Construct critting enchantment?

[Uhtred]

So one of my players is an Improved Critical dual-bastard-sword-wielding Scout/Rogue whose build revolves around crits, sneak attacks, and skirmish. A good build for sure, except that the campaign I wrote has a lot of constructs as bosses, because the Big Bad they're facing is essentially a conglomeration of construct-buffing artificers. His build is great for the crowds of mooks and bandits they face, but he has complained over and over that I am nerfing him on purpose, and that he's very tired of being pointless and worthless.
Player emo aside, he's a level 10 character and both of his bastard swords are +3, and every npc magic shop owner they've met so far that he's complained to about being useless vs. constructs has recommended the Demolition Weapon Augment Crystal, and he has consistently ignored them. So recently, after rolling a 1 and lobbing one of his swords into an adjacent square, he proceeded, post-combat, to loot his kills and leave the sword behind to go badger a nearby enchantress witch. The party's Gnome Illusionist picked the sword up and said that he wants to put an enchantment on it that would allow the Scout/Rogue to crit/sneak attack/skirmish constructs. Does that enchantment exist, or is the Demolition crystal pretty much the only option he has and has consistently ignored?

[Anxe]

Not sure if one exists. I've never seen one. A fair homebrew would be a +1 to let sneak attacks and crits work on all beings that are normally immune to them. Kind of like the Ki Focus for monks.

[Douglas]

Demolition Crystal is pretty much it, and if he's consistently ignored it despite it being repeatedly pointed out to him it's his own damn fault.

Have you tried asking why he hasn't taken the advice of every single magic item merchant he's come across, even though every last one of them has recommended a perfect solution for the exact problem he's having?

As for the party wizard enchanting it without being asked, if he's got that kind of access to the weapon he could just make or buy a Demolition Crystal and attach it before handing it back.

[Uhtred]

I think his goal in doing it is so that the guy won't know it's been enchanted unless he gets it id'd, whereas the augment crystal is a bit more obvious. The Gnome Illusionist is chaotic neutral and a chaos gnome to boot, so he may be going for the "Wait, why does my weapon suddenly work against constructs when it never did before?" response. It would seem very random, and is a benign sort of prank. And I did ask him; he said that since you can only apply one augment crystal to a weapon, he wants to make sure he gets the right one. Cue me pointing out that they're removable, and that you can carry a few and swap them out. Didn't seem to matter.

[Andezzar]

Don't forget that only the greater crystal gives him sneak attack and cirts and requires a genuine +3 weapon. Also you would need one crystal for each weapon. That gets expensive very fast.

If he has UMD or can cast sorc/wiz spells he could also take a wand of golem strike (PHB/SpC). This however only gives him only sneak attacks and no crits or a way to overcome DR.

Crit fisher, 2 bastard swords, TWF, sneak attack don't really work well together.

[Shade Kerrin]

Don't forget that only the greater crystal gives him sneak attack and cirts and requires a genuine +3 weapon. Also you would need one crystal for each weapon. That gets expensive very fast.

If he has UMD or can cast sorc/wiz spells he could also take a wand of golem strike (PHB/SpC). This however only gives him only sneak attacks and no crits or a way to overcome DR.

Crit fisher, 2 bastard swords, TWF, sneak attack don't really work well together.

OP already said that he already has +3 swords, though.
If he's going for the Chaotic=Random path, why not just clip the crystals in when he's not looking?

[Uhtred]

This is what the Gnome wants to do. Of course, he also wants to hand it back with a major image on it to make it look and feel and taste like a five-foot-long ice cream bar. Because the novelty of a rogue critting something with a frozen treat is endlessly hilarious. I do like the concept of a homebrew enchant, not sure I'd say it was just a +1, though. The Greater crystal is pretty pricey.

[Shade Kerrin]

Greater Demolition Crystal: 6,000g each
Enchanting a +3 Weapon with a +1-equivalent enchantment: 12,000g each.
And if you think it should be a +2, 30,000g each.

In terms of expence, the crystal is really the best option here.
If it looks and feels like icecream, how obvious the crystal itself is becomes a moot point

[Alabenson]

I think his goal in doing it is so that the guy won't know it's been enchanted unless he gets it id'd, whereas the augment crystal is a bit more obvious. The Gnome Illusionist is chaotic neutral and a chaos gnome to boot, so he may be going for the "Wait, why does my weapon suddenly work against constructs when it never did before?" response. It would seem very random, and is a benign sort of prank. And I did ask him; he said that since you can only apply one augment crystal to a weapon, he wants to make sure he gets the right one. Cue me pointing out that they're removable, and that you can carry a few and swap them out. Didn't seem to matter.

Let me get this straight, he's playing a (rather poor) build based around applying precision damage to his opponents, many of which are going to be constructs, and the reason he gives for refusing to use the one augment crystal that would let his build function against said constructs is "he wants to make sure he gets the right one [augment crystal]"?

[One Step Two]

This is where I show my age:

In my day, there was no critting/precsion against contructs and undead, you had to deal regular damage, and deal with it. The crystals are fantastic additions, and to be quite blunt, it's his own damned fault he's being "nerfed". My regular GM has stated time and again that 3.5 is the age of player entitlement, where previously you had to beg, connive or bribe your way into a benefit (in a given setting I mean), 3.5 has it listed in a book for you, plain as day. You're giving him the answer to his problem, and he's ignoring it, and citing that he has to choose "the right" crystal is a poor excuse. Especially when a move action means you have the right crystal.

So consider my vote with the Gnome illusionist, have him use his sneakiness to steal the money off the player, and buy a crystal, put it on his weapon, enchant it to look and taste like an icecream and give it back, call it the Fudgcicle of Construct Smiting.

[BowStreetRunner]

Get him a pair of Deathstrike Bracers. It actually helps against constructs, elementals, oozes, plants, and undead. Only 5k and each use of a charge would affect all of his melee attacks for 1 round - including both weapons, attacks of opportunity, etc. 3 uses per day should be enough to make him feel useful in combat once again.

Honestly though, I play a dual-wield crit-based character right now (focusing on Blood in the Water stance from ToB) and I have never really had a problem against constructs, elementals, oozes, plants, or undead - even when I am not able to crit them. Between optimizing my bonus damage to be reasonably high (weapon specialization, melee weapon mastery, knowledge devotion, high strength bonus) and keeping within range of the various party buffers (like the bard or cleric), I usually do enough damage to still be quite respectable without the crits.

[Uhtred]

Greater Demolition Crystal: 6,000g each
Enchanting a +3 Weapon with a +1-equivalent enchantment: 12,000g each.
And if you think it should be a +2, 30,000g each. In terms of expence, the crystal is really the best option here.

I probably should have mentioned, we use a house rule that enhancement bonus and enchantments are two separate things, so his +3 enhancement bonus would be separate from the +1 cost of Flaming. He can have as much enhancement bonus as he likes, and as many enchantments as he likes, as long as their total isn't more than a +10. With this in mind, I don't feel that being allowed to continually crit or sneak attack constructs for the cost of a +2 enchantment isn't unreasonable.


This is where I show my age:

In my day, there was no critting/precsion against contructs and undead, you had to deal regular damage, and deal with it. The crystals are fantastic additions, and to be quite blunt, it's his own damned fault he's being "nerfed". My regular GM has stated time and again that 3.5 is the age of player entitlement, where previously you had to beg, connive or bribe your way into a benefit (in a given setting I mean), 3.5 has it listed in a book for you, plain as day. You're giving him the answer to his problem, and he's ignoring it, and citing that he has to choose "the right" crystal is a poor excuse. Especially when a move action means you have the right crystal.

We played yesterday and I went a step further, by introducing magic crystal flowers that act as augment crystals, but that take up the amulet slot. Same cost, same benefit, one will work on all the weapons you're wielding, and you don't even have the commitment of a standard augment crystal being attached to the weapon. I didn't explicitly state that was what they were, just that the old lady on the side of the road had a yellow wagon and was selling remarkably lifelike crystal flowers (Stardust-inspired) but the rest of my players cottoned on pretty quickly. He, of course, asked about a flower that would let him crit and sneak attack constructs. She recommended the crystal orchid (demolition), and he walked away. I want him to go off by himself and get ambushed by 2d6 Nimblewrights now.


Get him a pair of Deathstrike Bracers. It actually helps against constructs, elementals, oozes, plants, and undead. Only 5k and each use of a charge would affect all of his melee attacks for 1 round - including both weapons, attacks of opportunity, etc. 3 uses per day should be enough to make him feel useful in combat once again.

What book are those in? They sound like a very doable alternative as well.

[Andezzar]

Deathstrike Bracers are in the MIC on p. 93.

Have you asked the player OOC why he refuses to take any item that lets him do crits/sneak attacks on constructs?

[Uhtred]

Have you asked the player OOC why he refuses to take any item that lets him do crits/sneak attacks on constructs?

I have it on good authority that he's trying to find a prestige class that will let him do it so he doesn't have to burn the gold for an enchantment or augment crystal.

[Andezzar]

I have it on good authority that he's trying to find a prestige class that will let him do it so he doesn't have to burn the gold for an enchantment or augment crystal.Have you told him that relevant amounts of XP and class levels are much more limited than gold? Also I'm not aware of any class that does that. If he finds one I'd like to know.

[BowStreetRunner]

Have you told him that relevant amounts of XP and class levels are much more limited than gold? Also I'm not aware of any class that does that. If he finds one I'd like to know.

The closest thing I can think of to this is the Swift Hunter feat that allows multi-classed Ranger/Scouts to apply Skirmish damage against Favored Enemies that would normally be immune. Somehow, I don't imagine that would work for the character in this thread.

[only1doug]

If you want all the benefits of a greater demolition crystal then I'd say +2 bonus is about right, you get an extra d6 damage, count as adamantine for construct DR and do precision damage.

Another option would be to extrapolate the abilities from mace of smiting (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm#maceofSmiting) to allow them to be added to a different weapon.

Cost 75,312 indicates a masterwork adamantine heavy mace with a +6 enchantment, weapon is a +3 so we can say that it is a +3 enchantment that can only be applied to adamantine weapons with a minimum of a +3 enhancement bonus.

[Uhtred]

I ended up charging the Gnome the cost of a greater demolition crystal +1000gp for making it an enchantment to the sword instead of a removable crystal. However, I did say it was specific to that one Artificer, so if the Scout/Rogue wants his other sword enchanted, he has to go back to the town and make a heckuva diplomacy check, since last time he was there he insulted the guy and didn't buy anything.

[demigodus]

I ended up charging the Gnome the cost of a greater demolition crystal +1000gp for making it an enchantment to the sword instead of a removable crystal. However, I did say it was specific to that one Artificer, so if the Scout/Rogue wants his other sword enchanted, he has to go back to the town and make a heckuva diplomacy check, since last time he was there he insulted the guy and didn't buy anything.

so, odds are, not going to happen...

Out of curiosity, did you warn them ahead of time that there would be a lot of crit/sneak attack immune enemies in this campaign? Like, before they built characters?

While this character's solution to the problem was... unprofessional, it is reasonable for him to initially feel hosed if you didn't, and it looked like the constructs were a response to his character.

[Uhtred]

I gave all my players an initial rundown of the plot, including knowledge that they were facing a cartel of artificers that used constructs as bodyguards.