Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Speaking of True Strike...

Last response: in Video Games
Share
August 16, 2005 3:54:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

I'm sure this has occurred to lots of other people, but I just
realized: True Strike + Power Attack + Improved Sunder is a fairly
scary combination.

Granted, it's a rather *weird* combination. But a fighter or monk with
a level or two of arcane spellcaster could wreak a hell of a lot of
damage with it, if I'm interpreting the rules right.

Just to be clear: if the character casts True Strike on his weapon,
then makes a sundering attempt with his next attack, the TS works on
the sunder. Yes? Because if so, then the character will be very
likely to win, and do damage to the enemy weapon.

Example: a Sor1/Ftr6 with 16 Str swinging a +1 greatsword two-handed.
Say he casts True Strike and then Power Attacks for the maximum (+6).
He'll attack at +24 for 2d6+17 damage. That will destroy pretty much
any ordinary weapon, and has an excellent chance of destroying most +1
magical ones too.

Not a trick worth using against most opponents, but against powerful
NPC fighters -- or creatures like giants, who rely on big weapons --
it's pretty tough. That's a 7th level character who has a better than
even chance of disarming a CR10 fire giant.

Do I have this right?

Waldo

More about : speaking true strike

Anonymous
August 16, 2005 5:34:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Waldo wrote:
> I'm sure this has occurred to lots of other people, but I just
> realized: True Strike + Power Attack + Improved Sunder is a fairly
> scary combination.

True Strike + Power Attack is quite nice, with or without Sunder.
Unfortunately, it involves the fighter doing nothing except cast True
Strike for one round.

> Granted, it's a rather *weird* combination. But a fighter or monk with
> a level or two of arcane spellcaster could wreak a hell of a lot of
> damage with it, if I'm interpreting the rules right.

You're interpreting the rules right. And it's a nice combo. But not as
impressive as you think, IMO.

> Just to be clear: if the character casts True Strike on his weapon,
> then makes a sundering attempt with his next attack, the TS works on
> the sunder. Yes? Because if so, then the character will be very
> likely to win, and do damage to the enemy weapon.

This works.

> Example: a Sor1/Ftr6 with 16 Str swinging a +1 greatsword two-handed.
> Say he casts True Strike and then Power Attacks for the maximum (+6).
> He'll attack at +24 for 2d6+17 damage. That will destroy pretty much
> any ordinary weapon, and has an excellent chance of destroying most +1
> magical ones too.
>
> Not a trick worth using against most opponents, but against powerful
> NPC fighters -- or creatures like giants, who rely on big weapons --
> it's pretty tough. That's a 7th level character who has a better than
> even chance of disarming a CR10 fire giant.
>
> Do I have this right?

Well, no. The character would get his Sunder attempt at +32, and the
giant would defend at +28. This would give the fighter an exactly 70%
chance of success.

Unfortunately, he will then notice that a Fire Giant's (Large creature)
greatsword has 10 hardness and 20 hit points. In other words, he'd need
to do 30 points of damage to destroy it. His chance of doing so with
2d6+17 is, well, 0%.

Of course, he can still do this, if he has an Adamantine blade. A bit
pricey, but certainly doable at level 7. This character is starting to
look more and more like a one-trick pony, though.

However, problem number 2. This fighter will need a round of peace and
quiet away from the giant while he mumbles his True Strike. So that's a
whole round while the giant gets to beat on the party's soft underbelly
(mages and whatnot). He can move to attack in the next round... and eat
an AoO as he does so. Or, if the giant moved farther away in that
round, he can easily find himself out of range, and his True Strike
spell wasted. And when he and the party has survived all that, _then_
he gets to have a 70% chance of successfully Sundering.

All in all, I'm just not that impressed. There are just too many ways
this plan can go wrong, and it requires too much cooperation on the
part of the giant.

Laszlo
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 5:37:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Joseph wrote:
> "Waldo" <peggoliathy@yahoo.com> wrote in
> > Not a trick worth using against most opponents, but against powerful
> > NPC fighters -- or creatures like giants, who rely on big weapons --
> > it's pretty tough. That's a 7th level character who has a better than
> > even chance of disarming a CR10 fire giant.
> >
> > Do I have this right?
> >
> > Waldo
>
> Yep, good tactics can overcome mismatched CR levels in the right
> situation.

True, but this is a pretty bad example for this... because this isn't
an example of good tactics. This is an example of a highly specialized
Sunder build doing what he was built to do, and having an okay chance
of succeeding against his "ideal opponent", if conditions are right.

Laszlo
Related resources
August 16, 2005 10:28:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

<laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu> wrote in message
news:1124224446.561289.85010@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Waldo wrote:
>> I'm sure this has occurred to lots of other people, but I just
>> realized: True Strike + Power Attack + Improved Sunder is a fairly
>> scary combination.
>
> True Strike + Power Attack is quite nice, with or without Sunder.
> Unfortunately, it involves the fighter doing nothing except cast True
> Strike for one round.

--SNIP-----------%<-------------------

> All in all, I'm just not that impressed. There are just too many ways
> this plan can go wrong, and it requires too much cooperation on the
> part of the giant.
>
> Laszlo

--SNIP-----------%<-------------------

But, in defense of the spell/ability combo, it would work WONDERS if
someone did a whirlwind attack against a small horde of kobolds after the
true strike. Like mowing the lawn. hehe
August 16, 2005 11:45:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Waldo" <peggoliathy@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1124218483.007977.263200@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

>
> I'm sure this has occurred to lots of other people, but I just
> realized: True Strike + Power Attack + Improved Sunder is a fairly
> scary combination.
>
> Granted, it's a rather *weird* combination. But a fighter or monk
> with a level or two of arcane spellcaster could wreak a hell of a lot
> of damage with it, if I'm interpreting the rules right.

I don't think it is weird. A wise fighter with the ability to cast true
strike should know this a very effective attack at times.

> Just to be clear: if the character casts True Strike on his weapon,
> then makes a sundering attempt with his next attack, the TS works on
> the sunder. Yes? Because if so, then the character will be very
> likely to win, and do damage to the enemy weapon.

Yes, True Strike applies to an attack roll and making a Sunder attempt
is an attack roll.

> Example: a Sor1/Ftr6 with 16 Str swinging a +1 greatsword two-handed.
> Say he casts True Strike and then Power Attacks for the maximum (+6).
> He'll attack at +24 for 2d6+17 damage. That will destroy pretty much
> any ordinary weapon, and has an excellent chance of destroying most +1
> magical ones too.

Assuming both combatants are the same size, you left out the +4 bonus
the wielder of the greatsword has since it is a two-handed weapon. So
that is a +28 attack bonus on the Sunder attempt.

> Not a trick worth using against most opponents, but against powerful
> NPC fighters -- or creatures like giants, who rely on big weapons --
> it's pretty tough. That's a 7th level character who has a better than
> even chance of disarming a CR10 fire giant.
>
> Do I have this right?
>
> Waldo

Yep, good tactics can overcome mismatched CR levels in the right
situation.
Anonymous
August 17, 2005 12:34:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

it seems to me that a build of Wiz 1/Ftr 6 would be better, as that
would allow the use of a Rod of Metamagic, Lesser Quicken Spell. Sure,
you get fewer spells per day, but you get more spells (for a more well
rounded character) and more importantly, you don't have to take yourself
out of action for a round before you start to whale away at the enemy.
Anonymous
August 17, 2005 3:41:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Willie <wroop@net-link.net> wrote:
>But, in defense of the spell/ability combo, it would work WONDERS if
>someone did a whirlwind attack against a small horde of kobolds after the
>true strike. Like mowing the lawn. hehe

Whirlwind doesn't work with True Strike, Cleave, or any other multiple-
attack sequence, if that's what you're thinking.

Donald
Anonymous
August 17, 2005 4:29:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Raphael Russell wrote:
> it seems to me that a build of Wiz 1/Ftr 6 would be better, as that
> would allow the use of a Rod of Metamagic, Lesser Quicken Spell. Sure,
> you get fewer spells per day, but you get more spells (for a more well
> rounded character) and more importantly, you don't have to take yourself
> out of action for a round before you start to whale away at the enemy.

Unfortunately, a Rod of Lesser Quicken costs roughly twice the entire
suggested wealth of a level 7 character.

Laszlo
Anonymous
August 17, 2005 4:34:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Donald Tsang wrote:
> Willie <wroop@net-link.net> wrote:
> >But, in defense of the spell/ability combo, it would work WONDERS if
> >someone did a whirlwind attack against a small horde of kobolds after the
> >true strike. Like mowing the lawn. hehe
>
> Whirlwind doesn't work with True Strike, Cleave, or any other multiple-
> attack sequence, if that's what you're thinking.

Whirlwind Attack works fine with True Strike. You're right in that it
doesn't work with Cleave or other spells or abilities that grant extra
attacks.

Unfortunately, the problem is that you somehow have to cast True
Strike. If you're surrounded at that time, you have to cast it
defensively (not a trivial task at level 7), or make it past the hail
of AoOs you get. If not, then you somehow have to convince your
opponents to surround you in the one round True Strike is active.

Again, this is a tactic that probably seems more useful until you
actually try it.

Laszlo
Anonymous
August 17, 2005 8:28:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
>
> Donald Tsang wrote:
> > Willie <wroop@net-link.net> wrote:
> > >But, in defense of the spell/ability combo, it would work WONDERS if
> > >someone did a whirlwind attack against a small horde of kobolds after the
> > >true strike. Like mowing the lawn. hehe
> >
> > Whirlwind doesn't work with True Strike, Cleave, or any other multiple-
> > attack sequence, if that's what you're thinking.
>
> Whirlwind Attack works fine with True Strike. You're right in that it
> doesn't work with Cleave or other spells or abilities that grant extra
> attacks.

Am I missing something? Yes, WA works with TS. But so
what? You get one of your WA attack rolls at +20, and
the rest as normal. How is that working "WONDERS,"
exactly?

-Bluto
Anonymous
August 17, 2005 10:00:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Senator Blutarsky wrote:
> laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
> >
> > Donald Tsang wrote:
> > > Willie <wroop@net-link.net> wrote:
> > > >But, in defense of the spell/ability combo, it would work WONDERS if
> > > >someone did a whirlwind attack against a small horde of kobolds after the
> > > >true strike. Like mowing the lawn. hehe
> > >
> > > Whirlwind doesn't work with True Strike, Cleave, or any other multiple-
> > > attack sequence, if that's what you're thinking.
> >
> > Whirlwind Attack works fine with True Strike. You're right in that it
> > doesn't work with Cleave or other spells or abilities that grant extra
> > attacks.
>
> Am I missing something? Yes, WA works with TS. But so
> what? You get one of your WA attack rolls at +20, and
> the rest as normal. How is that working "WONDERS,"
> exactly?

You're right, of course. I misunderstood your point.

Laszlo
Anonymous
August 17, 2005 12:33:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> <laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu> wrote in message
> news:1124264081.894451.15850@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Donald Tsang wrote:
> > > Whirlwind doesn't work with True Strike, Cleave, or any other multiple-
> > > attack sequence, if that's what you're thinking.
> >
> > Whirlwind Attack works fine with True Strike.
>
> Only in the sense that you might give yourself a +20 bonus to hit *one*
> of the foes targeted.

Yep.

Laszlo
Anonymous
August 17, 2005 12:37:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
>
> Senator Blutarsky wrote:
> > laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
> > >
> > > Donald Tsang wrote:
> > > > Willie <wroop@net-link.net> wrote:
> > > > >But, in defense of the spell/ability combo, it would work WONDERS if
> > > > >someone did a whirlwind attack against a small horde of kobolds after the
> > > > >true strike. Like mowing the lawn. hehe
> > > >
> > > > Whirlwind doesn't work with True Strike, Cleave, or any other multiple-
> > > > attack sequence, if that's what you're thinking.
> > >
> > > Whirlwind Attack works fine with True Strike. You're right in that it
> > > doesn't work with Cleave or other spells or abilities that grant extra
> > > attacks.
> >
> > Am I missing something? Yes, WA works with TS. But so
> > what? You get one of your WA attack rolls at +20, and
> > the rest as normal. How is that working "WONDERS,"
> > exactly?
>
> You're right, of course. I misunderstood your point.

No, you misunderstood Donald's point. :-)

-Bluto
Anonymous
August 17, 2005 4:45:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, Waldo hastily scrawled:
>
>I'm sure this has occurred to lots of other people, but I just
>realized: True Strike + Power Attack + Improved Sunder is a fairly
>scary combination.

It's better from behind the screen. PCs using this tactic are
destroying their own loot, but DMs are permanently removing long-term
party resources. Either way, the players lose, and I advise against
it unless you're trying to remove some overpowering item you've
mistakenly allowed the PCs to have. Even then, you should immediately
offer some way of them restoring the weapon, I suggest a long trek
into some dark woods to find some "starmetal", coupled with lots of
side quest action designed to bring the party to a level where the
weapon is appropriate.



Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
Anonymous
August 17, 2005 7:21:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

<laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu> wrote in message
news:1124264081.894451.15850@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Donald Tsang wrote:
> > Whirlwind doesn't work with True Strike, Cleave, or any other multiple-
> > attack sequence, if that's what you're thinking.
>
> Whirlwind Attack works fine with True Strike.

Only in the sense that you might give yourself a +20 bonus to hit *one*
of the foes targeted.

-Michael
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 12:46:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
> Raphael Russell wrote:
>
>>it seems to me that a build of Wiz 1/Ftr 6 would be better, as that
>>would allow the use of a Rod of Metamagic, Lesser Quicken Spell. Sure,
>>you get fewer spells per day, but you get more spells (for a more well
>>rounded character) and more importantly, you don't have to take yourself
>>out of action for a round before you start to whale away at the enemy.
>
>
> Unfortunately, a Rod of Lesser Quicken costs roughly twice the entire
> suggested wealth of a level 7 character.
>
> Laszlo
>
You're absolutely right. It would be much better to just be a regular
fighter build with a ring of spell storing with hastened true strikes
cast into it by your party wizard.
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 12:49:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Raphael Russell wrote:
> You're absolutely right. It would be much better to just be a regular
> fighter build with a ring of spell storing with hastened true strikes
> cast into it by your party wizard.

....which still completely blows the budget. Man, I really need to check
those item prices more often.
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 11:51:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
> Joseph wrote:
>
>>"Waldo" <peggoliathy@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>
>>>Not a trick worth using against most opponents, but against powerful
>>>NPC fighters -- or creatures like giants, who rely on big weapons --
>>>it's pretty tough. That's a 7th level character who has a better than
>>>even chance of disarming a CR10 fire giant.
>>>
>>>Do I have this right?
>>>
>>>Waldo
>>
>>Yep, good tactics can overcome mismatched CR levels in the right
>>situation.
>
>
> True, but this is a pretty bad example for this... because this isn't
> an example of good tactics. This is an example of a highly specialized
> Sunder build doing what he was built to do, and having an okay chance
> of succeeding against his "ideal opponent", if conditions are right.

Well, "Highly Specialized" would be a Draconic Human
Barbarian/Sorcerer/Dragon Disciple with a magic adamantium greataxe and
the Power Attack, Improved Sunder, Combat Brute, and Shock Trooper feats
and the ability to *cast* True Strike. You can get all of this by 9th
level IIRC, and all but Shock Trooper by 6th (with the ability to rage
twice per day).

I've got a build in mind that capitalizes on this little trick, and
expands on it -- the gist of it is right up there. Looks very
impressive on paper, but I've yet to actually play it.

- Ron ^*^
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 4:56:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Spetulhu wrote:
> Raphael Russell wrote:
>
> > it seems to me that a build of Wiz 1/Ftr 6 would be better, as that
> > would allow the use of a Rod of Metamagic, Lesser Quicken Spell. Sure,
> > you get fewer spells per day, but you get more spells (for a more well
> > rounded character) and more importantly, you don't have to take yourself
> > out of action for a round before you start to whale away at the enemy.
>
> Why not leave out the Wizard level and have that party mage cast the
> spell on you?

True Strike is a Personal spell. You can only cast it on yourself.

Laszlo
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 5:05:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu hastily
scrawled:
>
>Michael Scott Brown wrote:
>> <laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu> wrote in message
>> news:1124264081.894451.15850@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > Donald Tsang wrote:
>> > > Whirlwind doesn't work with True Strike, Cleave, or any other multiple-
>> > > attack sequence, if that's what you're thinking.
>> >
>> > Whirlwind Attack works fine with True Strike.
>>
>> Only in the sense that you might give yourself a +20 bonus to hit *one*
>> of the foes targeted.
>
>Yep.

<aol>


Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 8:06:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote:
>>> [sundering specialist]
>> True, but this is a pretty bad example for this... because this isn't
>> an example of good tactics. This is an example of a highly specialized
>> Sunder build doing what he was built to do, and having an okay chance
>> of succeeding against his "ideal opponent", if conditions are right.
>
>Well, "Highly Specialized" would be a Draconic Human
>Barbarian/Sorcerer/Dragon Disciple with a magic adamantium greataxe and
>the Power Attack, Improved Sunder, Combat Brute, and Shock Trooper feats
>and the ability to *cast* True Strike. You can get all of this by 9th
>level IIRC, and all but Shock Trooper by 6th (with the ability to rage
>twice per day).
>
>I've got a build in mind that capitalizes on this little trick, and
>expands on it -- the gist of it is right up there. Looks very
>impressive on paper, but I've yet to actually play it.

Sundering specialists are designed to piss off the other party members,
as the main thing they accomplish is destroying treasure value.

Barring a class like the Forsaker (or 1E-UA Barbarian), or an entire
party of Ascetics (Vow of Poverty), there's just no justifying it,
unless you're trying to screw your fellow players.


Now, as an NPC, that's a different story. DMs pissing off the players
is all part of the fun, right? :p 

Donald
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 8:06:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Donald Tsang wrote:

> Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>>>[sundering specialist]
>>>
>>>True, but this is a pretty bad example for this... because this isn't
>>>an example of good tactics. This is an example of a highly specialized
>>>Sunder build doing what he was built to do, and having an okay chance
>>>of succeeding against his "ideal opponent", if conditions are right.
>>
>>Well, "Highly Specialized" would be a Draconic Human
>>Barbarian/Sorcerer/Dragon Disciple with a magic adamantium greataxe and
>>the Power Attack, Improved Sunder, Combat Brute, and Shock Trooper feats
>>and the ability to *cast* True Strike. You can get all of this by 9th
>>level IIRC, and all but Shock Trooper by 6th (with the ability to rage
>>twice per day).
>>
>>I've got a build in mind that capitalizes on this little trick, and
>>expands on it -- the gist of it is right up there. Looks very
>>impressive on paper, but I've yet to actually play it.
>
>
> Sundering specialists are designed to piss off the other party members,
> as the main thing they accomplish is destroying treasure value.
>
> Barring a class like the Forsaker (or 1E-UA Barbarian), or an entire
> party of Ascetics (Vow of Poverty), there's just no justifying it,
> unless you're trying to screw your fellow players.

Not necessarily. You can usually figure out who the mooks are and avoid
sundering the flaming electrical axe of the big bad guy.

The build I described above also has useful bullrush abilities, among
other things. So, not quite a "one-trick pony".

- Ron ^*^
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 8:33:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote:
>Donald Tsang wrote:
>> Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote:
>>>Well, "Highly Specialized" would be a Draconic Human
>>>Barbarian/Sorcerer/Dragon Disciple with a magic adamantium greataxe and
>>>the Power Attack, Improved Sunder, Combat Brute, and Shock Trooper feats
>>>and the ability to *cast* True Strike. You can get all of this by 9th
>>>level IIRC, and all but Shock Trooper by 6th (with the ability to rage
>>>twice per day).
>>>
>>>I've got a build in mind that capitalizes on this little trick, and
>>>expands on it -- the gist of it is right up there. Looks very
>>>impressive on paper, but I've yet to actually play it.
>>
>> Sundering specialists are designed to piss off the other party members,
>> as the main thing they accomplish is destroying treasure value.
>>
>> Barring a class like the Forsaker (or 1E-UA Barbarian), or an entire
>> party of Ascetics (Vow of Poverty), there's just no justifying it,
>> unless you're trying to screw your fellow players.
>
>Not necessarily. You can usually figure out who the mooks are and avoid
>sundering the flaming electrical axe of the big bad guy.

If your only tool is a hammer, most of your problems start to look
like nails...


>The build I described above also has useful bullrush abilities, among
>other things. So, not quite a "one-trick pony".

Sure, but the build is primarily designed to take out magical weapons.

Donald
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 8:33:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Donald Tsang wrote:

> Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>Donald Tsang wrote:
>>
>>>Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Well, "Highly Specialized" would be a Draconic Human
>>>>Barbarian/Sorcerer/Dragon Disciple with a magic adamantium greataxe and
>>>>the Power Attack, Improved Sunder, Combat Brute, and Shock Trooper feats
>>>>and the ability to *cast* True Strike. You can get all of this by 9th
>>>>level IIRC, and all but Shock Trooper by 6th (with the ability to rage
>>>>twice per day).
>>>>
>>>>I've got a build in mind that capitalizes on this little trick, and
>>>>expands on it -- the gist of it is right up there. Looks very
>>>>impressive on paper, but I've yet to actually play it.
>>>
>>>Sundering specialists are designed to piss off the other party members,
>>>as the main thing they accomplish is destroying treasure value.
>>>
>>>Barring a class like the Forsaker (or 1E-UA Barbarian), or an entire
>>>party of Ascetics (Vow of Poverty), there's just no justifying it,
>>>unless you're trying to screw your fellow players.
>>
>>Not necessarily. You can usually figure out who the mooks are and avoid
>>sundering the flaming electrical axe of the big bad guy.
>
>
> If your only tool is a hammer, most of your problems start to look
> like nails...

Right, but this guy has bullrush tricks as well. Don't underestimate
bullrush tricks, especially not when you have things like Grease at your
disposal. :^)

Seriously, A barbarian with Power Attack and a 2-handed weapon is a
build in and of itself. All the other stuff is just gravy -- although
by 12th you'll be itching for Cleave, I'd 'spect.


>>The build I described above also has useful bullrush abilities, among
>>other things. So, not quite a "one-trick pony".
>
>
> Sure, but the build is primarily designed to take out magical weapons.

That is one of several things the build can do. Check out what Combat
Brute and Shock Trooper *do* when used together.

- Ron ^*^
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 2:07:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Raphael Russell wrote:

> it seems to me that a build of Wiz 1/Ftr 6 would be better, as that
> would allow the use of a Rod of Metamagic, Lesser Quicken Spell. Sure,
> you get fewer spells per day, but you get more spells (for a more well
> rounded character) and more importantly, you don't have to take yourself
> out of action for a round before you start to whale away at the enemy.

Why not leave out the Wizard level and have that party mage cast the
spell on you?
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 4:19:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, Werebat hastily scrawled:
>Donald Tsang wrote:
>>
>> Sundering specialists are designed to piss off the other party members,
>> as the main thing they accomplish is destroying treasure value.
>>
>> Barring a class like the Forsaker (or 1E-UA Barbarian), or an entire
>> party of Ascetics (Vow of Poverty), there's just no justifying it,
>> unless you're trying to screw your fellow players.
>
>Not necessarily. You can usually figure out who the mooks are and avoid
>sundering the flaming electrical axe of the big bad guy.

The problem with that is that it's not worth sundering a mook's
weapon. It's a completely insignificant part of his threat value,
just kill him already.

>The build I described above also has useful bullrush abilities, among
>other things. So, not quite a "one-trick pony".

I sure hope not.



Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 4:34:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Ed Chauvin IV wrote:

> Mere moments before death, Werebat hastily scrawled:
>
>>Donald Tsang wrote:
>>
>>>Sundering specialists are designed to piss off the other party members,
>>>as the main thing they accomplish is destroying treasure value.
>>>
>>>Barring a class like the Forsaker (or 1E-UA Barbarian), or an entire
>>>party of Ascetics (Vow of Poverty), there's just no justifying it,
>>>unless you're trying to screw your fellow players.
>>
>>Not necessarily. You can usually figure out who the mooks are and avoid
>>sundering the flaming electrical axe of the big bad guy.
>
>
> The problem with that is that it's not worth sundering a mook's
> weapon. It's a completely insignificant part of his threat value,
> just kill him already.

Right, but the build I've got gets a free attack after a successful
sunder. So why NOT?

Also there are some DMs out there who love throwing Unholy weapons at
the PCs, which good-aligned folk will arguably want to destroy anyway.
A minor point, but it will come up now and then.


>>The build I described above also has useful bullrush abilities, among
>>other things. So, not quite a "one-trick pony".
>
>
> I sure hope not.

I haven't played the build myself yet, but it seems able to do several
things to add nice wrinkles to the typical warrior build. Getting Great
Cleave before level 15 would be nice... Swapping two levels of
Barbarian for two levels of Fighter and taking Extra Rage could get you
there by 12th (with more rages per day to boot), which isn't so bad.
Remember, that Sorc level lets you use wands, too, which is useful.

My current character is a chainfighter (Rog4/Thug4/XWeapMstr2), with the
obvious trip suite but a few other wrinkles here and there to keep him
interesting (Maxed UMD, for example -- those wands are handy!).

- Ron ^*^
August 19, 2005 5:37:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:06:24 +0000 (UTC), tsang@soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(Donald Tsang) dared speak in front of ME:

>Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> [sundering specialist]
>>> True, but this is a pretty bad example for this... because this isn't
>>> an example of good tactics. This is an example of a highly specialized
>>> Sunder build doing what he was built to do, and having an okay chance
>>> of succeeding against his "ideal opponent", if conditions are right.
>>
>>Well, "Highly Specialized" would be a Draconic Human
>>Barbarian/Sorcerer/Dragon Disciple with a magic adamantium greataxe and
>>the Power Attack, Improved Sunder, Combat Brute, and Shock Trooper feats
>>and the ability to *cast* True Strike. You can get all of this by 9th
>>level IIRC, and all but Shock Trooper by 6th (with the ability to rage
>>twice per day).
>>
>>I've got a build in mind that capitalizes on this little trick, and
>>expands on it -- the gist of it is right up there. Looks very
>>impressive on paper, but I've yet to actually play it.
>
>Sundering specialists are designed to piss off the other party members,
>as the main thing they accomplish is destroying treasure value.
>
>Barring a class like the Forsaker (or 1E-UA Barbarian), or an entire
>party of Ascetics (Vow of Poverty), there's just no justifying it,
>unless you're trying to screw your fellow players.

That's one of the side effects of going (out of core) to Iron Heroes.
The worst thing you're sundering is a masterwork weapon.

--
Address no longer works.
try removing all numbers from
gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com&lt;<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 4:36:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, Werebat hastily scrawled:
>
>
>Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
>
>> Mere moments before death, Werebat hastily scrawled:
>>
>>>Donald Tsang wrote:
>>>
>>>>Sundering specialists are designed to piss off the other party members,
>>>>as the main thing they accomplish is destroying treasure value.
>>>>
>>>>Barring a class like the Forsaker (or 1E-UA Barbarian), or an entire
>>>>party of Ascetics (Vow of Poverty), there's just no justifying it,
>>>>unless you're trying to screw your fellow players.
>>>
>>>Not necessarily. You can usually figure out who the mooks are and avoid
>>>sundering the flaming electrical axe of the big bad guy.
>>
>>
>> The problem with that is that it's not worth sundering a mook's
>> weapon. It's a completely insignificant part of his threat value,
>> just kill him already.
>
>Right, but the build I've got gets a free attack after a successful
>sunder. So why NOT?

Unless it's easier to sunder the weapon than to make the attack
against your opponent, it's a complete waste of time. So, it's really
only even a viable tactic against low attack bonus, high AC targets.

>Also there are some DMs out there who love throwing Unholy weapons at
>the PCs, which good-aligned folk will arguably want to destroy anyway.
>A minor point, but it will come up now and then.

A *very* minor point, indeed.


Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 4:36:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, Keith Davies hastily scrawled:
>Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
>>
>>> Mere moments before death, Werebat hastily scrawled:
>>>
>>>>Donald Tsang wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Sundering specialists are designed to piss off the other party members,
>>>>>as the main thing they accomplish is destroying treasure value.
>>>>>
>>>>>Barring a class like the Forsaker (or 1E-UA Barbarian), or an entire
>>>>>party of Ascetics (Vow of Poverty), there's just no justifying it,
>>>>>unless you're trying to screw your fellow players.
>>>>
>>>>Not necessarily. You can usually figure out who the mooks are and avoid
>>>>sundering the flaming electrical axe of the big bad guy.
>>>
>>>
>>> The problem with that is that it's not worth sundering a mook's
>>> weapon. It's a completely insignificant part of his threat value,
>>> just kill him already.
>>
>> Right, but the build I've got gets a free attack after a successful
>> sunder. So why NOT?
>
>... because you could have used the attack directly on the mook and
>saved a step.
>
>Unless you could do a 'bag of mooks' thing.
>
>You're using a spiked chain, right? So you've got reach and non-reach.
>The evil spellcaster is surrounded by his henchmen:
>
> HWH W == wizard
> HHH H == henchman
> R R == Ron
>
>So, you use whirlwind attack, attack and sunder H1's weapon, smack W,
>sunder H2's weapon, smack W, etc.

*BZZZZT*

"When you use the Whirlwind Attack feat, you also forfeit any bonus or
extra attacks granted by other feats or abilities..."



Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 8:50:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

chaoslight@gmail.com wrote:

> Spetulhu wrote:
>
>>Why not leave out the Wizard level and have that party mage cast the
>>spell on you?
>
>
> True Strike is a Personal spell. You can only cast it on yourself.
>
Damn. I should have walked the three meters to my bookshelf.
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 10:19:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Werebat wrote:

> The sundermonkey is another beast, who again I haven't played yet. I
> suspect he'd end up in the same position re: his specialized attack form
> (not getting to use it all that often), but this is just why it's
> important to have some other abilities for him. Dragon Disciple does
> this pretty nicely, as does the level of Sorc requirement. And the
> Combat Brute / Shock Trooper combo looks to be truly devastating if used
> properly.
>
> - Ron ^*^
>

Explain, please. In what way is it devastating?
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 2:40:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Dormammu wrote:

> Werebat wrote:
>
>> The sundermonkey is another beast, who again I haven't played yet. I
>> suspect he'd end up in the same position re: his specialized attack
>> form (not getting to use it all that often), but this is just why it's
>> important to have some other abilities for him. Dragon Disciple does
>> this pretty nicely, as does the level of Sorc requirement. And the
>> Combat Brute / Shock Trooper combo looks to be truly devastating if
>> used properly.
>>
>> - Ron ^*^
>>
>
> Explain, please. In what way is it devastating?

Sadly, IDHTBIFOM. Someone borrowed it or I left it at the other local
DM's house. I've got to track it down.

However I do remember nice synergies involving charging/bullrushing the
enemy in the 1st round of combat and following up with a sunder attack.
I also remember a variety of other ways in which the two feats worked
well together.

There is also a feat in mongoose's Ultimate Feats that allows an attack
at the end of a successful Bull Rush ("Rush Attack" I think -- sorta
like what you get with Improved Trip for one feat), that helps make the
build very sweet. Optional but not overpowered IMO -- I'd certainly
allow it IMC.

- Ron ^*^
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 2:43:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Ed Chauvin IV wrote:

> Mere moments before death, Werebat hastily scrawled:
>
>>
>>Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Mere moments before death, Werebat hastily scrawled:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Donald Tsang wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Sundering specialists are designed to piss off the other party members,
>>>>>as the main thing they accomplish is destroying treasure value.
>>>>>
>>>>>Barring a class like the Forsaker (or 1E-UA Barbarian), or an entire
>>>>>party of Ascetics (Vow of Poverty), there's just no justifying it,
>>>>>unless you're trying to screw your fellow players.
>>>>
>>>>Not necessarily. You can usually figure out who the mooks are and avoid
>>>>sundering the flaming electrical axe of the big bad guy.
>>>
>>>
>>>The problem with that is that it's not worth sundering a mook's
>>>weapon. It's a completely insignificant part of his threat value,
>>>just kill him already.
>>
>>Right, but the build I've got gets a free attack after a successful
>>sunder. So why NOT?
>
>
> Unless it's easier to sunder the weapon than to make the attack
> against your opponent, it's a complete waste of time. So, it's really
> only even a viable tactic against low attack bonus, high AC targets.

Or warrior-types with worthless weapons. Plenty of those around, actually.

- Ron ^*^
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 4:27:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, Werebat hastily scrawled:
>Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
>> Mere moments before death, Werebat hastily scrawled:
>>>Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
>>>>Mere moments before death, Werebat hastily scrawled:
>>>>>Donald Tsang wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Sundering specialists are designed to piss off the other party members,
>>>>>>as the main thing they accomplish is destroying treasure value.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Barring a class like the Forsaker (or 1E-UA Barbarian), or an entire
>>>>>>party of Ascetics (Vow of Poverty), there's just no justifying it,
>>>>>>unless you're trying to screw your fellow players.
>>>>>
>>>>>Not necessarily. You can usually figure out who the mooks are and avoid
>>>>>sundering the flaming electrical axe of the big bad guy.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The problem with that is that it's not worth sundering a mook's
>>>>weapon. It's a completely insignificant part of his threat value,
>>>>just kill him already.
>>>
>>>Right, but the build I've got gets a free attack after a successful
>>>sunder. So why NOT?
>>
>>
>> Unless it's easier to sunder the weapon than to make the attack
>> against your opponent, it's a complete waste of time. So, it's really
>> only even a viable tactic against low attack bonus, high AC targets.
>
>Or warrior-types with worthless weapons. Plenty of those around, actually.

Like I said before, the value of a sunder is directly proportional to
the value of the weapon. If it's truly a worthless weapon, the
benefit you gain from sundering it is negative. If there's any chance
that you'll fail the sunder at all, you're giving up attacks that
could kill the target for the chance to reduce his ability to damage
you. If you're not *significantly* reducing his damage output, you're
wasting your time by giving him more chances to do what damage he can.

You keep providing reasons that sunder *seems* like a good idea, but
the entire tactic is inherently flawed. Sure, it's /cool/ to smash
the baddies weapon out of his hands, but what does it really get you?
The answer to that question will almost always be nothing. Sometimes
it will be less than that.



Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
August 20, 2005 7:02:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:

> > I'm sure this has occurred to lots of other people, but I just
> > realized: True Strike + Power Attack + Improved Sunder is a fairly
> > scary combination.
>
> True Strike + Power Attack is quite nice, with or without Sunder.

Point.


> Unfortunately, it involves the fighter doing nothing except cast True
> Strike for one round.

This is true.

Noodling around with the math, I find that this isn't worth it at low
levels; quickly becomes worth it as the Power Attack damage mounts at
middle levels; then stops being worth it at high levels, as the
iterative attacks prevail against the single devastating attack.

(Talking just True Strike and PA here, and putting Sunder aside.)

A 1st level fighter with +5 to hit battling an AC 16 foe hits 50% of
the time. Say he's swinging a greatsword for 2d6+4. That's 5.5
hp/round average damage, or 11 per 2 rounds. TS+PA gives him one round
doing nothing, then one sure-hit attack for average 7.5 damage. Not
worth it.

But consider a 5th level fighter with +11 to hit vs. an AC 20 foe, same
greatsword but now for 2d6+7. Average damage is 8.4 hp/round, or 16.8
in two rounds. TS+PA gives him an average of 24 points damage on the
second round. Definitely worth it.

Depending on the assumptions that you use, the combo seems to be a
winner from around 3rd level to around 14th. After that, it's just not
worth giving up those iterative attacks.



> Well, no. The character would get his Sunder attempt at +32, and the
> giant would defend at +28. This would give the fighter an exactly 70%
> chance of success.
>
> Unfortunately, he will then notice that a Fire Giant's (Large creature)
> greatsword has 10 hardness and 20 hit points. In other words, he'd need
> to do 30 points of damage to destroy it. His chance of doing so with
> 2d6+17 is, well, 0%.

D'oh.

But then, that was a pretty suboptimal build for a sunder monkey. (I
mean, Str 16 at 7th level.) My point -- honest! -- was that the combo
was intriguing even if not optimized.


> Of course, he can still do this, if he has an Adamantine blade. A bit
> pricey, but certainly doable at level 7. This character is starting to
> look more and more like a one-trick pony, though.

It's reasonable for a fighter or a monk to take a level or two of
arcane spellcaster. Mage Armor and True Strike, frex, may be worth
giving up a monk level.

After that, it's just burning two feat slots. And Power Attack is
pretty broadly useful.

-- I stumbled across this combo while trying to come up with an NPC
cohort for a PC with Leadership. The first cohort recently got killed
(I ran them through the Test of the Smoking Eye from the Shackled City
Adventure Path, and one of the other PCs decided to sacrifice the
cohort to gain Ultimate Power. Long story.) but the PC has a high
enough Cha to get a decent backup. I was thinking of a sorceror-monk.
Not sure if it works, though.


> However, problem number 2. This fighter will need a round of peace and
> quiet away from the giant while he mumbles his True Strike. So that's a
> whole round while the giant gets to beat on the party's soft underbelly
> (mages and whatnot).

Mm. Of course, a monk isn't supposed to be a frontline fighter anyhow.


> All in all, I'm just not that impressed. There are just too many ways
> this plan can go wrong, and it requires too much cooperation on the
> part of the giant.

You're probably right.

Waldo
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 7:33:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
> Mere moments before death, Werebat hastily scrawled:
>
>>Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
>>
>>>Mere moments before death, Werebat hastily scrawled:
>>>
>>>>Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Mere moments before death, Werebat hastily scrawled:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Donald Tsang wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Sundering specialists are designed to piss off the other party members,
>>>>>>>as the main thing they accomplish is destroying treasure value.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Barring a class like the Forsaker (or 1E-UA Barbarian), or an entire
>>>>>>>party of Ascetics (Vow of Poverty), there's just no justifying it,
>>>>>>>unless you're trying to screw your fellow players.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Not necessarily. You can usually figure out who the mooks are and avoid
>>>>>>sundering the flaming electrical axe of the big bad guy.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The problem with that is that it's not worth sundering a mook's
>>>>>weapon. It's a completely insignificant part of his threat value,
>>>>>just kill him already.
>>>>
>>>>Right, but the build I've got gets a free attack after a successful
>>>>sunder. So why NOT?
>>>
>>>
>>>Unless it's easier to sunder the weapon than to make the attack
>>>against your opponent, it's a complete waste of time. So, it's really
>>>only even a viable tactic against low attack bonus, high AC targets.
>>
>>Or warrior-types with worthless weapons. Plenty of those around, actually.
>
>
> Like I said before, the value of a sunder is directly proportional to
> the value of the weapon.

Don't you mean inversely proportional?


> If it's truly a worthless weapon, the
> benefit you gain from sundering it is negative.

Really? A greatclub in the hands of a half-orc barbarian can be pretty
effective...


> If there's any chance
> that you'll fail the sunder at all, you're giving up attacks that
> could kill the target for the chance to reduce his ability to damage
> you. If you're not *significantly* reducing his damage output, you're
> wasting your time by giving him more chances to do what damage he can.

This is true of any non-damaging attack, though. The same could be said
of tripping.


> You keep providing reasons that sunder *seems* like a good idea, but
> the entire tactic is inherently flawed. Sure, it's /cool/ to smash
> the baddies weapon out of his hands, but what does it really get you?
> The answer to that question will almost always be nothing. Sometimes
> it will be less than that.

You smack the ogre's worthless greatclub and shatter it to splinters.
What have you lost? A worthless greatclub. Now the ogre has no weapon.
Boo hoo for him.

If you've got Combat Brute, you get a free attack on him after ruining
his weapon, so you didn't even lose an attack.

If you've got CB and Shock Trooper, you get some other advantages that
elude me at the moment -- you have me at a disadvantage here because I
don't have the book available.

Obviously it isn't an effective tactic ALL THE TIME. For builds that
are effective ALL THE TIME, go with the standard barbarian
PA/Cleave/GreatCleave suite with Weapon Focus thrown in and a two-handed
weapon. When you've done that with several characters, you might want
to try something different.

(Actually even Cleave and GreatCleave are not effective all the time,
but you lose literally nothing when using them other than the lack of
options when you aren't)

- Ron ^*^
August 20, 2005 8:40:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On 20 Aug 2005 15:02:57 -0700, "Waldo" <peggoliathy@yahoo.com> dared
speak in front of ME:

>> Unfortunately, it involves the fighter doing nothing except cast True
>> Strike for one round.
>
>This is true.
>
>Noodling around with the math, I find that this isn't worth it at low
>levels; quickly becomes worth it as the Power Attack damage mounts at
>middle levels; then stops being worth it at high levels, as the
>iterative attacks prevail against the single devastating attack.
>
>(Talking just True Strike and PA here, and putting Sunder aside.)

A few nitpicks here...

>A 1st level fighter with +5 to hit battling an AC 16 foe hits 50% of
>the time. Say he's swinging a greatsword for 2d6+4.

Ok, his BAB is +1; from the greatsword, we see his strength modifier
is +3 - unless you've already worked in PA? So I presume we're
assuming Weapon Focus as well.

>That's 5.5
>hp/round average damage, or 11 per 2 rounds. TS+PA gives him one round
>doing nothing, then one sure-hit attack for average 7.5 damage. Not
>worth it.

Math I get shows: avgd6+avgd6+4+2(pa) = 3.5+3.5+4+2 = 13 (over two
rounds.)

One of our maths is wrong; I'm willing to concede my ability to
average out randoms isn't great, so it might be mine.

>But consider a 5th level fighter with +11 to hit vs. an AC 20 foe, same
>greatsword but now for 2d6+7. Average damage is 8.4 hp/round, or 16.8
>in two rounds. TS+PA gives him an average of 24 points damage on the
>second round. Definitely worth it.

Greatsword; double Power Attack damage. He's geting a *minimum* of
24 damage on the single strike (+22 for PA, minimum roll of 2 on 2d6.)
I'm not quite sure what assumptions you're using for the +7 on his
regular attack, so I didn't work that in.

--
Address no longer works.
try removing all numbers from
gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com&lt;<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
Anonymous
August 21, 2005 6:12:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, Werebat hastily scrawled:
>Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
>> Mere moments before death, Werebat hastily scrawled:
>>>Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
....trimming up a bit here...
>>>>
>>>>Unless it's easier to sunder the weapon than to make the attack
>>>>against your opponent, it's a complete waste of time. So, it's really
>>>>only even a viable tactic against low attack bonus, high AC targets.
>>>
>>>Or warrior-types with worthless weapons. Plenty of those around, actually.
>>
>>
>> Like I said before, the value of a sunder is directly proportional to
>> the value of the weapon.
>
>Don't you mean inversely proportional?

No. Strictly on a short term basis, the value to you as a combatant
is directly proportional to the value of the weapon. During a fight,
it's better to sunder the weapon that gives your opponent the most
increase in his damage output.

You're fighting a TWFer wielding a longsword and a dagger. For
whatever reason, you are aware that his longsword has several magical
effects and bonuses, and the dagger is an ordinary non-magical dagger.
The sword is within the realm of you sundering. Do you waste your
time sundering a weapon that's not really bothering you in the first
place, or do you take out the sword and significantly reduce your
opponent's damage output?

The answer is actually going to be C, kill the bastard. But, that's
going to depend on a variety of factors.

/After/ the fight, on the other hand, yes the value of sundering a
weapon is inversely proportional to that weapon's value. But, that's
a strategic issue, not a tactical one. ;-)

>> If it's truly a worthless weapon, the
>> benefit you gain from sundering it is negative.
>
>Really? A greatclub in the hands of a half-orc barbarian can be pretty
>effective...

Then that's not a worthless weapon.

>> If there's any chance
>> that you'll fail the sunder at all, you're giving up attacks that
>> could kill the target for the chance to reduce his ability to damage
>> you. If you're not *significantly* reducing his damage output, you're
>> wasting your time by giving him more chances to do what damage he can.
>
>This is true of any non-damaging attack, though. The same could be said
>of tripping.

Yup.

>> You keep providing reasons that sunder *seems* like a good idea, but
>> the entire tactic is inherently flawed. Sure, it's /cool/ to smash
>> the baddies weapon out of his hands, but what does it really get you?
>> The answer to that question will almost always be nothing. Sometimes
>> it will be less than that.
>
>You smack the ogre's worthless greatclub and shatter it to splinters.
>What have you lost? A worthless greatclub. Now the ogre has no weapon.
> Boo hoo for him.
>
>If you've got Combat Brute, you get a free attack on him after ruining
>his weapon, so you didn't even lose an attack.

*If*, and only if, you didn't miss on any of your sunder attempts.
Otherwise, you've given up opportunities to simply kill him in the
first place.

Ogres are Large, so are their Greatclubs, which means it's got
Hardness 5 HP 20. So, you're doing 25 pts of damage in one blow, but
you're not directing that at the 29hp ogre because... Why again?

>If you've got CB and Shock Trooper, you get some other advantages that
>elude me at the moment -- you have me at a disadvantage here because I
>don't have the book available.

Yeah, you can shove your opponent into someone else and trip them
both, and get the CB bonuses to attack for the next round. I'm not
debating the value of these feats and their synergy. I'm merely
pointing out that Sundering, as a tactic, has some serious flaws.

>Obviously it isn't an effective tactic ALL THE TIME.

Actually, it's rarely truly effective. But...

>For builds that
>are effective ALL THE TIME, go with the standard barbarian
>PA/Cleave/GreatCleave suite with Weapon Focus thrown in and a two-handed
>weapon. When you've done that with several characters, you might want
>to try something different.

Yeah, it's different, and cool. No debate there. Smashing your
opponent's weapons is fun and exciting. I'm not here to tear down
your character concept. I actually think it's cool and would be fun
to play, but I wouldn't want to fall too far behind the wealth curve
due to smashing up all my loot.

OTOH, don't forget that even magical weapons can be repaired, although
it's not clear to me from the rules whether this applies to completely
broken items.

In fact, I played in a campaign a while back where we were charged
with hunting down and destroying some particularly nasty magical
artifacts. We had no less than 2 Forsakers in the party, and running
a Sunder Beast Forsaker would have been tactically brilliant in that
situation.



Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
Anonymous
August 21, 2005 9:52:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Werebat wrote:
>
> Dormammu wrote:
>
>> Werebat wrote:
>>
>>> The sundermonkey is another beast, who again I haven't played yet. I
>>> suspect he'd end up in the same position re: his specialized attack
>>> form (not getting to use it all that often), but this is just why
>>> it's important to have some other abilities for him. Dragon Disciple
>>> does this pretty nicely, as does the level of Sorc requirement. And
>>> the Combat Brute / Shock Trooper combo looks to be truly devastating
>>> if used properly.
>>
>> Explain, please. In what way is it devastating?
>
> Sadly, IDHTBIFOM. Someone borrowed it or I left it at the other local
> DM's house. I've got to track it down.
>
> However I do remember nice synergies involving charging/bullrushing the
> enemy in the 1st round of combat and following up with a sunder attack.
> I also remember a variety of other ways in which the two feats worked
> well together.

Combat Brute gives you bonsues to hit and damage the round after a
bullrush, and bonus PA damage the round after a charge, and a free
attack after a sunder that breaks the weapon.
Shock Trooper lets you opt to push people at an angle on a charge
bullrush, and lets you trip people you push together with a bullrush.

Both together allow a bullrush charge that trips your opponent and
one other, gives bonsues to hit and damage and additional PA damage on
round two and gives a free hit if it sunders a weapon (which it will,
with all the bonsues to hit and damage).
Two feats is alot for an opening move that requires you to take and
use PA, Imp.Bullrush, and Imp.Sunder, and benefits greatly from Imp.Trip
and Combat Reflexes, but the effects are pretty cool.

--
tussock

Aspie at work, sorry in advance.
Anonymous
August 21, 2005 10:01:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Werebat wrote:

> The sundermonkey is another beast, who again I haven't played yet. I
> suspect he'd end up in the same position re: his specialized attack form
> (not getting to use it all that often), but this is just why it's
> important to have some other abilities for him. Dragon Disciple does
> this pretty nicely, as does the level of Sorc requirement. And the
> Combat Brute / Shock Trooper combo looks to be truly devastating if used
> properly.
>
> - Ron ^*^
>

Remember that you don't have to sunder *weapons* and Sunder becomes more
interesting. The only way you're useless as a Sunderer is when you're
fighting nothing but monsters without gear.
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 4:13:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Some Guy wrote:
> Werebat wrote:
>
>> The sundermonkey is another beast, who again I haven't played yet. I
>> suspect he'd end up in the same position re: his specialized attack
>> form (not getting to use it all that often), but this is just why it's
>> important to have some other abilities for him. Dragon Disciple does
>> this pretty nicely, as does the level of Sorc requirement. And the
>> Combat Brute / Shock Trooper combo looks to be truly devastating if
>> used properly.
>>
>> - Ron ^*^
>>
>
> Remember that you don't have to sunder *weapons* and Sunder becomes more
> interesting. The only way you're useless as a Sunderer is when you're
> fighting nothing but monsters without gear.

True that, but sundering a wand or staff really *will* piss the party
off. Although holy symbols...

- Ron ^*^
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 4:13:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Werebat wrote:
>
>
> Some Guy wrote:
>
>> Werebat wrote:
>>
>>> The sundermonkey is another beast, who again I haven't played yet. I
>>> suspect he'd end up in the same position re: his specialized attack
>>> form (not getting to use it all that often), but this is just why
>>> it's important to have some other abilities for him. Dragon Disciple
>>> does this pretty nicely, as does the level of Sorc requirement. And
>>> the Combat Brute / Shock Trooper combo looks to be truly devastating
>>> if used properly.
>>>
>>> - Ron ^*^
>>>
>>
>> Remember that you don't have to sunder *weapons* and Sunder becomes
>> more interesting. The only way you're useless as a Sunderer is when
>> you're fighting nothing but monsters without gear.
>
>
> True that, but sundering a wand or staff really *will* piss the party
> off. Although holy symbols...
>
> - Ron ^*^
>

I was thinking more along the lines of quivers, backpacks, spell
component pouches, etc.
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 7:16:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Some Guy wrote:

> Werebat wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Some Guy wrote:
>>
>>> Werebat wrote:
>>>
>>>> The sundermonkey is another beast, who again I haven't played yet.
>>>> I suspect he'd end up in the same position re: his specialized
>>>> attack form (not getting to use it all that often), but this is just
>>>> why it's important to have some other abilities for him. Dragon
>>>> Disciple does this pretty nicely, as does the level of Sorc
>>>> requirement. And the Combat Brute / Shock Trooper combo looks to be
>>>> truly devastating if used properly.
>>>>
>>>> - Ron ^*^
>>>>
>>>
>>> Remember that you don't have to sunder *weapons* and Sunder becomes
>>> more interesting. The only way you're useless as a Sunderer is when
>>> you're fighting nothing but monsters without gear.
>>
>>
>>
>> True that, but sundering a wand or staff really *will* piss the party
>> off. Although holy symbols...
>>
>> - Ron ^*^
>>
>
> I was thinking more along the lines of quivers, backpacks, spell
> component pouches, etc.

How many quivers and backpacks can an enemy carry at the same time, though?

:^)

- Ron ^*^
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 7:23:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Ed Chauvin IV wrote:

> Mere moments before death, Werebat hastily scrawled:
>
>>Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
>>
>>>Mere moments before death, Werebat hastily scrawled:
>>>
>>>>Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
>
> ...trimming up a bit here...
>
>>>>>Unless it's easier to sunder the weapon than to make the attack
>>>>>against your opponent, it's a complete waste of time. So, it's really
>>>>>only even a viable tactic against low attack bonus, high AC targets.
>>>>
>>>>Or warrior-types with worthless weapons. Plenty of those around, actually.
>>>
>>>
>>>Like I said before, the value of a sunder is directly proportional to
>>>the value of the weapon.
>>
>>Don't you mean inversely proportional?
>
>
> No. Strictly on a short term basis, the value to you as a combatant
> is directly proportional to the value of the weapon. During a fight,
> it's better to sunder the weapon that gives your opponent the most
> increase in his damage output.
>
> You're fighting a TWFer wielding a longsword and a dagger. For
> whatever reason, you are aware that his longsword has several magical
> effects and bonuses, and the dagger is an ordinary non-magical dagger.
> The sword is within the realm of you sundering. Do you waste your
> time sundering a weapon that's not really bothering you in the first
> place, or do you take out the sword and significantly reduce your
> opponent's damage output?
>
> The answer is actually going to be C, kill the bastard. But, that's
> going to depend on a variety of factors.
>
> /After/ the fight, on the other hand, yes the value of sundering a
> weapon is inversely proportional to that weapon's value. But, that's
> a strategic issue, not a tactical one. ;-)
>
>
>>>If it's truly a worthless weapon, the
>>>benefit you gain from sundering it is negative.
>>
>>Really? A greatclub in the hands of a half-orc barbarian can be pretty
>>effective...
>
>
> Then that's not a worthless weapon.
>
>
>>>If there's any chance
>>>that you'll fail the sunder at all, you're giving up attacks that
>>>could kill the target for the chance to reduce his ability to damage
>>>you. If you're not *significantly* reducing his damage output, you're
>>>wasting your time by giving him more chances to do what damage he can.
>>
>>This is true of any non-damaging attack, though. The same could be said
>>of tripping.
>
>
> Yup.
>
>
>>>You keep providing reasons that sunder *seems* like a good idea, but
>>>the entire tactic is inherently flawed. Sure, it's /cool/ to smash
>>>the baddies weapon out of his hands, but what does it really get you?
>>>The answer to that question will almost always be nothing. Sometimes
>>>it will be less than that.
>>
>>You smack the ogre's worthless greatclub and shatter it to splinters.
>>What have you lost? A worthless greatclub. Now the ogre has no weapon.
>> Boo hoo for him.
>>
>>If you've got Combat Brute, you get a free attack on him after ruining
>>his weapon, so you didn't even lose an attack.
>
>
> *If*, and only if, you didn't miss on any of your sunder attempts.
> Otherwise, you've given up opportunities to simply kill him in the
> first place.
>
> Ogres are Large, so are their Greatclubs, which means it's got
> Hardness 5 HP 20. So, you're doing 25 pts of damage in one blow, but
> you're not directing that at the 29hp ogre because... Why again?
>
>
>>If you've got CB and Shock Trooper, you get some other advantages that
>>elude me at the moment -- you have me at a disadvantage here because I
>>don't have the book available.
>
>
> Yeah, you can shove your opponent into someone else and trip them
> both, and get the CB bonuses to attack for the next round. I'm not
> debating the value of these feats and their synergy. I'm merely
> pointing out that Sundering, as a tactic, has some serious flaws.
>
>
>>Obviously it isn't an effective tactic ALL THE TIME.
>
>
> Actually, it's rarely truly effective. But...
>
>
>>For builds that
>>are effective ALL THE TIME, go with the standard barbarian
>>PA/Cleave/GreatCleave suite with Weapon Focus thrown in and a two-handed
>>weapon. When you've done that with several characters, you might want
>>to try something different.
>
>
> Yeah, it's different, and cool. No debate there. Smashing your
> opponent's weapons is fun and exciting. I'm not here to tear down
> your character concept. I actually think it's cool and would be fun
> to play, but I wouldn't want to fall too far behind the wealth curve
> due to smashing up all my loot.
>
> OTOH, don't forget that even magical weapons can be repaired, although
> it's not clear to me from the rules whether this applies to completely
> broken items.
>
> In fact, I played in a campaign a while back where we were charged
> with hunting down and destroying some particularly nasty magical
> artifacts. We had no less than 2 Forsakers in the party, and running
> a Sunder Beast Forsaker would have been tactically brilliant in that
> situation.

Just a quick reply. I see some of your points. Truth be told, I
haven't actually played the sundering character I have in mind (next
campaign I play in will be either the changeling monk/warshaper/rogue,
the swiftwing shifter rogue/ranger/weretouchedmaster, or the
aforementioned (white) draconic human barbarian/sorcerer/dragondisciple
sunder monkey). I have learned from playing a chainfighting tripster
that you don't actually get to trip all that often, although it is still
an effective tactic often enough to make it worthwhile, and it's fun
(although I notice that EVERY TIME I try to trip a Large opponent it
seems to make its trip check, even though odds are stacked in my favor).

I'd really have to see it in action to know for sure. I still have a
vague notion that double weapons can be worthwhile if you choose to
invest in Power Attack, too (for initial charges into melee).

- Ron ^*^
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 10:06:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Werebat wrote:
>
>
> Some Guy wrote:
>
>> Werebat wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Some Guy wrote:
>>>
>>>> Werebat wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The sundermonkey is another beast, who again I haven't played yet.
>>>>> I suspect he'd end up in the same position re: his specialized
>>>>> attack form (not getting to use it all that often), but this is
>>>>> just why it's important to have some other abilities for him.
>>>>> Dragon Disciple does this pretty nicely, as does the level of Sorc
>>>>> requirement. And the Combat Brute / Shock Trooper combo looks to
>>>>> be truly devastating if used properly.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Ron ^*^
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Remember that you don't have to sunder *weapons* and Sunder becomes
>>>> more interesting. The only way you're useless as a Sunderer is when
>>>> you're fighting nothing but monsters without gear.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> True that, but sundering a wand or staff really *will* piss the party
>>> off. Although holy symbols...
>>>
>>> - Ron ^*^
>>>
>>
>> I was thinking more along the lines of quivers, backpacks, spell
>> component pouches, etc.
>
>
> How many quivers and backpacks can an enemy carry at the same time, though?
>
> :^)
>
> - Ron ^*^
>

You can hang one off each throwing knife in your hand...
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 11:28:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote:
>I still have a vague notion that double weapons can be worthwhile
>if you choose to invest in Power Attack, too (for initial charges
>into melee).

Everyone else: don't fall for it!

Donald
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 5:18:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Some Guy wrote:

> Werebat wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Some Guy wrote:
>>
>>> Werebat wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Some Guy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Werebat wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The sundermonkey is another beast, who again I haven't played
>>>>>> yet. I suspect he'd end up in the same position re: his
>>>>>> specialized attack form (not getting to use it all that often),
>>>>>> but this is just why it's important to have some other abilities
>>>>>> for him. Dragon Disciple does this pretty nicely, as does the
>>>>>> level of Sorc requirement. And the Combat Brute / Shock Trooper
>>>>>> combo looks to be truly devastating if used properly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Ron ^*^
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Remember that you don't have to sunder *weapons* and Sunder becomes
>>>>> more interesting. The only way you're useless as a Sunderer is
>>>>> when you're fighting nothing but monsters without gear.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> True that, but sundering a wand or staff really *will* piss the
>>>> party off. Although holy symbols...
>>>>
>>>> - Ron ^*^
>>>>
>>>
>>> I was thinking more along the lines of quivers, backpacks, spell
>>> component pouches, etc.
>>
>>
>>
>> How many quivers and backpacks can an enemy carry at the same time,
>> though?
>>
>> :^)
>>
>> - Ron ^*^
>>
>
> You can hang one off each throwing knife in your hand...

LOL!

- Ron ^*^
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 5:23:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Donald Tsang wrote:

> Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>I still have a vague notion that double weapons can be worthwhile
>>if you choose to invest in Power Attack, too (for initial charges
>>into melee).
>
>
> Everyone else: don't fall for it!

Math isn't my strong suit, but I've DMed enemies who seemed to work the
double weapon thing pretty well. Charge in with power attack and a
two-handed attack in the first round, then use TWF until you need to
move more than 5 feet to the next enemy. It's TWF with the added bonus
of being able to PA with the two-handed bonus when and if you want to
(oh, and the slight increase in TWF damage).

Again, I've never worked the numbers, but what I've seen in play seemed
quite effective. Rogue/Barbarian/Fighter, BTW.

- Ron ^*^
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 12:40:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <CpyOe.774$rp.427@lakeread08>, Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote:
>Donald Tsang wrote:
>
>> Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>I still have a vague notion that double weapons can be worthwhile
>>>if you choose to invest in Power Attack, too (for initial charges
>>>into melee).
>>
>>
>> Everyone else: don't fall for it!
>
>Math isn't my strong suit, but I've DMed enemies who seemed to work the
>double weapon thing pretty well. Charge in with power attack and a
>two-handed attack in the first round, then use TWF until you need to
>move more than 5 feet to the next enemy. It's TWF with the added bonus
>of being able to PA with the two-handed bonus when and if you want to
>(oh, and the slight increase in TWF damage).
>
>Again, I've never worked the numbers, but what I've seen in play seemed
>quite effective. Rogue/Barbarian/Fighter, BTW.

Umm. In 3.5e, you gain no Power Attack bonus from light weapons, which
for the most part kills Power Atttack's benefit with double weapons.
You either get the (underwhelming) bonus damage from TWF for taking a
-2 to hit on everything, or you get +4 to damage for the same -2 to hit.

It's flexibility, but not synergy. You're generally better off
with a higher-base-damage two-handed weapon.

If polearms were available as monk weapons (without the silly "not wielded
as a double weapon when flurried" rule that MSB has been trying to convince
people exists), I'm pretty sure halberds would be preferred to quarterstaves.
Spears and polearms are so genre as martial arts weapons, too.

Donald

PS Oh, wait. Rogue. Anything that increases number of attacks
is enhanced by sneak attack. You're really advocating fighter/rogues
using double weapons. These days, I'd prefer true TWF with
one-handed weapons and the "oversized (something)" feat that
removes the extra penalty.
!