PDA

View Full Version : Desert Wind problems



quiet1mi
2010-07-02, 01:19 PM
I was going through the Tome of Battle and realized something about Desert Wind... IT DEALS FIRE DAMAGE.

For those that do not believe this to be a big deal, fire damage is accepted to be the most resisted energy type that could be dealt.

Is there a feat that I am missing that allows you to get around this fact, or is Dessert wind one of those schools that you do not specialize in?

Boci
2010-07-02, 01:21 PM
It is generally considered one of the weaker schools for that exact reason. Some DMs can be persuaded to homebrew feats to change the energy type.

Snake-Aes
2010-07-02, 01:24 PM
What Boci said.
If you want to expand on new disciplines instead of refluffing Desert Wind, Demented One's Dancing Leaf is an interesting replacement.

Saph
2010-07-02, 01:30 PM
Is there a feat that I am missing that allows you to get around this fact, or is Dessert wind one of those schools that you do not specialize in?

You're missing the sheer AMOUNT of fire damage that Desert Wind can do. Have a look at Burning/Searing/Inferno Blade, then figure out how much damage that would do if tacked on to a TWF full attack routine. Sure, it won't hurt anything with heavy fire resistance . . . but it'll kill just about anything else.

Desert Wind also has some handy lower-level boosts and counters, such as Distracting Ember and Zephyr Dance.

Snake-Aes
2010-07-02, 01:33 PM
You're missing the sheer AMOUNT of fire damage that Desert Wind can do. Have a look at Burning/Searing/Inferno Blade, then figure out how much damage that would do if tacked on to a TWF full attack routine. Sure, it won't hurt anything with heavy fire resistance . . . but it'll kill just about anything else.

Desert Wind also has some handy lower-level boosts and counters, such as Distracting Ember and Zephyr Dance.

Add salamander charge for novelty.

Gnaeus
2010-07-02, 01:33 PM
It is also good to remember that if you are fighting something that is fire resistant, the fact that you have a level 1 stance that makes YOU fire resistant kinda evens the playing field.

Fouredged Sword
2010-07-02, 01:37 PM
It is also stacked onto an already fairly martial class. You have lots of other options to pull from for foes that resist damage. Even if you focus in Desert, you can pull from shadow hand for some cold damage, or gain mountain hammer for omni-smashing. If you pull from one style and only one style you can get cornered, but there is little reason to do so.

If all else fails just stab things with your sword. I isn't like you can't melee things just fine.

Saph
2010-07-02, 01:41 PM
Add salamander charge for novelty.

In one of my campaigns, I had an NPC swordsage accompanying the party with the Pounce ability. By level 9, her first-strike attack routine was Bounding Assault + Searing Blade + Assassin's Stance + Two Weapon Fighting + Improved Two Weapon Fighting, getting four attacks for about 25-30 damage per hit. I ended up removing her from the party once I realised that she was doing as much damage as any other two PCs put together.

Boci
2010-07-02, 01:46 PM
In one of my campaigns, I had an NPC swordsage accompanying the party with the Pounce ability. By level 9, her first-strike attack routine was Bounding Assault + Searing Blade + Assassin's Stance + Two Weapon Fighting + Improved Two Weapon Fighting, getting four attacks for about 25-30 damage per hit. I ended up removing her from the party once I realised that she was doing as much damage as any other two PCs put together.

I thought you couldn't use Two weapon fighting in conjunction with bounding assualt.

Tavar
2010-07-02, 01:47 PM
Isn't energy resistance per round, as well? That makes it a bit easier to overcome.

Saph
2010-07-02, 01:56 PM
I thought you couldn't use Two weapon fighting in conjunction with bounding assualt.

Normally you can't, unless you also have Pounce.

sofawall
2010-07-02, 01:57 PM
Isn't energy resistance per round, as well? That makes it a bit easier to overcome.

No, it is not.

Fax Celestis
2010-07-02, 02:00 PM
There are some (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=71422) workarounds (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45205) too.

Tavar
2010-07-02, 02:02 PM
Normally you can't, unless you also have Pounce.

Forgive my ignorance, but pounce only works with a charge, yes? If so, how are you using it with the spring attack line?

Saph
2010-07-02, 02:10 PM
Forgive my ignorance, but pounce only works with a charge, yes? If so, how are you using it with the spring attack line?

Ah, you're thinking of the Bounding Assault feat from PHB II, which can't be taken by a level 9 Swordsage without much higher level and a bunch of prerequisites. The confusingly-identically-named Bounding Assault maneuver from ToB is a level 4 Diamond Mind maneuver that gives you all the benefits of a charge without any of the drawbacks (no AC penalty and can move as you wish).

Draz74
2010-07-02, 03:01 PM
Isn't energy resistance per round, as well? That makes it a bit easier to overcome.

Yes, it is ...


Resistance To Energy

A creature with resistance to energy has the ability (usually extraordinary) to ignore some damage of a certain type each round, but it does not have total immunity.

... although everyone always forgets this rule, as sofawall so kindly demonstrated.

jiriku
2010-07-02, 03:45 PM
The resist energy spell kinda contradicts the energy resistance feature description, however.


This abjuration grants a creature limited protection from damage of whichever one of five energy types you select: acid, cold, electricity, fire, or sonic. The subject gains energy resistance 10 against the energy type chosen, meaning that each time the creature is subjected to such damage (whether from a natural or magical source), that damage is reduced by 10 points before being applied to the creature’s hit points. The value of the energy resistance granted increases to 20 points at 7th level and to a maximum of 30 points at 11th level. The spell protects the recipient’s equipment as well.

Boci
2010-07-02, 03:45 PM
The resist energy spell kinda contradicts the energy resistance feature description, however.

Specific overrules general?

Draz74
2010-07-02, 03:47 PM
The resist energy spell kinda contradicts the energy resistance feature description, however.

Yeah, I think that's clearly what was intended, and that the "each round" text was yet another case of poor editing.

Saph
2010-07-02, 03:48 PM
The resist energy thing might have been updated in the Rules Compendium . . . I haven't got a copy to hand so can't check.

Snake-Aes
2010-07-02, 03:58 PM
The resist energy thing might have been updated in the Rules Compendium . . . I haven't got a copy to hand so can't check.

It is per separate incoming hit. Three attacks with fire damage will be reduced each by whatever resist fire the victim has. The source of the energy resistance doesn't matter.
So, the spell description is correct.(rules compendium, page 48, energy resistance)

sofawall
2010-07-02, 04:02 PM
... although everyone always forgets this rule, as sofawall so kindly demonstrated.

I didn't just forget it, I never even knew that. Holy crap. My entire group has been houseruling that for, well, always.

EDIT: ...Or not, as someone pops in with the RC.

Draz74
2010-07-02, 04:03 PM
It is per separate incoming hit. Three attacks with fire damage will be reduced each by whatever resist fire the victim has. The source of the energy resistance doesn't matter.
So, the spell description is correct.(rules compendium, page 48, energy resistance)

Ah, nice. Yeah, I haven't actually gotten my hands on a copy of Rules Compendium yet, to check out anything it says.

Well, sucks for the Desert Wind Swordsage.

lsfreak
2010-07-02, 04:13 PM
Before Rules Compendium, the spell that grants energy resistance, and monster's energy resistance, used different mechanics. Rules Compendium collapsed it into the spell's version.

EDIT: Damn my multi-tabbing. Also my inability to remember to check 'preview.'

HunterOfJello
2010-07-02, 04:25 PM
Desert Wind does fire damage and does more than the other schools. Shadow Hand does untyped damage, but not as much.

As a swordsage with Adaptive Style, you should have no problem switch out your fire damage maneuvers with a shadow hand maneuver or two when fighting a monster with fire restistance.

Boci
2010-07-02, 04:29 PM
As a swordsage with Adaptive Style, you should have no problem switch out your fire damage maneuvers with a shadow hand maneuver or two when fighting a monster with fire restistance.

Except missing a full round of combat, which is usually a lot and can sometimes be as much as 25% of the battle.

Gametime
2010-07-02, 04:55 PM
You should always have a few non-Desert Wind maneuvers readied, if you think you might run into something with resistance to fire, but since the Swordsage's whole schtick is having lots of maneuvers that shouldn't be a problem.

The only situation likely to warrant houseruling is if you wanted to specialize heavily in Desert Wind in a campaign filled with fire-related enemies. In that case, changing it to sonic damage is probably the most powerful (but also most flavorful) alternative.

Keld Denar
2010-07-02, 05:18 PM
Actually, in a fire dominant environment, a cold themed "Arctic Blizzard" Swordsage would be more effective than sonic. The [Fire] subtype makes the creature take 1.5x damage from [Cold]. Numbing/Freezing/Blizzard Blade (Burning/Searing/Inferno Blade as cold) would to incredible damage on a full attack. OUCH!

Caphi
2010-07-02, 05:21 PM
Except missing a full round of combat, which is usually a lot and can sometimes be as much as 25% of the battle.

Yes, but if you want to be a Desert Wind swordsage, it's better than nothing. Which is to say, it may not be the best thing, but it's very far from unplayable. And swordsages get too many maneuvers to have all of theirs come from one discipline. A DWsage will know some non-fire maneuvers and very probably have a couple of them prepared.

Boci
2010-07-02, 05:25 PM
Yes, but if you want to be a Desert Wind swordsage, it's better than nothing. Which is to say, it may not be the best thing, but it's very far from unplayable. And swordsages get too many maneuvers to have all of theirs come from one discipline. A DWsage will know some non-fire maneuvers and very probably have a couple of them prepared.

Yeah sure, I just objected to the "no problem" part of the statement.

Soras Teva Gee
2010-07-02, 05:47 PM
Pity the poor Desert Wind user in a Devil heavy campaign....

Of course in the wrong campaign any elemental damage choice is going to be a major problem.

Lycanthromancer
2010-07-02, 05:53 PM
Pity the poor Desert Wind user in a Devil heavy campaign....

Of course in the wrong campaign any elemental damage choice is going to be a major problem.Except sonic.

And usually acid.

Draz74
2010-07-02, 05:56 PM
Except sonic.

Just because I've never heard of a Limbo campaign where Slaad are 90% of the monsters, doesn't mean that campaign doesn't exist. :smallwink:

arguskos
2010-07-02, 05:57 PM
Storm Elementals, bitches. Immune to (and heals from) sonic damage. :smallamused:

AslanCross
2010-07-02, 06:06 PM
I'm with Saph on this one. Desert Wind has the potential to deal massive damage. So what if you can't kill devils with it? Besides, you're a swordsage. You have a huge repertoire of maneuvers.

Runestar
2010-07-02, 06:08 PM
Desert wind maneuvers do grant fairly good mobility. Early on, it is quite strong, when fire resistance is not yet as prevalent, though it begins to lose steam at higher lvs.

I can see it being played as some sort of melee/close-range warmage. You have burning blade+flashing sun for spike damage (combine with haste for 3 attacks at lv5), firesnake lets you selectively target multiple enemies in the same round, as well as that strike which detonates a fireball on a hit.

Some of the maneuvers are tricky to use properly though. For example, their capstone is hard to aim properly, as it is a 60-ft burst centered on you, meaning you are just as likely to hit your party as your enemies.

Great against trolls and ogre magi. :smallbiggrin:


It is also good to remember that if you are fighting something that is fire resistant, the fact that you have a level 1 stance that makes YOU fire resistant kinda evens the playing field.

Not really. A creature can be fire-resistant without dealing fire damage. At least red dragons can use spells to change the damage of their breath weapon. :smallamused:

Soras Teva Gee
2010-07-02, 06:17 PM
Not really. A creature can be fire-resistant without dealing fire damage. At least red dragons can use spells to change the damage of their breath weapon. :smallamused:

And can do plenty of vanilla physical damage aside from an every couple of rounds weapon.

Honestly the best solution just seems to be to check that the DM doesn't have some fixation against ToB and won't pick on your immunity too often.

Boci
2010-07-02, 06:18 PM
And can do plenty of vanilla physical damage aside from an every couple of rounds weapon.

Honestly the best solution just seems to be to check that the DM doesn't have some fixation against ToB and won't pick on your immunity too often.

Problem is with inteligent BBEG it can become required for a PC's weakness to be exploited.

Fax Celestis
2010-07-02, 06:19 PM
Besides, you're a swordsage.

This answers so many worries.

Fouredged Sword
2010-07-02, 06:21 PM
Yes, but what if you run into trolls. Then the party come running to you yelling "help, help"

Then you wished you didn't loose the crazy firey death attacks. One level 20 swordsage VS NI trolls. Swordsage wins.

Unless they are wartrolls. Then you are slaughtered, sorry dude.

Runestar
2010-07-02, 06:31 PM
What if they are half-red dragon trolls? :smalltongue:

From what I can see, desert wind is a discipline you should not focus entirely on. This means that as a swordsage, I would likely take mostly diamond mind and stone dragon maneuvers, then splash desert wind, shadow hand and maybe setting sun maneuvers to round out my selection.

This means it is best as a support discipline - players cherry-pick whatever maneuvers they want to complement their build. This way, you don't get screwed the moment something with high fire resistance/immunity comes your way as you can at least swap them out with adaptive style. :smallsmile:

Soras Teva Gee
2010-07-02, 06:35 PM
Problem is with inteligent BBEG it can become required for a PC's weakness to be exploited.

Well there is no "required" in my mind. Intelligence (stated or otherwise) does not make any level of savy required.

However it wouldn't necessarily be that bad as there is only one BBEG. Increase the drama by having it be a spell the party mage dispels or an item the skill-monkey sleight of hands to leave the boss vulnerable.

Even without an out anything is fine once or twice. Adjust the overall challenge accordingly and its fine. If say all your party ever fights is immune to fire that's something else entirely and the DM shafting you.

Boci
2010-07-02, 06:43 PM
Well there is no "required" in my mind. Intelligence (stated or otherwise) does not make any level of savy required.

Any monster capable of rational thought will at the very least try and find a way to protect themselves from fire if they find out a potential opponent wields fire and cannot easily change his fighting style.


If say all your party ever fights is immune to fire that's something else entirely and the DM shafting you.

But as soon as the BBEG finds out you use fire, he will make sure any minion fighting you at least has some protection against it.

Snake-Aes
2010-07-02, 06:48 PM
Yeah, anyone that had time to know "who the hell you are" would know to prepare specifically against you if they saw you coming. Big Bads of the smart type really should have something prepared after a fight or two if you let the news of what you did return.
(and that's before assuming people wouldn't notice how everyone died in fire)

2xMachina
2010-07-02, 09:40 PM
Actually, in a fire dominant environment, a cold themed "Arctic Blizzard" Swordsage would be more effective than sonic. The [Fire] subtype makes the creature take 1.5x damage from [Cold]. Numbing/Freezing/Blizzard Blade (Burning/Searing/Inferno Blade as cold) would to incredible damage on a full attack. OUCH!

Fire and ice!

Kyuu Himura
2010-07-02, 10:13 PM
20th lvl Swordsage + Burning Blade + Diamond Nightmare Blade = +80 damage
20th lvl Warblade + Burning Blade (feat) + Time Stands Still = +160 damage
so, assuming anything in the goddamn books got Fire resistance 80, I still say that DW is quite useful, sure, is not gonna puch through fire immunity, but you are not supposed to use it against fire immune things anyway. I agree that you do not heavily specialize in DW, but it can be very useful if you pick the right maneuvers. You don't go with every strike in the list, you get one or 2, some boosts, some counters and you have a fairly solid melee with some blasting.

Also: 5th lvl Swordsage + Death Mark + Fire immune huge friend/summon/whatever= Funny as hell

sofawall
2010-07-02, 10:32 PM
I think that shows the power of Diamond Mind more than Desert Wind.

Runestar
2010-07-02, 10:34 PM
20th lvl Swordsage + Burning Blade + Diamond Nightmare Blade = +80 damage

It would still be only 1d6+20 fire damage. DNB quads your normal damage, so variable damage die would not apply (and burning blade has a die roll involved).

sofawall
2010-07-02, 10:38 PM
I take it weapon damage wouldn't multiply, as it is a die roll plus a static modifier (like Burning Blade), so it only multiplies the STR boost?

Doc Roc and I when working on a few things realized that the phrase "normal damage" just does not really work. It's basically whoever can argue better about what is "normal" decides what gets multiplied.

Soras Teva Gee
2010-07-02, 10:46 PM
Any monster capable of rational thought will at the very least try and find a way to protect themselves from fire if they find out a potential opponent wields fire and cannot easily change his fighting style.



But as soon as the BBEG finds out you use fire, he will make sure any minion fighting you at least has some protection against it.

Obviously every BBEG has an endless supply of minions with high DR, high SR, freedom of movement, death ward, nondetection, mindblank, free teleportation, good saves, and elemental resistance in all five flavors.

Because once they know what you use they obviously prepare against it.

Lycanthromancer
2010-07-02, 10:50 PM
Obviously every BBEG has an endless supply of minions with high DR, high SR, freedom of movement, death ward, nondetection, mindblank, free teleportation, good saves, and elemental resistance in all five flavors.

Because once they know what you use they obviously prepare against it.A surprisingly large number of those are covered by undead and golems.

balistafreak
2010-07-02, 10:52 PM
Obviously every BBEG has an endless supply of minions with high DR, high SR, freedom of movement, death ward, nondetection, mindblank, free teleportation, good saves, and elemental resistance in all five flavors.

Because once they know what you use they obviously prepare against it.

You'd be surprised. :smallwink: Some DMs run their BBEGs this way.

An arms race usually occurs. It usually ends in a TTPK, a Total Total Party Kill, where not only the characters are dead, but so are the enemy, the PCs' players, the DM, and everyone else on planet Earth and then some.

Runestar
2010-07-02, 11:06 PM
I take it weapon damage wouldn't multiply, as it is a die roll plus a static modifier (like Burning Blade), so it only multiplies the STR boost?

Doc Roc and I when working on a few things realized that the phrase "normal damage" just does not really work. It's basically whoever can argue better about what is "normal" decides what gets multiplied.

My interpretation of what gets multiplied for DNB is basically to treat it like a crit. Say if you score a critical hit with a scythe, what gets multiplied?

Weapon damage die - yes.
Static damage mods like str bonus, weapon spec, power attack damage, collision weapon proprety? Sure.
Variable damage die such as sneak attack or flaming weapon property? No.:smallwink:

Gametime
2010-07-02, 11:55 PM
My interpretation of what gets multiplied for DNB is basically to treat it like a crit. Say if you score a critical hit with a scythe, what gets multiplied?

Weapon damage die - yes.
Static damage mods like str bonus, weapon spec, power attack damage, collision weapon proprety? Sure.
Variable damage die such as sneak attack or flaming weapon property? No.:smallwink:

I think we all agree the 1d6 would not get multiplied (though what the reason for excluding dice from multiplication is, I cannot fathom). I'm pretty sure the static addition to the die roll would be, though, making it an additional 1d6+80 damage.


A surprisingly large number of those are covered by undead and golems.

To be fair, the right golem covers an absurd number of weaknesses anyway.

Runestar
2010-07-03, 12:19 AM
I think we all agree the 1d6 would not get multiplied (though what the reason for excluding dice from multiplication is, I cannot fathom). I'm pretty sure the static addition to the die roll would be, though, making it an additional 1d6+80 damage.

1d6+20 is basically the game's way of saying "Any random variable between 21 to 26. For example, empower spell affects the entire result (1d4+1), rather than 1d4. You can't really divorce the "static" component of the ability from the basic die roll because they are really one and the same. It is written in that manner simply to make the results easier to generate (it is more convenient to roll a normal 6-sided die and add 20 to the result, rather than have to prepare a custom 6-sided die with sides labeled 21 to 26).

Similarly, the +20 damage to your sneak attack from craven would not be multiplied either.

lsfreak
2010-07-03, 12:35 AM
Similarly, the +20 damage to your sneak attack from craven would not be multiplied either.

Actually, in this case it does, at least that's the interpretation I've always heard. Craven does not add damage to your sneak attack, it adds damage when you sneak attack. That is, [xd6]+lvl and not [xd6+lvl].

The Desert Wind boosts, on the other hand, I'd probably count as [xd6+IL].

Gametime
2010-07-03, 01:06 AM
1d6+20 is basically the game's way of saying "Any random variable between 21 to 26. For example, empower spell affects the entire result (1d4+1), rather than 1d4. You can't really divorce the "static" component of the ability from the basic die roll because they are really one and the same. It is written in that manner simply to make the results easier to generate (it is more convenient to roll a normal 6-sided die and add 20 to the result, rather than have to prepare a custom 6-sided die with sides labeled 21 to 26).

Similarly, the +20 damage to your sneak attack from craven would not be multiplied either.

From the Player's Handbook:


Multiplying Damage: Sometimes you multiply damage by some factor, such as on a critical hit. Roll the damage (with all modifiers) multiple times and total the results. Note: When you multiply
damage more than once, each multiplier works off the original, unmultiplied damage (see Multiplying, page 304).
Exception: Extra damage dice over and above a weapon’s normal
damage, such as that dealt by a sneak attack or the special ability of a
flaming sword, are never multiplied.

The extra dice added by abilities are not multiplied. The other modifiers are. Unless you can find textual support for the idea that 1d6+20 counts entirely as "damage dice," the issue seems pretty clear.

Empower Spell is a bit different, since it refers to "variable, numeric effects." What exactly that entails is fairly vague. With multiplying damage, though, the rules are explicit.

I'm not sure why you think you can't divorce the static and variable components of a bonus to damage. You can, quite easily; roll the extra 1d6 once but add the +20 twice.

Runestar
2010-07-03, 01:41 AM
I'm not sure why you think you can't divorce the static and variable components of a bonus to damage. You can, quite easily; roll the extra 1d6 once but add the +20 twice.

As I noted above, to me at least, 1d6+20 is really just rolling a 6-sided die labeled 21 to 26, to generate a random integer between 21 and 26.

Say I initiate burning blade and crit with a greatsword attack. I throw this special modified die and the number 23 comes up (meaning my attack normally does 23 extra fire damage). Are you saying that this 23 is also multiplied on a crit? It either is or it isn't, there shouldn't be any breaking down the number and multiplying only parts of it.

To me, the same mechanic for empower spell would also apply here. :smallsmile:

Fouredged Sword
2010-07-03, 08:06 AM
A rules debate! The real weakness of any class.

Stompy
2010-07-03, 10:35 AM
A rules debate! The real weakness of any class.

Weakness or awesome, depending on source. I mean really... An optimized wizard runs around with like ten of these rules debates at a time?

KitTheOdd
2010-07-03, 10:47 AM
The character I'm currently playing (bard 4/warblade 6/Jade Phoenix Mage 5) using Burning Blade and the interpretation we are using is that the damage based on IL is not fire damage and therfore will multiply on a crit.

The relevant phrase is this: "deal and extra 1d6 points of fire damage + 1 point per initiator level." Our reading is that the 1d6 is specified as fire but the extra damage is not. YMMV

Gametime
2010-07-03, 10:50 AM
As I noted above, to me at least, 1d6+20 is really just rolling a 6-sided die labeled 21 to 26, to generate a random integer between 21 and 26.

Say I initiate burning blade and crit with a greatsword attack. I throw this special modified die and the number 23 comes up (meaning my attack normally does 23 extra fire damage). Are you saying that this 23 is also multiplied on a crit? It either is or it isn't, there shouldn't be any breaking down the number and multiplying only parts of it.

To me, the same mechanic for empower spell would also apply here. :smallsmile:

...Okay, but you're wrong. Saying "1d6+20 is really just a six-sided die" is completely unsupported by anything in the rules, so far as I am aware, and directly goes against the precedent set by other rolls. Empower Spell has an explicitly different mechanic from multiplying damage.


The character I'm currently playing (bard 4/warblade 6/Jade Phoenix Mage 5) using Burning Blade and the interpretation we are using is that the damage based on IL is not fire damage and therfore will multiply on a crit.

The relevant phrase is this: "deal and extra 1d6 points of fire damage + 1 point per initiator level." Our reading is that the 1d6 is specified as fire but the extra damage is not. YMMV

There is nothing in the rules that prevents fire damage from multiplying on a critical hit. Further, if you assume that it isn't fire damage, then why assume it is damage at all? A "point" has no meaning in D&D; you have to look for a descriptor from earlier in the sentence to make any sense of the ability, and if you're taking "damage" it's pretty clear you need to take "fire." Grammatically, mechanically, and thematically, the entirety of the extra damage must be fire.

Of course, your interpretation of the damage multiplication is correct.

Boci
2010-07-03, 12:36 PM
Obviously every BBEG has an endless supply of minions with high DR, high SR, freedom of movement, death ward, nondetection, mindblank, free teleportation, good saves, and elemental resistance in all five flavors.

Because once they know what you use they obviously prepare against it.

I understand the value of hyperbole and reguarly use it myself, but that is taking it too far.

12th level BBEG sends a squad of four 6th level minnions to kill an oracle the PCs are trying to visit. Knowing that they may run into the PCs and that one of them uses fire since the battle thought between his third in command infront of the gates of Egra city 2 weeks ago, he spends 1,200gp on potions of resist energy.

Clearly the DM is hell bent on rendering the desert wind focused swordsage, and will even use metagaming to achieve this goal.

Soras Teva Gee
2010-07-03, 03:59 PM
You'd be surprised. :smallwink: Some DMs run their BBEGs this way.

An arms race usually occurs. It usually ends in a TTPK, a Total Total Party Kill, where not only the characters are dead, but so are the enemy, the PCs' players, the DM, and everyone else on planet Earth and then some.

Precisely what I was referring to and my list is not expansive enough.

At any rate that it can happen does not create some sort of contractual obligation that applies to all games. Where it does, pull out the cheese wagon and optimize for you very HP. Knowing that it doesn't is why you check that the DM won't go out of the way to exploit weakpoints everytime.


I understand the value of hyperbole and reguarly use it myself, but that is taking it too far.

12th level BBEG sends a squad of four 6th level minnions to kill an oracle the PCs are trying to visit. Knowing that they may run into the PCs and that one of them uses fire since the battle thought between his third in command infront of the gates of Egra city 2 weeks ago, he spends 1,200gp on potions of resist energy.

Clearly the DM is hell bent on rendering the desert wind focused swordsage, and will even use metagaming to achieve this goal.

I have no problem with this, in isolation. Occaisonal exploitation is dramatic and good.

However what I'd say should happen over the campaign is whatever WBL and charts hypothetically allow you don't suddenly have the entire forces of the BBEG equipped with the perfect potions every time. The first group got all the potions that had been brewed, and was lucky to have them. Afterall they aren't PCs. Even if they were, assumed infinite availability and anything taking the D&D "economy" on face value is one of the biggest root causes of an arms race.

Snake-Aes
2010-07-03, 04:04 PM
I have no problem with this, in isolation. Occaisonal exploitation is dramatic and good.

However what I'd say should happen over the campaign is whatever WBL and charts hypothetically allow you don't suddenly have the entire forces of the BBEG equipped with the perfect potions every time. The first group got all the potions that had been brewed, and was lucky to have them. Afterall they aren't PCs. Even if they were, assumed infinite availability and anything taking the D&D "economy" on face value is one of the biggest root causes of an arms race.

That's an interesting situation. Our group often goes through the struggle of hiding our methods when we know we are facing someone that is smart enough to investigate on us. My current swordsage fights unarmed most of the time, but he's best with his short sword.
I understand making enemies that actually know how to prepare can be frustrating if the group's not keen on that type of opposition, but here it's always a thrill.

Runestar
2010-07-03, 07:31 PM
...Okay, but you're wrong. Saying "1d6+20 is really just a six-sided die" is completely unsupported by anything in the rules, so far as I am aware, and directly goes against the precedent set by other rolls. Empower Spell has an explicitly different mechanic from multiplying damage.

It's implied in this dnd article, A Brief History of Dice (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/alumni/20070302a), more specifically this first part.


We're now accustomed to straightforward expressions such as 1d8, 2d10, 3d6+2, and so on. Up until 2nd Edition, however, that notation wasn't used. Instead, dice were indicated by their range of results. For example, what's now written as 2d6 was once expressed as 2-12; 3d10 was 3-30.

For the most part, this was straightforward. It even had some positive effects. Compare these two lists of weapon damage:

1d8 1-8
2d6 2-12
2d4+1 3-9
2d8 2-16
1d10 1-10

It stands to reason that if a monster was listed as doing 3-9 extra damage on a hit, this damage would not be multiplied on a crit as it was a variable. Wotc broke down the ranges into reasonable die expressions so that players would not have to agonize over how to generate those results. I do not think it was to give them both a variable and static component.

You claim that empower spell is an exception, I feel it is proof that you must look at the whole result or not at all, no multiplying only 1 part of it and leaving the other intact.

BTW, what precedent are you referring to?

There is also this entry in the SRD.


Multiplying

Sometimes a rule makes you multiply a number or a die roll. As long as you’re applying a single multiplier, multiply the number normally.

Soras Teva Gee
2010-07-03, 09:43 PM
That's an interesting situation. Our group often goes through the struggle of hiding our methods when we know we are facing someone that is smart enough to investigate on us. My current swordsage fights unarmed most of the time, but he's best with his short sword.
I understand making enemies that actually know how to prepare can be frustrating if the group's not keen on that type of opposition, but here it's always a thrill.

And if I make make a few assumptions... you are reasonably successful in your deceptions allowing you to pull out how you aren't left handed for both dramatic effect and when you really need that expertise.

That's an alternate and not terribly bad solution.

However if the DM was continually having the investigations be more competent to be prepared for both layers it would be different. Or making every fight difficult enough you had dispense with it for your best tricks, it would break down. Which is more or less starting the same arms race in a different manner.

And we seem to be in agreement that there's no cosmic obligation to do that.

Siosilvar
2010-07-03, 09:51 PM
The character I'm currently playing (bard 4/warblade 6/Jade Phoenix Mage 5) using Burning Blade and the interpretation we are using is that the damage based on IL is not fire damage and therfore will multiply on a crit.

The relevant phrase is this: "deal and extra 1d6 points of fire damage + 1 point per initiator level." Our reading is that the 1d6 is specified as fire but the extra damage is not. YMMV

What else would it be? It's the same as a flame blade (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/flameBlade.htm) specifying it does "1d8 points of fire damage + 1 point per two caster levels (maximum +10)".

huttj509
2010-07-03, 09:57 PM
If an intelligent foe, with time to prepare, and knowledge of the PCs acting against him, has the knowledge and ability to prepare things more effective against the pcs, I see no issue. Now if the PCs are only one group of many working against him, but all the guards are specifically tailored to the PCs, that's different.

If the party starts going up against pyrohydras, fire elementals, etc, even in the chilly mountains, when they have a lot of fire damage, that's when I'd call foul (if you're adventurin in an active volcano, fire resistant/immune monsters are more reasonable :-) ).

Course, then you get a random intelligent monster who has, say a casting of resist energy to have precast. Well, what type of energy would it pick? There's potential issues with both "we can do nothing with this fire resistance" and "she had resist electricity up? But the only way we might do electric damage is if bob shuffles his feet a bunch over there and rubs some cats on balloons."

Edit: If the party goes to great lengths to hide their strengths, and discover the foes weaknesses? I say let it work. That end fight wasn't easier, the hard part was just done beforehand over a longer time. "haha, now that you are here I shall summon the demon who will kill you all!" "Um, I snuck in last night, evaded your guards and traps, almost got caught and slain 5 times, and removed this stone which is key to the summoning circle, sorry to steal your thunder there, my bad"

Snake-Aes
2010-07-03, 10:00 PM
And if I make make a few assumptions... you are reasonably successful in your deceptions allowing you to pull out how you aren't left handed for both dramatic effect and when you really need that expertise.

That's an alternate and not terribly bad solution.

However if the DM was continually having the investigations be more competent to be prepared for both layers it would be different. Or making every fight difficult enough you had dispense with it for your best tricks, it would break down. Which is more or less starting the same arms race in a different manner.

And we seem to be in agreement that there's no cosmic obligation to do that.Definitely. We don't usually let things scale much, but there's a minimum of deception we like to keep on both sides. It's pretty much our style to keep the big cards away from the mooks.

Gametime
2010-07-03, 11:25 PM
It's implied in this dnd article, A Brief History of Dice (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/alumni/20070302a), more specifically this first part.

*stuff*

Implications aren't rules. There's no reference in the actual rules of the game to "dice" really meaning "dice plus static modifiers."


It stands to reason that if a monster was listed as doing 3-9 extra damage on a hit, this damage would not be multiplied on a crit as it was a variable. Wotc broke down the ranges into reasonable die expressions so that players would not have to agonize over how to generate those results. I do not think it was to give them both a variable and static component.

Extrapolating from 2nd edition rules to 3rd edition rules isn't a good way to judge what the rules actually are. You can argue that it's the intent, and you might be right.

As to what the rules of the game are? I'll ask you to cite text, either from the books or from the SRD.


You claim that empower spell is an exception, I feel it is proof that you must look at the whole result or not at all, no multiplying only 1 part of it and leaving the other intact.

Then why does Empower Spell use explicitly different wording than any other discussion of multiplication in the rules?


There is also this entry in the SRD.
Multiplying

Sometimes a rule makes you multiply a number or a die roll. As long as you’re applying a single multiplier, multiply the number normally.

...What does that have to do with anything? There is only one multiplier in most situations; x2, x3, whatever. That section of rules goes on to discuss the procedure for multiple multipliers (getting a crit on a Spirited Charge, for example), when the arithmetic is not standard.

None of that has anything to do with whether or not you multiple the additional static damage you add to a die roll.

EDIT: I did, however, find this in the Rules Compendium:


Extra Damage
Extra damage beyond a weapon’s normal damage, such as that dealt by precision damage abilities (see page 42) or the flaming property of a flaming sword, isn’t multiplied when you score a critical hit.

If this text is correct, then you're right; Craven damage and boost extra damage would not multiply. This has nothing to do with them being dice-connected, though, and everything to do with the somewhat vague term "normal." Clearly enchantment damage and situational damage aren't normal; that rules out items and maneuvers.

But what about Weapon Specialization? Are feats normal? Is your strength bonus "normal?" What if you use your one-handed sword in two hands? Is the "normal" damage your strength modifier, or your strength modifier times 1.5? Do enhancement bonuses to damage get multiplied? They're always on the weapon, after all, but they're enchantments just like flaming. What about buffs, like Bless or Inspire Courage?

In short, this rule opens up a massive can of worms. It does seem to point to Craven and boosts not getting multiplied, but the wording is so bizarre I'm not sure what to think. There's also the problem that since the Rules Compendium isn't errata, it doesn't actually override the primary rules, and this rule seems to contradict the much less restrictive one in the Player's Handbook about multiplying everything but dice.

Optimator
2010-07-04, 01:58 AM
Epic Swordsage Stance: Fire damage is instead hellfire damage.

Andion Isurand
2010-07-04, 09:25 PM
It might be cool if Desert Wind were given manuvers that included a little dessication damage as presented in the Sandstorm book.

Runestar
2010-07-04, 09:49 PM
There's also the problem that since the Rules Compendium isn't errata, it doesn't actually override the primary rules, and this rule seems to contradict the much less restrictive one in the Player's Handbook about multiplying everything but dice.

The rules compendium expressly states it overrides all previous rules (as mentioned in page 5). :smallwink:


When a preexisting core book or supplement differs with the rules herein, Rules Compendium is meant to take precedence.


But what about Weapon Specialization? Are feats normal? Is your strength bonus "normal?" What if you use your one-handed sword in two hands? Is the "normal" damage your strength modifier, or your strength modifier times 1.5? Do enhancement bonuses to damage get multiplied? They're always on the weapon, after all, but they're enchantments just like flaming. What about buffs, like Bless or Inspire Courage?

It is clarified in the 3.0 FAQ, page 36.

What bonuses get multiplied when a character confirms a critical hit? Suppose a 10th-level barbarian with a Strength score of 18 confirms a critical hit while raging and using a +3 greataxe and a maximum Power Attack. How much damage does the barbarian deal? Can you even use the Power Attack feat while raging? What if the character is a paladin using the smite evil ability, a fighter with Weapon Specialization, or a rogue using a sneak attack?

It’s easiest to think of a confirmed critical hit as a number of hits equal to the weapon’s critical damage multiplier. The example character is using a greataxe, which has a critical multiplier of x3, so the damage for a confirmed critical is just like the damage for hitting the foe three times. The only damage that is not multiplied in this way is damage expressed in extra dice, such as for a rogue’s sneak attack (see page 123 in the Player’s Handbook).

The example character has a base attack bonus of +10, so the damage bonus for a “maximum power attack” is +10. (Yes, you can use Power Attack while raging. In fact, you can use just about any feat except Expertise while raging; see the section on rage in the barbarian class description in the Players’ Handbook.) The character’s Strength score increases to 22 while he rages, giving him a +6 damage bonus for Strength, which increases to +9 because a greataxe is a two-handed weapon. The greataxe’s +3 enhancement bonus also applies to damage, so the character’s total damage from one hit with the greataxe is 1d12+22 (10+9+3). A confirmed critical hit makes the damage 3d12+66, just as if you had rolled 1d12+22 three times.

As noted earlier, any damage expressed in extra points of damage is multiplied with a confirmed critical hit, so the extra damage from the smite evil ability or the Weapon Specialization feat is also multiplied. But damage expressed as extra dice does not increase, so a rogue doesn’t roll any extra
sneak attack damage dice for a confirmed critical hit. However, some magic weapons that deal extra dice of damage do deal some extra damage on a confirmed critical hit, as noted in their descriptions. This ability is a special feature of these weapons.

You do not multiply damage that has already been multiplied. If the example character were striking a foe for double damage already, you would apply the extra (“doubled”) damage only once to the critical damage. For example, suppose the sample barbarian above is an azer, who deals fire damage along with his greataxe attack. The character’s total damage from one hit with the greataxe is 1d12+23 (10+9+3+1 fire). A confirmed critical hit would make the damage 3d12+69, just as if you had rolled 1d12+23 three times. But if the azer attacks a creature with the cold subtype, the fire damage is doubled, so the base damage for the attack is 1d12+24 (10+9+3+2 fire).

The doubled damage is not applied to a confirmed critical hit; instead the total damage becomes 3d12+70 (1d12+23 three times, plus one extra point for the “doubled” fire damage).

Sharp readers may notice that two-handed weapons by their nature deal “multiplied” damage (Strength bonus x1.5), but this is not a true damage multiplier in the sense that the term is used in the D&D game. Thus, the extra damage from a two-handed weapon is multiplied for a confirmed critical hit.