job done (take down low-to-mid Str or Dex foes quickly). I was just too lazy to look up appropriate gold for the character and then go shopping. My bad.
One feature of the shadowcaster that I don't like is that your highest three levels of mysteries (spell) can only be used once per day, your second three highest levels of mysteries can only be used twice a day, and your three lowest lowest levels of mysteries can only be used three times a day. The Favored Mystery feat can alleviate this somewhat, but for higher level mysteries, you need to take it multiple times. (Favored Mystery turns a mystery cast like a spell into a spell-like ability, a mystery cast like a spell-like ability into a supernatural ability, and if the mystery is already usable as a supernatural ability, grants you 1 additional daily use of it.)
I wish there was SOME way to cast a mystery an additional time per day.....without spending 3 feats on a specific mystery.
One big flaw to this build is that it doesn't work against multiple opponents. Shadowcasters just don't get enough daily uses of their mysteries. Imagine an 18th level sorcerer that can only cast fireball 3 times per day.
Hmmm....do reserve feats work for mysteries?
reserve feats don't work for them I think.
The shadowcaster was one of those classes that looked so great fluff wise and seems to have a lot of potential... until you actually read what the class does.
It's kind of funny -- Tomb of Magic is like complete warrior for mages (mostly useless) while Tomb of Battle is more like a combined Complete Arcane and Complete Mage for "melee" fighters.
|
reserve feats don't work for them I think.
The shadowcaster was one of those classes that looked so great fluff wise and seems to have a lot of potential... until you actually read what the class does.
It's kind of funny -- Tomb of Magic is like complete warrior for mages (mostly useless) while Tomb of Battle is more like a combined Complete Arcane and Complete Mage for "melee" fighters.
I disagree with your statment that Complete Warrior is mostly useless.
I find it to be be a handy drink tray, AND a good place to roll my dice. How's that for usefull.
reserve feats don't work for them I think.
The shadowcaster was one of those classes that looked so great fluff wise and seems to have a lot of potential... until you actually read what the class does.
It's kind of funny -- Tomb of Magic is like complete warrior for mages (mostly useless) while Tomb of Battle is more like a combined Complete Arcane and Complete Mage for "melee" fighters.
I disagree with your statment that Complete Warrior is mostly useless.
I find it to be be a handy drink tray, AND a good place to roll my dice. How's that for usefull.
Ahem, what I meant was ToM is generally useless for magic users, just like Complete Warrior was generally useless for non magic using combatants (with a few exceptions for very specific builds).
But you are right it does make a decent drink tray... and arcanist tend to love that arcane strike... especially with something that has 20 natural attacks...
oh I mean tome... Freudian slip...
Dragonslayer
Neutral Human Shadowcaster 18
AC...
...Are there any flaws in this plan?Yes. A dragon which lives in the middle of a dead-magic zone. :D
them that dragon is screwed anyway...
no breath weapons,no spells, just physical attacks and while they are impressive, i can see a smart dragon denying himself those
I like the binder from the Tome of Magic. One would be great for a small party (1-3 PCs) where every role (Blaster, Tank, Skill Monkey, Healer) isn't filled out.
The Shadowcaster might be fun in a thieves guild campaign, where everyone needs lots of Hide/Move Silently.
I've actually played with a wizard-truenamer and aristocrat-bard-truenamer. With enough Int boosts and skill bonuses, you can make successful truespeak checks quite consistently. There just isn't a lot of variety in what they can do. At least utterances from the Lexicon of the Evolved Mind are reversible, so the healing utterances can also hurt NPCs. They work best against a single opponent instead of a lot of grunts.
I believe this has been called the Stormwind Fallacy…
Feel free to dismiss me out of hand all you want. I still contend there is a valid issue.
SmiloDan's build does not kill role playing. Anyone using his character would still be quite free to role play how ever they feel. Everyone else at the table would be just as free to role play as well. I concede that.
There is a level of rollplaying that does become disruptive (just as anything, role playing included). The tolerance level for this is going to vary widely for each individual as well as each group.
My problem with this build, other threads like it and the entire mentality is that it crosses my tolerance level and I find it all too pervasive. Yes, I am saying you are playing wrong and that it is bad fun. It is my opinion and I am entitled to it. Label me an elitist and ignore me if you will, just recognize, you are a hypocrite.
Everyone disagrees with someone as to how to play the game 'right'.
If your idea of min/maxing is making good use of break points, I do not have an issue with that. If your character is min/maxed to the point where everyone else has to min/max just to keep up then I find you just as disruptive as the drama queen who is making an ass of himself because it is 'in character'.
You can come up with fancy sounding terms to justify yourself, just remember your play style does affect the others at the table.
The other point I would like to make, or rather, understand is why? Why role playing games? It seems to me that this sort of mentality would be better fulfilled with wargames or Magic: The Gathering where there is a clear objective for winning. Is it the creative exercise? Is it recognition from peers?
The other point I would like to make, or rather, understand is why? Why role playing games? It seems to me that this sort of mentality would be better fulfilled with wargames or Magic: The Gathering where there is a clear objective for winning. Is it the creative exercise? Is it recognition from peers?
I like role playing games because it is usually a team effort of characters with widely different abilities trying to accomplish a goal.
In my dragonslaying example, I would need the other PCs to be my backup and protect me from the dragon's guardian creatures, traps, etc. Once the dragonslaying shadowcaster shoots his big guns, he doesn't have a lot of staying power. He'd need to switch tactics since the way shadowcasters are designed, they can only use their big powers 1/day, their medium powers 2/day, and their smaller powers 3/day. The dragonslaying shadowcaster had to take the same feat THREE times just to use a single power TWO times per day.
And it is a creative exercise. I really prefer playing, but usually DM. My favorite part of DMing is the design aspect of it.
Also, my 2 regular groups are actually relatively irregular, so I don't get all the playing time I'd like, so I sit around, watch TV, and read through my D&D books. At least when we do play, I have a firm grasp of the rules, so I don't need to look up grapple everytime it comes up.
Label me an elitist and ignore me if you will, just recognize, you are a hypocrite.
Whoa, dude. Where exactly did I call you an elitist, and how is my givinga response to you also ignoring you? And how do you work that into hypocracy on my end? You say: This is a problem. I say: No, not necessarily. Then I'm somehow hypocritically imposing myself on you? My assertion wasn't that anyone was playing wrong. My assertion is that rollplaying and roleplaying have nothing to do with each other. I will add an element of clarity and say that this is true at the group level. Obviously, if you have someone who wants to play Urg the Godsmasher and someone else who wants to play Timmy the Wonderpeasant in the same group, there are troubles ahead. At the level of the group dynamic, however, rollplaying and roleplaying are completely unrelated. If the group can't find some kind of consensus, then communication is the problem, not powergaming.
And I'll say one more thing. I don't min/max characters. I love building something mechanically sound and using the mechanics to my advantage. I appreciate the intelligence and dilligence that goes into creating such a character, too, which is why I like what SmiloDan posted. I, however, feel my eyes glaze over when I look at most PrCs, I balk at a number of feats for mechanical as well as aesthetic builds, and typically value fluff more than crunch. I am, however, aware of that as my own personal preference and don't grudge anyone else their play style. Further, when I see other people appear to grudge people their play styles, and particularly when their argument is a logical fallacy, I will voice myself.
I once again would hope that my presence on the boards, and what I have posted, would speak to my preferred play style and give other posters some insight into where I'm coming from, hopefully with the result of avoiding arguments (as opposed to debates) such as what we've fallen into here. That such is continually not the case astounds me. I'll conclude by saying that I am familiar with your posts CourtFool, and I am as much a fan of your emphasis on roleplaying as SmiloDan's emphasis on build making. Thank you, that is all.
I did not realize this was an argument and I apologize if I came off that way.
You did not call me an elitist. I felt it would be a likely response and jumped the gun. I apologize for that.
The Stormwind Fallacy rankles my fur. I disagree that it is a fallacy. I believe that rollplay and roleplay are on opposites ends of the spectrum. One can have a mixture of both, but where one is favored, the other suffers.
Again, I apologize if I came off as attacking you, Saern. That was not my intention.
Try it, I dare ya...
*grabs the shadowcaster and bites it's head off at 20 foot threat range*
Yes, I am saying you are playing wrong and that it is bad fun. It is my opinion and I am entitled to it. Label me an elitist and ignore me if you will, just recognize, you are a hypocrite.
The other point I would like to make, or rather, understand is why? Why role playing games? It seems to me that this sort of mentality would be better fulfilled with wargames or Magic: The Gathering where there is a clear objective for winning. Is it the creative exercise? Is it recognition from peers?
On that first point. No you are not the elitist, I am and I will ignore you. Nothing hypocritical about it I don't expect anything different from you, and never said I would do otherwise.
Is your question why max out a character in a role playing game?
Well maybe I want to play someone that is the best at something. Maybe that is what I want to role play this time around. Maybe I'm tired of always playing Joe the Smuck that is just average and doesn't really change the world... instead just adventures a little bit, maybe saves a town then retires to make have babies so Joe the Smuck Jr. can do the same thing. Maybe we are doing a beer and peanuts game where we just what to smash doors and monty haul... maybe kick a few Balors around for the fun of it while we are at it.
Why don't you role play the Wargame? Why can't you come up with a character and story out of that M:TG game you playing just an hour ago? Why can't that lead to a brand new plot twist for D&D?
And why do you have to keep things seperate from each other? I like peanut butter, I like chocolate too, neither of those things means I can't also like Reese's.
I have no problem with wanting to be the best at something. I hate low powered games for the same reason. Who wants to be Joe the Schmuck?
Why does the thing that you (not you specifically, Abraham spalding, but the people I have played with that do this) are best at is killing things? Why does every character you play have to be the best at killing things? Why should you be better at killing things than everyone else in the party?
I imagine I would get thrown out of wargames and CCG's for trying to role play in them. Since I do not think either of those two endeavors are good mediums for role playing, I imagine I would not have much fun either.
If you have a limited contain in which to place the mixture of chocolate and peanut butter, the more you put in of one, the less room you have for the other.
A purely rollplaying game would probably be Yatzee and a purely roleplaying (in this context) game would community theatre. Obviously we are all meeting somewhere in the middle. The problem is defining where the 'best' middle is.
I see what you are saying, however I think of D&D as taking the container and turning it into an infinite bag of holding. As taco bell would say, "Think outside the box."
I agree that always being the best at killing stuff gets tiresome quickly but there are other things to be the best at (like not killing stuff, just disabling it, I ran one of those as a LG wizard once).
I just feel it is limiting to think that role playing means you can't have an effective (or overly effective) character. Playing superman can be fun too even if he can't be defeated there are others around him that are important that can be, and he doesn't always 'win' either. Palladium actually does a good job of talking about this issue in their "Heroes Unlimited" system IMO.
|
I have no problem with wanting to be the best at something. I hate low powered games for the same reason. Who wants to be Joe the Schmuck?
Why does the thing that you (not you specifically, Abraham spalding, but the people I have played with that do this) are best at is killing things? Why does every character you play have to be the best at killing things? Why should you be better at killing things than everyone else in the party?
I imagine I would get thrown out of wargames and CCG's for trying to role play in them. Since I do not think either of those two endeavors are good mediums for role playing, I imagine I would not have much fun either.
If you have a limited contain in which to place the mixture of chocolate and peanut butter, the more you put in of one, the less room you have for the other.
A purely rollplaying game would probably be Yatzee and a purely roleplaying (in this context) game would community theatre. Obviously we are all meeting somewhere in the middle. The problem is defining where the 'best' middle is.
CCGs possibly, but I know lots of people who role-play during wargames, there was one guy that played 40k, who would read from his self-created Inquisitorial handbook during the games, he really enjoyed playing 40k, and acting like a general of his armies...no one kicked him out, infact it was quite entertaining.
Again, I apologize if I came off as attacking you, Saern. That was not my intention.
No worries, your words have set me at ease. :)
I'm going to say that I disagree with you about the Stormwind Fallacy, but I can see your perspective; especially from the angle that there is only so much time to prep for the game and play at the table, and time given to X thus means less for Y by definition.
[tangentially related anecdotal threadjack] And talking about roleplaying in a hostile environment: I played WoW for two or three years. One of my major disatisfactions with the game was the lack of roleplaying. Sure, there are places more or less designated for roleplaying, particularly on an RP server such as I played. But I couldn't see why people weren't doing it out in the field, while adventuring. I wanted to stay in character even during (especially during!) boss fights and raids. What I got was "n00b!" and a stream of "lol i pwn u." There were people I could RP with, but not enough to continually give me what I was looking for in the game. Combined with the other problems of WoW ("Wait, in order to be 'good' at this game, I have to invest as much time as a full-time job?"), I burned out. So, yeah, not every fantasy gaming environment is a roleplaying environment. [/tangentially related anecdotal threadjack]
I agree, striking at the family of a player can remove their feelign of invulnerability...but not if the player doesn't actually role-play...then it's oh no they killed my family...kill them!!!
no role-play to it, no remorse, nothing...
Yeah but that's player problem then, which is a whole new area.
Try it, I dare ya...
*grabs the shadowcaster and bites it's head off at 20 foot threat range*
Haha! The shadowcaster is actually 30 feet away! :-P
This is actually an unusual build for me. I usually try to make really versatile characters that help the party succeed, as opposed to focused on doing one thing really well.
My current PC is a Pathfinderized chaos gnome brass dragon shaman 4 with the Investigator feat from the Eberron CS, Urban Tracking, and Skill Focus Diplomacy.
My back up PC is a Pathfinderized dark whisper gnome ninja 4 with Extra Silence and Weapon Finesse.
My "iconic" PCs were a human scout (Point Blank Shot, Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, Shot on the Run, Power Attack, Cleave, Power Leap, Track, Improved Skirmish) and an elf druid archer (Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot [works with produce flame!], Natural Spell [of course!], Empower Spell, Craft Wand, Improved Counterspell).
The elf druid in particular was extremely versatile: buffer, blaster, diplomat, sailor, summoner, tank, archer, healer, battlefield controller, counterspeller, translator, scout, transporter, door opener, sage, and so much more.
Playing superman can be fun…
What I got was "n00b!" and a stream of "lol i pwn u."
I would very much like to continue this discussion, especially regarding these points, but I think I have jacked SmiloDan's thread enough. These would be better suited in a thread of their own. When I get more time, I will start one up.
Thank you, Abraham, Saern and Xaaon.
I forgot about the dragon's frightful presence! How would I be able to negate that? Immunity to fear?
I forgot about the dragon's frightful presence! How would I be able to negate that? Immunity to fear?
Yes, that would do it. You may have to start equipping this guy to complete the design.
Newsflash: nudists are not that effective against dragons. :)
...no breath weapons...Since when did anti-magic fields negate a dragon's breath weapon?
Since it was classified as a supernatural ability, and therefore magical and also subject to an anti-magic field. I assume from your question this is a development of 3rd edition? As Rich Burlew (and another poster somewhere upthread) recently pointed out, however, a dragon in an anti-magic field is still a dragon.
|
|
Since it was classified as a supernatural ability, and therefore magical and also subject to an anti-magic field. I assume from your question this is a development of 3rd edition? As Rich Burlew (and another poster somewhere upthread) recently pointed out, however, a dragon in an anti-magic field is still a dragon....no breath weapons...Since when did anti-magic fields negate a dragon's breath weapon?
Yeah, a development of "everything has to be classified to death" edition. I guess I've subconsciously ignored that incredibly stupid rule for the last eight years or so...
I forgot about the dragon's frightful presence! How would I be able to negate that? Immunity to fear?Yes, that would do it. You may have to start equipping this guy to complete the design.
Newsflash: nudists are not that effective against dragons. :)
Well, I guess it depends on your Charisma.... ;-)
|
|
Well, I guess it depends on your Charisma.... ;-)I forgot about the dragon's frightful presence! How would I be able to negate that? Immunity to fear?Yes, that would do it. You may have to start equipping this guy to complete the design.
Newsflash: nudists are not that effective against dragons. :)
I'll have to tell you about our groups Sharresan preistess' run in with a dragon a few years back sometime.
|
|
I'll have to tell you about our groups Sharresan preistess' run in with a dragon a few years back sometime.Well, I guess it depends on your Charisma.... ;-)I forgot about the dragon's frightful presence! How would I be able to negate that? Immunity to fear?Yes, that would do it. You may have to start equipping this guy to complete the design.
Newsflash: nudists are not that effective against dragons. :)
Always wondered where half-dragons came from. I guess now I know.
|
|
...no breath weapons...Since when did anti-magic fields negate a dragon's breath weapon?
Have you read the golarion take on dragons, from the runelords AP I think. It ties lots of their abilities to magic. It even does so by designing new glands and physiological explanations for how it all works. But an antimagic field would take a few weeks to render it completely useless. Well worth the read.
Gotta say, I've also ignored the antimagic field thing affecting their breath weapons. Hmmmm, DM ruling for convenience is quie useful at times :)
Cheers
I'm sure glad I never posted any of my experimental game breaking builds here, after the hoops everyone's been jumping through, the arguments, the apologies, walking off into the sunset.... Wait, maybe I should post lol
But seriously, all SmiloDan did was post an experimental build. This is not a reoccurring character in his game, this is not how he bested another DM's dragon, he simply experimented and found something really nifty. All this talk of role-play vs. roll-play, attacking each other play styles, it's all pretty obnoxious. He simply did what we ALL have done in our down-time between gaming:
"Hmm, this is a pretty neat feat/job ability/etc, I wonder if....oooh it does! Maybe if I.... Hmm, maybe some....Wow, that's pretty nifty!"
I've spent more time building characters than I have actually playing them, personally. And I even used to game 6 nights a week.
Thankfully things have settled down a bit, but really guys, did this thread need to get so heated? Nobody's wrong here, I just think things got taken out of context. I give props to SmiloDan for making a very effective build out of what is universally known as a weak class (the creator of which even said it was weak) and without the use of the Mighty Magic Wal-Mart of items. Well done.
|
|
DM: Naked shadowcaster, your mission is to kill this 24HD dragon in one round.
*Naked shadowcaster does his thing*
*Large Shadow Elemental rolls damage for coup de grace*
*damage = 19*
*DM rolls dragon's Fort save vs. coup de grace DC29 (DC=10+damage dealt)*
*Fort save = 38*
*paralyzed, screwed, gonna-die-anyway dragon survives one round of combat with nude shadowcaster*
Mission fail.
Nice build though.
I'm just sayin' it could happen.
DM: Naked shadowcaster, your mission is to kill this 24HD dragon in one round.
*Naked shadowcaster does his thing*
*Large Shadow Elemental rolls damage for coup de grace*
*damage = 19*
*DM rolls dragon's Fort save vs. coup de grace DC29 (DC=10+damage dealt)*
*Fort save = 38*
*paralyzed, screwed, gonna-die-anyway dragon survives one round of combat with nude shadowcaster*Mission fail.
Nice build though.
I'm just sayin' it could happen.
OOH! Good call! Hopefully it will be a red dragon, because Shadow Elementals also do cold damage. If it's a white dragon, I'm really up the creek with out a paddle!
Contributor
|
"Inside an antimagic field your toys don't work, but a dragon is still a dragon."
Heck! The guy I designed doesn't even HAVE any toys! :-O
It may be DM's interpretation, but Supernatural abilities do not function in an Anti-magic field. They stop at the border. This ought to end this. That's your problem. One simple alarm spell coupled with a contingent anti-magic field ought to solve this.
Your one big (SU) trick is your toy...
"Inside an antimagic field your toys don't work, but a dragon is still a dragon."
Heck! The guy I designed doesn't even HAVE any toys! :-O
It may be DM's interpretation, but Supernatural abilities do not function in an Anti-magic field. They stop at the border. This ought to end this. That's your problem. One simple alarm spell coupled with a contingent anti-magic field ought to solve this.
Your one big (SU) trick is your toy...
Nope! Those are his mad skills! Toys be equipment, like wands of flicker for a hasty retreat!
Nope! Those are his mad skills! Toys be equipment, like wands of flicker for a hasty retreat!"Inside an antimagic field your toys don't work, but a dragon is still a dragon."
Heck! The guy I designed doesn't even HAVE any toys! :-O
It may be DM's interpretation, but Supernatural abilities do not function in an Anti-magic field. They stop at the border. This ought to end this. That's your problem. One simple alarm spell coupled with a contingent anti-magic field ought to solve this.
Your one big (SU) trick is your toy...
The point stands, however. If the dragon has access to an anti-magic field, then you're just a hairless ape against a multi-ton killer lizard with claws a foot long. It is one of the possible strategies to beat this build.
The point stands, however. If the dragon has access to an anti-magic field, then you're just a hairless ape against a multi-ton killer lizard with claws a foot long. It is one of the possible strategies to beat this build.Nope! Those are his mad skills! Toys be equipment, like wands of flicker for a hasty retreat!"Inside an antimagic field your toys don't work, but a dragon is still a dragon."
Heck! The guy I designed doesn't even HAVE any toys! :-O
It may be DM's interpretation, but Supernatural abilities do not function in an Anti-magic field. They stop at the border. This ought to end this. That's your problem. One simple alarm spell coupled with a contingent anti-magic field ought to solve this.
Your one big (SU) trick is your toy...
Yeah, I know. My guy doesn't even have a pointy stick to poke the big giant pile-o-death with. Maybe he should go to the pointy stick store...
But it's still a pretty good build. It's VERY effective against single targets with either low-to-mid Str or Dex (up to 16), or relatively low Con (upto 10). So, a decent assassin.
Using the Pathfinder rules and ability damage, I think I found another decent build. Not as great as the first (SR applies, it affects Str, not Dex, and requires solid hits, not ranged touch attacks).
A rogue with 2 weapon fighting up the yin-yang (6 attacks a round), taking the minor magic, major magic, and crippling strike rogue talents. The sneak attacks cause 2 points of Str damage, choose Ray of Enfeeblement as your major magic, and maybe Quicken, Maximize, and Empower Spell-like ability feats, and sneak attack with the ray too. You might be able to get (7 x 2) + ((6 x 1.5) + 5) = 28 points of Strength damage off in 1 round.
Maybe (7 x 2) + ((6 + 5) x 1.5) = 30 points of Strength damage depending on how you interpret Empower Spell-like Ability.
There is a 2nd level arcane spell called Wraith Strike that allows you to get your melee attacks off as a touch attack for 1 round that might be helpful. You might have to multi-class to get that, though.
EDIT:
Actually, it's 14 points of Strength damage and a penalty to Strength equal to 14 or 16.
Has anyone come up with a similar concept using the new pathfinder classes?
A Lurk from Complete Psionics can deal 2 Int or Wis damage in addition to normal damage: + 1 per 2 pp added (limited by lurk level for how much augment)
So a 18th level Lurk can deal 10 Int or wis damage on next attack that deals a negative level (for 3 rounds) and auto denies dex ( swift action for Mental assualt, Stygian Weapon, and Deceptive Strike). Due to Deceptive strike you deal +4d6 sneak attack.
It costs 3 Lurk augments, 30 pp, and a swift action.
Cloud Mind would make you undetectable by the Dragon senses (if it fails Will save).
You'll likely want to buff up attack with Precog offensive: +1 Insight hit + 1/3 pp used to augment.
You have Evade Burst to deny damage from breath weapon.
Displacement for attacks.
Sadly, it will take 2 Mental Assualts to comatose a Ancient Red Dragon, but you will be able to do it.
A Lurk from Complete Psionics can deal 2 Int or Wis damage in addition to normal damage: + 1 per 2 pp added (limited by lurk level for how much augment)
So a 18th level Lurk can deal 10 Int or wis damage on next attack that deals a negative level (for 3 rounds) and auto denies dex ( swift action for Mental assualt, Stygian Weapon, and Deceptive Strike). Due to Deceptive strike you deal +4d6 sneak attack.
It costs 3 Lurk augments, 30 pp, and a swift action.
Cloud Mind would make you undetectable by the Dragon senses (if it fails Will save).
You'll likely want to buff up attack with Precog offensive: +1 Insight hit + 1/3 pp used to augment.
You have Evade Burst to deny damage from breath weapon.
Displacement for attacks.Sadly, it will take 2 Mental Assualts to comatose a Ancient Red Dragon, but you will be able to do it.
That's why D&D and/or Pathfinder is a team sport--just get one of your friends to play the same thing or something else that does that ability damage.
|
|
The false dichotomy at play is that rollplay and roleplay cannot co-exist. Having a great mechanical build is in no way related to playing an interesting character or telling a good story, one way or the other. I believe this has been called the Stormwind Fallacy, after a messageboard poster on Wizards' site which delved into the subject at some depth; however, without more knowledge, I'll not claim to be invoking that principle. Regardless, the criticism of SmiloDan's build as somehow damaging the narrative or immersive structure and/or quality of a game is unfounded.But when the game is either OPTIMISE or DIE,or just plain leave the table, then it's not that much of a fallacy at all.
Very true. Extreme optimizers and those making bards ;) make a DM's life hell when appearing in the same group... :)