How to kill a dragon in 1 round while naked (18th level shadowcaster)


3.5/d20/OGL

1 to 50 of 101 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Dragonslayer
Neutral Human Shadowcaster 18
AC: 21 (+1 Dex, +4 deflection, +3 armor, +3 shield), touch 16, ff 20.
HP: 84 (169)
8 Str -1
13 Dex +1
12 Con +1
19 Int +4 (improved at levels 4, 8, 12, and 16)
10 Wis +0
14 Cha +2

Saves: Fort +12, Reflex +7, Will +11

Init: +2, BAB: +9/+4, melee: +8/+3, ranged: +10/+5, grapple +8

Feats:
1. Extend Mystery
1. Lucky Start
2. Reach Mystery
3. Shadow Familiar
6. Improved Familiar (Dark Air Mephit)
8. Reach Mystery
9. Fortuitous Strike
12. Maximize Mystery
13. Quicken Mystery
15. Favored Mystery: Greater Flesh Fails
16. Favored Mystery: Greater Flesh Fails
18. Favored Mystery: Greater Flesh Fails

(Bonus Feats at level 2, 8, 13, and 16 are from the variety of paths the dragonslaying shadowcaster took--they get 1 bonus feat for every 2 paths they know mysteries from.)

Skills:
Concentration +22
Hide +22
Intimidate +9
Knowledge arcana +25
Knowledge the planes +22
Move Silently +22
Spellcraft +27
Languages: Common, Auran, Draconic.

Class Featues:
Umbral Sight (darkvision 30 feet, see in darkness 60 feet)
Sustaining Shadow (eat 1 meal/week, sleep 1 hour/day, immune to poison and disease)
Unlimited Fundamentals

Fundamentals: Arrow of Dusk, Black Candle, Caul of Shadow, Mystic Reflections, Sight Obscured, Umbral Hand, Widened Eyes.

Mysteries:
Apprentice: 3/day each, supernatural.
1. Steel Shadows, Life Fades
2. Sight Eclipsed, Flesh Fails
3. Sharp Shadows, Umbral Touch

Initiate: 2/day each, spell-like.
4. Bolster, Step into Shadow, Warp Spell
5. Languor, Pass into Shadow
6. Shadow Investiture

Master: 1/day each, spell
7. Greater Life Fades, Ephemeral Image, Summon Umbral Servant
8. Greater Flesh Fails (2/day, supernatural), Umbral Body
9. Shadow Time

Tactics:

Before combat, buff using Caul of Shadow, Steel Shadows, Sharp Shadows, Bolster, Shadow Investiture, Umbral Body.

Cast Summon Umbral Servant, gaining 1 Large Shadow Elemental.

Cast Flesh Fails for Dark Air Mephit Familiar (hold the charge).

Enter combat by appearing near the dragon (within 10 feet) via Step Into Shadow, bringing along summoned shadow elemental and dark air mephit familiar. Step Into Shadow with Shadow Elemental adjacent to the dragon.

In Combat. Roll initiative. If relatively low, re-roll using Lucky Start feat. You're going to want to go first.

On your turn, cast Reach Greater Flesh Fails and Reach Quickened Greater Flesh Fails. Both require a ranged touch attack....if you get a low result (like a Natural 1), re-roll using Fortuitous Strike feat (most dragons have a touch AC of 10 or less) Each Greater Flesh Fails causes 6 points of Dex damage, for a total of 12 points of Dex damage. Most dragons have a Dex of 10. If the dragon doesn't drop from Dex damage, send in dark air mephit familiar with Flesh Fails spell, causing 4 more points of Dex damage, for a total of 16 points of Dex damage. This should drop most dragons with Cat's Grace cast on them or even dragons wearing Gloves of Dexterity +6. Because the Dragonslayer took the Favored Mystery--Greater Flesh Fails feat 3 times, Greater Flesh Fails is a supernatural atack he can use twice a day. Since it is supernatural with no saving throw, it negates the dragon's Spell Resistance and excellent Saving Throws.

Command Large Shadow Elemental to coup de grace the dragon.

If you don't have time to buff and prepare, cast Maximized Shadow Time, buff and summon Large Shadow Elemental and prep dark air mephit familiar.

Are there any flaws in this plan?

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

You're describing an 18th-Level character who's spent its entire career waiting for just this opportunity: a big, honkin' dragon, with no support team around to run interference or heal, that has allowed the shadowcaster to get within range of his special combo.

Hells, yes, if you've spent 18 levels getting to this moment, it's yours.

Liberty's Edge

3.xe is silly sometimes. Can you do the same only using the PHB? Actually make that pathfinder beta.

;)

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Actually, it's a pretty standard shadowcaster. The focus on Greater Flesh Fails at levels 15-18 is a bit extreme, but everything else is pretty standard and useful in a variety of situations. You can swap out Luck feats, and even the Improved Familiar feat if you want, and still get the dragonslaying job done.

Also, this guy has no equipment (maybe pants). So you can customize the equipment for variety and versatility too.

Liberty's Edge

Nope didn't find Shadowcaster or many of the feats in Pathfinder beta...

Sovereign Court

I say this is cool! Good job coming up with a dragon-killing build! And really, this would kill a lot of creatures, since it's not only dragons that have low Dex.

I always felt that there was something to be said for the people who can bend the rules to create perfect situations; some people call it "broken," I say that it requires a certain kind of creativity; a kind that I lack.

Anyway, in a few years, Pathfinder will have all these kinds of options again, it'll be nice to see what comes up then!

Liberty's Edge

Nameless wrote:
Anyway, in a few years, Pathfinder will have all these kinds of options again, it'll be nice to see what comes up then!

I pray to the Almighty Gygax that your prediction does not come to pass and game mechanical silliness such as displayed* is ended with the glorious raise of Pathfinder RPG.

S.

*Stunning build btw, don't get me wrong. Amazingly piece of work, but the DM in me just wants to throttle you... :)

Sovereign Court

While this is a fun congnitive activity to think about, and it makes for typical gamer conversation....

... I cannot help but feel that the age of the munchkin has passed. No value judgement here, because you clearly aren't trying to even optimize your PC with high stats or anything.... but .... seriously? Again, not directed at you, because this is kind of fun to consider, but.... context is king.

Again, context is king.

My take on this type of Mighty Mouse vs. Goofy conversation:

Context is king because on paper, serile stats vs. sterile stats are like saying... "HAH! I can win the mega-millions lottery jackpot by just picking six numbers! Look! Here are six numbers. And, afterall, a lottery ticket is easy to purchase! It only takes $1.00 to buy one!!! So see! $1.00 and six numbers makes me a millionaire!"

Again, no offense to the OP. And I apologize if I have offended the OP. Again, I mean no offense.

But when will we players of fantasy roleplay games stop pointing out the obvious flaws inherent in only this one tiny slice of the game? Unless.... *gasp* ... unless the game has devolved into stat block versus st4t block?

Again, I cannot say enough, that this is an okay mathematical, calculated experiement... but since I hear these so often... what about:
>Setting
>Plane
>Size of room or area
>obstacles
>Lighting
>Spells in effect (Alarm, anyone?)
>The big crevasse seperating the PC and the dragon
>The smaller dragons in the first chamber
>The fact that this is encounter number five for the day and resources, energy and whatever has already dwindled and maybe PC is not morning-fresh!
>What if the dragon has an artifact?

Otherwize, yeah, I am with Chris Mortika - - - if you've done a "character-build-thingy" just for this one moment in time, then I hear Whitney singin' and wake me up when all the excitement is over.

Again - I can't say strongly enough, that I am not trying to insult the OP or anyone else. Just finding a way to promote the idea that in our game the context and all the factors matter, not just stats.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Pax Veritas wrote:

While this is a fun congnitive activity to think about, and it makes for typical gamer conversation....

Again, I cannot say enough, that this is an okay mathematical, calculated experiement... but since I hear these so often... what about:
>Setting

Obviously, the shadowcaster class (from Tome of Magic) would have to be allowed.

>Plane

The shadowcaster is incorporeal from the Umbral Body mystery, so it would have to be on a plane that allows incorporeality.

>Size of room or area

A room slightly bigger than the dragon would be nice! ;-) A smaller room might not matter because of the dragonslaying shadowcaster's incorporeality.

>obstacles

Incorporeality.
'nuff said. ;-)

>Lighting

The shadowcaster can see in the dark, has darkvision, a fundamental for low-light vision, and no weakness in bright light (human). Extra-bright light, like from a flash-bang grenade, might affect the shadowcaster.

>Spells in effect (Alarm, anyone?)

The "idealized" version of this scenario is basically dimension dooring in (Step into Shadow). So the shadowcaster would teleport in, alarm would sound, roll for initiative. I guess Anticipate Teleport and similar magics could spoil the surprise. A contingent restoration would also rain on my parade.

>The big crevasse seperating the PC and the dragon

Incorporeality lets you fly.

>The smaller dragons in the first chamber

Hide/Move Silently?

>The fact that this is encounter number five for the day and resources, energy and whatever has already dwindled and maybe PC is not morning-fresh!

Then he shouldn't try this! If the PC gets surprised by the dragon minus his big guns, um, er, OK, you got me!

>What if the dragon has an artifact?

Then it's not really a dragon! :-P

Otherwize, yeah, I am with Chris Mortika - - - if you've done a "character-build-thingy" just for this one moment in time, then I hear Whitney singin' and wake me up when all the excitement is over.

Again - I can't say strongly enough, that I am not trying to insult the OP or anyone else. Just finding a way to promote the idea that in our game the context...

One thing this build really depends on is the mystery Flesh Fails and Greater Flesh Fails. It's a touch attack that does Str, Dex, OR Con damage with no save. Spell resistance applies, but as shadowcasters advance in levels, their less powerful mysteries become spell-like abilities, and then supernatural abilities (No SR!!!!!!). Also, their is a feat, Favored Mystery, which allows you to bump a mystery up a category....and if it's already supernatural, lets you use it again. And the feat stacks with itself.

I looked through the Pathfinder Beta briefly, but there are very few Supernatural abilities that don't allow a save or cause minimal damage (1d6+10 at 20th level).

Also, it was mere laziness that made me build this build with no equipment. I'm sure there are some nifty magic items out there that would help!


Scintillating Scales from the Spell Compendium changes a creatures Natural armor to Deflection. At 18th level you are definitely subject to legend lore or some similar spell.

I dont know much about mysteries and shadowcasters, but having an immediate action to run away might be nice with only 84 hit points.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

concerro wrote:

Scintillating Scales from the Spell Compendium changes a creatures Natural armor to Deflection. At 18th level you are definitely subject to legend lore or some similar spell.

I dont know much about mysteries and shadowcasters, but having an immediate action to run away might be nice with only 84 hit points.

Bolster grants you 5 bonus hit points per level, upto 15th level, so a buffed dragonslaying shadowcaster would have 159 hps. Still not a lot compared to a dragon, but this build is based on taking out the dragon quickly so you don't have to worry about it striking back. Ideally, I this build should be able to squeeze in Improved Initiative, a higher Dex score, and lots of Dex and Initiative boosting items.

There is a 3rd level mystery (spell) called flicker that lets you teleport 5 feet per 2 caster levels as an immediate action, once a round, for 1 round per level.

You could re-do the build like this:
Apprentice:
1. Voice of Shadow, Life Fades, Steel Shadows
2. Congress of Shadows, Flesh Fails
3. Flicker

You might even get an extra bonus feat, or a bonus feat earlier, using this build. Shadowcasters get a number of bonus feats equal to 1/2 the number of paths they have known mysteries from.

But a wand of flicker might be better, since Voice of Shadow is basically just a Command spell, and Congress of Shadows is like Message or Whispering Wind.

Shadowcasters cast mysteries, which are kind of like spells, except they have just Somatic components. Also, they are organized in Paths (which fans of Pathfinder should love!) and to get a higher level mystery along a path, you must have the lower level mystery(ies) of that path. To take a 2nd level mystery, you must know 2 1st level mysteries and one of them must be along the same path as the 2nd level mystery. To take a 3rd level mystery, you must know 2 2nd level mysteries and the 1st and 2nd level mysteries of that path.


That's it, you are banned from my games ;)


I am confused. Is this role playing or Magic: The Gathering?

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

CourtFool wrote:
I am confused. Is this role playing or Magic: The Gathering?

Roleplaying. I'm the dragon assassin. :-P

The only convoluted part of the build are the feats at levels 15, 16, and 18. It's kind of a big investment at that point. But everything else is utilitarian and versatile.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Sheesh, you bunch of curmudgeons! This is good stuff.


Sebastian wrote:
Sheesh, you bunch of curmudgeons! This is good stuff.

Rules lawyer!...oh wait... doh'!

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Should I trade out Improved Familiar for Improved Initiative, and then take the familiar that boosts Reflex saves? Shadow Investiture grants Evasion (YAY!) plus some other stuff that is handy against some dragons.


Sebastian wrote:
Sheesh, you bunch of curmudgeons! This is good stuff.

Seriously. If Sebastian is calling you a curmudgeon, that's really bad. :)

Oh, god, I'm agreeing with Sebastian again. The end is nigh!

This is not meant to be brought to the table. This is a mental exercise using the 3.5 ruleset to see if a concept is possible. Even in the "real world," academics do this kind of stuff all the time, whether they be philosophers or astrophysicists. "Yes, in theory, under these conditions, according to my thinking, it is possible for this event to occur." This is just the D&D equivalent of that. Also, one should take into account that it's possible to learn something of a poster's identity through their posting history. SmiloDan is someone who has long displayed an interest in concept builds like this, so it's really no surprise.

Since I personally believe the shadowcaster to be the single most complicated and rules-intensive class in 3.5 (it took my co-DM and I three days to figure it all out back when Tome of Magic first appeared!), I've got to hand it to SmiloDan for developing this build. Bravo!

And, I've got to agree with Chris Mortika on this a little, too. If I had a player who managed to survive in a game with this build (regardless of the [actually surprisingly minor] specialization of the build, I find shadowcasters to be very difficult to pull through the low levels) and managed to get everything set up in the game without cheating or me, as the DM, pulling any punches (but also not specifically setting out to wreak the plan); then, in that case, I'd say go for it, kudos, and job well done! Your character now has a place in legend.


Warning: Elitist Drama Queen Naratavist rant

Spoiler:
Saern wrote:
This is not meant to be brought to the table.

Except that this type of thinking is prevalent at the table.

"Don't play an Orc Bard, it is a suboptimal build."

"Don't charge the Goblin horde heroically; it is a stupid tactical blunder."

And should you ignore the gentle warnings, you soon find yourself drowning because the GM had to amp up the challenges to keep up with the creative min/maxers.


Hey, all in all much respect for making the Shadowcaster look like a bada$$! That is NOT an easy thing to do!

Sovereign Court

CourtFool wrote:

Warning: Elitist Drama Queen Naratavist rant

** spoiler omitted **

Hey—the contents of the spoiler were well said, Court Fool, well said!


Scowls down ominously on the thread from within his Helm of Horror.

Liberty's Edge

CourtFool wrote:

Warning: Elitist Drama Queen Naratavist rant

** spoiler omitted **

I know a system that produced on the whole sub-optimum characters, where your tactics were usually run at the enemy (or away)... it was called Dungeons & Dragons. But that was 30 years ago <sigh>.

:)


Stefan Hill wrote:
CourtFool wrote:

Warning: Elitist Drama Queen Naratavist rant

** spoiler omitted **

I know a system that produced on the whole sub-optimum characters, where your tactics were usually run at the enemy (or away)... it was called Dungeons & Dragons. But that was 30 years ago <sigh>.

:)

Whatever, those where never our tactics...

And anyone complaining that you could have a "sub-optimum" build that was good back then is missing one major point.

Generally it didn't matter if you had a 9 or a 14 in a score.

With that big of a gap where the exact score didn't matter it's a bit disingenuous to say that your build was "sub-optimum".

Plus the number of people I've met that are willing to talk about their "level 30 fighter/thief/wizard" or "level 24 wizard/thief" et. al. or how they defeated "Monster X" with just a ball of string and some really crappy thought out plan, because the DM was drunk or something. Tells me that the "munchkins" and such where just as much around then as they are now.

Liberty's Edge

Stefan Hill wrote:
CourtFool wrote:

Warning: Elitist Drama Queen Naratavist rant

** spoiler omitted **

I know a system that produced on the whole sub-optimum characters, where your tactics were usually run at the enemy (or away)... it was called Dungeons & Dragons. But that was 30 years ago <sigh>.

:)

I wonder what ever happened to that game? Haven't seen it since '85 or so...

Liberty's Edge

SmiloDan wrote:

Dragonslayer

...

This would totally kill the sleeping, deaf dragon with a stuffy nose that has been plaguing the nearby country. Assuming this character escaped the dragon's net of spies and servants in local towns by never letting anyone know his intentions.

Great build, though. It can slice through most things when it's just combat mechanics to mechanics.

Liberty's Edge

Abraham spalding wrote:

Generally it didn't matter if you had a 9 or a 14 in a score.

I beg to differ;

STR 9 1% bend bars / lift gates
STR 14 7% bend bars / lift gates

DEX 9 -20% move silently for the thief
DEX 14 +0% move silently for the thief

CON 9 70% res. survival
CON 14 92% res. survival

INT 9 +1 language
INT 14 +4 languages

WIS 9 15% spell failure for a cleric
WIS 14 0% spell failure for a cleric, +2 1st level spells

CHA 9 +0% reaction bonus
CHA 14 +10% reaction bonus

Seems a world of difference between 9 and 14 unless you only count differences that result in more hitting, more damage, more hit points - and if so perhaps it isn't I who has missed the point?

Musing yet again,
S.


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.


Stefan Hill wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:

Generally it didn't matter if you had a 9 or a 14 in a score.

I beg to differ;

STR 9 1% bend bars / lift gates
STR 14 7% bend bars / lift gates

DEX 9 -20% move silently for the thief
DEX 14 +0% move silently for the thief

CON 9 70% res. survival
CON 14 92% res. survival

INT 9 +1 language
INT 14 +4 languages

WIS 9 15% spell failure for a cleric
WIS 14 0% spell failure for a cleric, +2 1st level spells

CHA 9 +0% reaction bonus
CHA 14 +10% reaction bonus

Seems a world of difference between 9 and 14 unless you only count differences that result in more hitting, more damage, more hit points - and if so perhaps it isn't I who has missed the point?

Musing yet again,
S.

Wow 6%! That hurts!

With the rogue precentages you weren't going to live anyways, that's what the bag of gnomes (I mean bag of tricks) is for, and this only matters to the thief.

Res chance ok that one is a bit more of an issue, however you still lost a point of Con, Might not survive the res chance (however it started at what percentage?) and if you weren't a fighter the only question was if you lost HP or gained up to 2 HP, same with the % str... in the end it's not a huge difference (and many times Ressurection didn't even come into play for many of the same reasons it doesn't in 3.x).

Languages? Great so I can here "I'm going to kill you" in three more languages... (as opposed to just starting as a race with multiple languages to start with).

Wisdom ONLY mattered for Clerics between 9~14 and reaction? Yeah it's a troll it wants you for dinner.

With everything each of these stats were supposed to do the miniscule differences don't matter. At all.

Were as in 3.x you actually have to recognise your weaknesses. You MUST put up with the fact that the low stat is actually a low stat. No having your cake and eating it too.

The characters were not sub optimum for their stats in the eariler editions. The best you were going to do was AC -10 and THac0 of 2, saves were only affected by level and monster penalties.


cyrusduane wrote:
Assuming this character escaped the dragon's net of spies and servants in local towns

Let me begin by clarifying I'm not attacking you. That said, this assumes a playstyle. I, personally, despise the notion of dragons a political schemers, and would never run a dragon as having networks of agents doing their bidding in the nearby countryside (for a list of aesthetic reasons I won't indulge extorting at the moment). It's just a play/setting style that rubs me the wrong way. This is one reason why we agree to play by a neutral set of rules, because one person's idea of what is right, proper, cool, possible, or whatever, may differ wildly from another's. If those divergent opinions are held by a DM and his player, then problems are in store. Instead, the rules-heavy nature of 3.x (I can't comment on 4e without more experience) is at least partially an attempt to resolve those issues by creating a robust and dynamic set of mechanics which can handle just about anything with (relative) streamlined simplicity. My perspective, from a conflict avoidance viewpoint aiming at making sure both my players and I come to the table and walk away with the most amount of enjoyment from the game, is that it is imperative for DMs to, generally speaking, let the rules lie the way they are (barring cases of mutual concent from the players, of course, in which case do whatever you want). Let the neutral mechanics dictate what is possible, then use imagination and creativity to fit a believable and cool description around it, to taste.

I bring this up knowing full well that it is completely tangential to the issue at hand. However, since this is an exercise of those purely neutral rules coming into conflict with other people's ideologies about how the game "should" be, I feel it bears mentioning.

Liberty's Edge

Abraham spalding wrote:
With everything each of these stats were supposed to do the miniscule differences don't matter. At all.

If that is what you seriously believe then you play a very different D&D than I do.

3 extras languages, that is just huge! Difference between being eaten by the troll or convincing it to release the town mayor (then that CHA bonus for 14 will come in handy too). Some monsters aren't just a wandering bag of hit points for players to try to remove. 14 IS better than 9 even if there is no attached "bonus", as DM you can use that in a game. Dice aren't the only thing needed to play D&D, which then means that bonuses to dice rolls aren't the only thing required to have a good character. I think we all agree on that right?

Not sure the point about some stats being "only for class X or Y" - that's true in all edition of D&D. Seen any fighters with 9 STR and 19 WIS lately? Different classes benefit from different stats, true.

Loosing CON, yep death hurts and after awhile there just isn't any coming back. It's called "consequence".

But D&D's strength, it's support all styles of play. We once talked a dragon into leaving - unfortunately it involved a Geas and promising a lot of gold to start anew...

S.


SmiloDan wrote:

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


Yeah different classes benefit more from different stats, but in eariler editions for the fighter there wasn't any difference between wisdom 9 and wisdom 14. For anyone but a thief there was no difference between dex 9 and dex 14.

With no differences you could say your fighter was "sub optimum" with a low Dex and low Wis, when in reality there was no difference between you and a fighter with a higher dex and wisdom. Con only mattered if you died in between those point ranges. Until that point it didn't matter at all.

Now a fighter with a Wisdom 9 is substantially different than a fighter with a wisdom of 14. Same as it is for a wizard with a DEX of 9 compared to one with a DEX of 14.

Yes you could start with more languages with a higher Int, and the Cha reaction is about a difference of +10%... in a six point range out of a total scale of 16 you got a 10% difference.

Liberty's Edge

Abraham spalding wrote:


but in eariler editions for the fighter there wasn't any difference between wisdom 9 and wisdom 14. For anyone but a thief there was no difference between dex 9 and dex 14..

Yes you could start with more languages with a higher Int, and the Cha reaction is about a difference of +10%... in a six point range out of a total scale of 16 you got a 10% difference.

I think we can just agree to differ - even without a dice "plus" as DM I use the difference between DEX 9 and 14 in a game. Obvious the character with 14 is more dexterous than the character with 9. No dice roll required, just a simple fact.

STR is an easier one. STR 9 vs STR 14 in an arm wrestle - who wins, dice nope. It's the character with 14 strength unless there are other factors to consider. But that is the job of the DM. Just for an example. D&D 3e 9 STR +0, 14 STR +2, STR vs STR the 14 has 10% advantage right? Now let's look at maximum lifting 9 = 90lb, and 14 = 175lb (nearly 50% advantage). So who wins the arm wrestling competition? Stat bonuses give a slight advantage, and the outcome isn't so certain, but if we look at shear force the STR 14 should win without rolling.

The CHA thing... 9 = +0%, 14 = +10% or in d20 speak... 9 = +0, 14 = +2. Hey that's the same as 3.xe D&D bonuses. Where is the problem?

As I say we play very different games, and rightly so.

S.

Dark Archive Contributor

Charles Evans 25 wrote:
SmiloDan wrote:

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

Close. This relies on a supernatural abilty, right? CL 19 Dragon (ie, ancient red), with a contingent antimagic field. There is a saying-

"Inside an antimagic field your toys don't work, but a dragon is still a dragon."


Not the same thing at all:

Cha 9 = -1 while a Cha 14 = -3

Close but not the same.

My point is that the difference you are talking about isn't supported by the system in earlier editions. Granted a Dex of 9 should be different from a Dex of 14, but it wasn't seen in the effects of the stat, in 3.5 it is. So you are saying that someone with a St 9 will always lose to someone with a Str 14 in an arm wrestling contest? Every time?

My point is mathmatically there is no difference. In the eariler editions you could have a wisdom 9 and played as a great wise man, or you could have a wisdom 14 and played like a buffoon. You can still do the same in 3.x however when it comes to the mechanical act of being wise (telling when people are lying for example) you have to deal with the penalty (or bonus) in 3.5. The stats support the role playing instead of being completely absent from it.

And with no difference it doesn't matter what your stats are, the build and character isn't "Sub optimum".

Without it being "sub optimum" it's no different than it is currently. AND I will stand by the fact that I've seen no increase in the "munchkinism" and "powergaming" from 1st to 2nd to 3.x just as I haven't seen the role playing aspects of the game disappear.

My only issue is the "good olde day" view. It is doesn't float and it doesn't fly.

Liberty's Edge

Abraham spalding wrote:

My point is mathmatically there is no difference.

The stats support the role playing instead of being completely absent from it.

That is exactly my point. D&D is not a game of mathmatics, its a game of social interaction. If you require maths for that then I entirely agree that later editions are for you, if not then 1e serves just as well. I think that in context "ye olde game" is excellent and both floats and flies right up there with the "shiny new game(s)". The way you imply you play then I can see why you take issue, and I have no issue with that at all.

And yes about the arm wrestling - head down the local gym find a big dude benching pressing about about twice what you can, and challenge him to an arm wrestling competition. Keep tally of wins vs losses. Out of interest how would you rule it in game, rolls of what? Now in my game I'd have the CHA 14 bar wench* (sorry if sexist term) unbutton her blouse slightly in view of the character and the foregone conclusion of the wrestling may not be so forgone... :)

I do disagree with your second statement, the stat bonus supports an addition to a dice roll, fact - not necessarily the same as supporting roleplaying.

S.

*She working for the NPC who originally challenged the PC to the match...

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Boxhead wrote:
Charles Evans 25 wrote:
SmiloDan wrote:

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

Close. This relies on a supernatural abilty, right? CL 19 Dragon (ie, ancient red), with a contingent antimagic field. There is a saying-

"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

Also, I just crunched some more numbers, and the Dragonslaying Shadowcaster could summon a Huge shadow elemental, and using reach, stay 30+ feet away from the dragon when he uses Step of Shadow (dimension door). Also, Umbral Body means he is incorporeal, which means he makes no noise, and +22 to Hide MIGHT be enough to hide from a dragon, depending on how well I roll for Hide and how poor the dragon rolls for Spot.

One question I have is, can the dragon hit an incorporeal critter? Normally you need to have +1 weapons (or magic weapons) for 50% chance to hit. Dragons with DR 5/magic, etc., can overcome DR based on X/magic with their natural attacks, but can they still strike incorporeal targets?

The Exchange

I'm not familiar with the spell, so please correct me if I'm wrong. Don't effects from the same spell, or even the same type of effect, not actually stack. I believe that's stated in the magic section of the the players handbook. So really, all you're able to do is cause d4 dex damage on the dragon, but you can roll three times to make sure you get the highest value.

This is kind of like ray of enfeeblement in that sense isn't it? I believe that's why the rule was put in place. (Of course a number of the splat books later on tried to break that so this could be one of those cases).

Cheers

Liberty's Edge

Wrath wrote:
Don't effects from the same spell, or even the same type of effect, not actually stack.

Correct. OK can this build still work?

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Stefan Hill wrote:
Wrath wrote:
Don't effects from the same spell, or even the same type of effect, not actually stack.
Correct. OK can this build still work?

Penalties don't stack. Damage stacks. The Greater Flesh Fails mystery causes 6 points of Dex DAMAGE, so multiple application stack. Just like getting double poisoned, hit with 2 enervation spells, etc.

And that's a neat thing about Greater Flesh Fails. It causes 6 points of Strength damage OR 6 points of Dex damage OR 4 points of Con damage. Not a variable, but a fixed amount.


Abraham spalding wrote:
My only issue is the "good olde day" view. It is doesn't float and it doesn't fly.

Attempts to fly, is held down by the weight of his mighty Helm of Horror.

The Exchange

SmiloDan wrote:
Stefan Hill wrote:
Wrath wrote:
Don't effects from the same spell, or even the same type of effect, not actually stack.
Correct. OK can this build still work?

Penalties don't stack. Damage stacks. The Greater Flesh Fails mystery causes 6 points of Dex DAMAGE, so multiple application stack. Just like getting double poisoned, hit with 2 enervation spells, etc.

And that's a neat thing about Greater Flesh Fails. It causes 6 points of Strength damage OR 6 points of Dex damage OR 4 points of Con damage. Not a variable, but a fixed amount.

Thanks, that may clear it up.

Is it durational or instantaneous? Better yet, can you let me know what book it's from and I'll read it myself.

This is the type of thing one of my players is likely to try, so as a DM who worries about that kind of power taking out his BBEG too easily, I'd like to see if I can prevent it. If it's all legit then grats to you for the build. I know it's very situationally dependent, but still quite clever.

Cheers


Tomb of Magic is the book the shadowcaster is in.

Stefan,

What I'm saying is, to say that the characters are somehow "sub optimum" when the penalty is light to none existent is false. Even with straight 9's a character is quite capable of play. Just as capable in fact as a character with straight 14s.

In 3.x It is still playable, but it wouldn't be just the same as a character with the higher stat. In fact it would be sub optimum in 3.x.

Also without the bell curve or stat limits inposed in earlier editions there really isn't a "maximum" in 3.x it will keep going up. The math is completely different than it was in earlier editions because of that and potential exists for quite exemplary characters at all levels.

And D&D is all about the math. Even in your "role playing" example where the str 14 beats the str 9 you've used math -- the higher number wins. Now role play doesn't always involve math true, however when you go and try to actually do something of consequence in D&D it's the numbers you check.

Liberty's Edge

Abraham spalding wrote:
Also without the bell curve or stat limits inposed in earlier editions there really isn't a "maximum" in 3.x it will keep going up.

There in lays the flaw of the system for some - we ARE on a bell curve. Lots of average people, a few on the low end and a few on the high end, but for sure there is a maximum. You can't keep going up without losing some of the grounding that make the fantasy world seem real. Again "heroic" vs "adventurer" styles of play. Yep I compared numbers 14 vs 9 - in "my" 1e game terms the STR 9 character looked at the STR 14 and went, hmmm that ain't going to fly. If we just roll d20 and add 2 for STR 14 we get a result that doesn't reflect what we might expect. As I pointed out at STR 14 vs 9 in 3e it is about twice the lifting capacity - that is raw physical strength and lots more of it. Yet only 10% difference in "game bonus". End of the day whichever way to play cooks your chicken is no doubt the one you are playing and having fun with.

I DM pathfinder beta (Savage Tide at moment) and like it lots, but I hope that the OP example is a thing of the 3.xe past with Paizo's excellent Pathfinder RPG.

S.

Sovereign Court

Abraham spalding wrote:


My only issue is the "good olde day" view. It is doesn't float and it doesn't fly.

Actually, in it's earliest inception, the concept of house rules were extremely widespread. When I was play 1e, the folks I played with did institute an attribute check system for determining success in certain actions ... would adjust the attribute by a modifier determined by the DM and then roll under the adjusted value on a d20. For example, swimming against a current in leather armor could have probably ended up as a STR x .5 check (round down) ... in this case a 9 would result in a 4 and a 14 would result in a 7. In the case of the arm wrestling competition, it would have resulted in the two rolling against each other and whoever had the biggest success would have won (ie - the ST 9 rolls a 2, succeeding by 7, the ST 14 rolls a 12, succeeding by 2 ... the ST 9 wins; if both fail, whoever failed by the least amount would take it) ...

Later on we did set up a skill system, though by far more rough than what eventually came out with 3e.

The point I guess I'm trying to make is with the 1e, it led many gamers to become more innovative with their game, creating new game mechanics where they found a lack and integrating them into their own games. With the evolution of the game, personalized rules became replaced by official rules and the game became more standardized. This is not a bad thing ... it allows folks from different areas to jump into a game with little or no problem. But for someone who enjoyed coming up with solutions to perceived problems, the "good ole days" of 1e did indeed have "good ole days" aspects as there was more of a sense of personalized ownership within the game mechanics.


Problem 1: Surviving as Shadowcaster to 18th level.

Problem 2: Coup de Grace requires a melee weapon according 3.5. Used d20 SRD, but I believe that the PHB says the same thing:

"As a full-round action, you can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace to a helpless opponent. You can also use a bow or crossbow, provided you are adjacent to the target."

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#coupdeGrace

So, it takes at least 2 rounds, assuming you get initiative. If you don't, character probably won't survive.


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).

Liberty's Edge

Abraham spalding wrote:

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?

Liberty's Edge

Abraham spalding wrote:
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).

It was usually the items NOT the character itself which caused power imbalances. Now with feats (see OP) you can accomplish the same while naked. A DM can throw Morden. Disjunction at a group in 1e and problem solved - other than selective dismemberment in 3e your stuck with characters like the OP's one. DM's made munkins in 1e, players make munkins in 3e.

Also you have to remember that the way characters were rolled (no point buying) that the tables reflected the probabilities of getting certain numbers - 9-12 is average on 3d6 with numbers on the extremes getting less and less likely. If we allow you to place your stats then only 1 in 256 will have 18 STR, and 1 in 25,600 will have 18/00 - now we have everyone nearly with an 18 (or more) somewhere. So we can have a "flat" table as seen in 3e.

I think you should investigate True20, it removes the stat numbers completely and leaves you with only the "important bits".

S

101 of 101 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 3.5/d20/OGL / How to kill a dragon in 1 round while naked (18th level shadowcaster) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in 3.5/d20/OGL