Challenge: Build a crossbow-using rogue.

[Morty]

I have something of a challenge for all the number-crunchers in this section of the boards: I'd like to see a build for a Goblin Rogue who uses a light or heavy crossbow effectively - not a hand crossbow. I'd like this character to be usable below level 10 and have not more than one or two non-Rogue levels. My reason is mostly curiosity as to whether or not it's possible.

[Amnestic]

Restriction on sources? Do all levels have to be rogue levels (or just the majority)? PrCs?

[Morty]

Use whatever sources you like. And like I said, I'd prefer all but one or two levels of this character to be Rogue levels.

[Diovid]

Air Goblin (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/races/elementalRacialVariants.htm#airGoblins) Fighter* 1 / Rogue x with the Crossbow Sniper, Dead Eye and possibly Craven feats.
*Using the Targeteer Fighter variant and/or the Hit-and-Run Fighter variant.

[Morty]

Where's the Targeteer variant from?

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Where's the Targeteer variant from?

Dragon magazine issue 310, page 38.

Note that it's probably to get the bonus exotic ranged weapon proficiencies, rather than any of the three Targetteer special abilities that can replace a Fighter bonus feat. Arrow Swarm requires Rapid Shot, so you probably won't be able to get it at 1st, Sniper would be a net loss in damage with a lot of sneak attack dice, and Vital Aim only adds your Dex to damage in place of Str, and you don't add Str to crossbow damage at all.

[Morty]

I see. I'm also not sure if Dead Eye and Crossbow Sniper stack, but if they do it'd mean quite good damage per shot.
Still, there's the hurdle of getting Sneak Attack damage on ranged attacks reliably.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

There's no reason why Deadeye Shot and Crossbow Sniper wouldn't stack, they have completely different effects and they're both from the same book.

Deadeye Shot is what allows you to sneak attack reliably, but it's only one shot per round since you have to ready an action for it. You could UMD a Wand of Greater Invisibility, but it would get expensive. You wouldn't even need UMD for that if you grab a single level of Spellthief.

[Diovid]

There's no reason why Deadeye Shot and Crossbow Sniper wouldn't stack, they have completely different effects and they're both from the same book.
There's a difference between Deadeye Shot (PHB II) and Dead Eye (Dragon Magazine #304 / Dragon Compendium 1*).
*Note that the Dragon Compendium requirements are terrible and were errata'd to match the Dragon Magazine requirements.

I see no reason why Dead Eye and Crossbow Sniper wouldn't stack, even though they behave in similar ways.

And for the record, I thought the Targeteer's Vital Aim ability could be applied to crossbows, my bad.

[Flickerdart]

One or two non-Rogue levels? Make them Mystic Ranger levels - Sniper's Shot is a swift action spell that allows you to make one ranged attack and deal SA regardless of range, and with Mystic Ranger, you get a 1st level spell slot naturally, so you save some cash from your wand budget. It also lets you use wands of Hunter's Eye to pump up your Sneak Attack if you ever want more.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

There's a difference between Deadeye Shot (PHB II) and Dead Eye (Dragon Magazine #304 / Dragon Compendium 1*).
*Note that the Dragon Compendium requirements are terrible and were errata'd to match the Dragon Magazine requirements.

I see no reason why Dead Eye and Crossbow Sniper wouldn't stack, even though they behave in similar ways.

And for the record, I thought the Targeteer's Vital Aim ability could be applied to crossbows, my bad.

Dragon Compendium Errata (http://paizo.com/download/dragon/compendium/DragonCompendiumVolumeIErrata.pdf) for those interested, it does change the BAB prerequisite from +14 to +1, but the Dex prerequisite is still at 17 instead of the original printing's 13.

Dead Eye is precision damage, since it doesn't work against targets immune to critical hits, and Crossbow Sniper is not precision damage, so I'd say that they would definitely stack.

[LanSlyde]

I have something of a challenge for all the number-crunchers in this section of the boards: I'd like to see a build for a Goblin Rogue who uses a light or heavy crossbow effectively - not a hand crossbow. I'd like this character to be usable below level 10 and have not more than one or two non-Rogue levels. My reason is mostly curiosity as to whether or not it's possible.

Well, if you want, I can tell you how to make a fully automatic heavy+ crossbow for only 18k. Give yourself 5 levels of assassin and I can also make it a crossbow shotgun.

The full auto isn't RAW, but if you break down the various components it works. The shotgun bit is totally RAW tho.

[Morty]

One or two non-Rogue levels? Make them Mystic Ranger levels - Sniper's Shot is a swift action spell that allows you to make one ranged attack and deal SA regardless of range, and with Mystic Ranger, you get a 1st level spell slot naturally, so you save some cash from your wand budget. It also lets you use wands of Hunter's Eye to pump up your Sneak Attack if you ever want more.

I should have mentioned I'd rather not use spellcasting in this concept. But a good trick all the same.


Well, if you want, I can tell you how to make a fully automatic heavy+ crossbow for only 18k. Give yourself 5 levels of assassin and I can also make it a crossbow shotgun.

The full auto isn't RAW, but if you break down the various components it works. The shotgun bit is totally RAW tho.

Sure, why not.
As for the other feats... readying actions to shoot enemies hit by my teammates sounds like a decent enough strategy for dealing reasonable damage.

[toapat]

One or two non-Rogue levels? Make them Mystic Ranger levels - Sniper's Shot is a swift action spell that allows you to make one ranged attack and deal SA regardless of range, and with Mystic Ranger, you get a 1st level spell slot naturally, so you save some cash from your wand budget. It also lets you use wands of Hunter's Eye to pump up your Sneak Attack if you ever want more.

2 problems:

1: Mystic ranger doesnt get 1st level spells at level 1, they get them at lvl 4.
2: you trade out the pet, so no distracting attack, which is the only reason for a rogue to take a ranger splash.

[Flickerdart]

I should have mentioned I'd rather not use spellcasting in this concept. But a good trick all the same.
You'll need some kind of magic when it comes to fighting stuff immune to critical hits, anyway.

[Morty]

This can be done with magic items though, without requiring an innate spellcasting capability.

[Flickerdart]

That's true, but paying for magic arrows as well as a magic crossbow will deplete your budget more than just paying for a sword, so be careful when you do your shopping.

[Draz74]

Deadeye Shot is what allows you to sneak attack reliably, but it's only one shot per round since you have to ready an action for it. You could UMD a Wand of Greater Invisibility, but it would get expensive. You wouldn't even need UMD for that if you grab a single level of Spellthief.
Go with a Wand of Swift Invisibility instead. Much cheaper, even if you burn several charges every encounter. And you can use it and shoot in the same round.

Oh, and of course a Novice Shadow Hands item to learn the Cloak of Deception maneuver (unless one of your non-Rogue levels is a Swordsage dip). Swift Invisibility 1/encounter with no charges to run out of. Very nice.


One or two non-Rogue levels? Make them Mystic Ranger levels - Sniper's Shot is a swift action spell that allows you to make one ranged attack and deal SA regardless of range, and with Mystic Ranger, you get a 1st level spell slot naturally, so you save some cash from your wand budget. It also lets you use wands of Hunter's Eye to pump up your Sneak Attack if you ever want more.
Clever (especially when combined with a stash of Level 1 Pearls of Power), although I'd point out that Hunter's Eye will be pretty pathetic with a Caster Level of 2.


Still, there's the hurdle of getting Sneak Attack damage on ranged attacks reliably.
Besides the invisibility tricks discussed above, and the obvious standbys (ambushes, winning initiative, sniping), you can rely on Grease or marbles or something to make foes flat-footed. Or maneuvers -- another reason to consider a Swordsage dip.

Or have allies help you out. Besides casting Grease, the option that comes to mind is ...


2: you trade out the pet, so no distracting attack, which is the only reason for a rogue to take a ranger splash.
Distracting Attack may or may not work for its own wielder, but it certainly works (and was intended for) the ranger's allies. A ranger with Distracting Attack in the party is a great asset for a crossbow rogue.


1: Mystic ranger doesnt get 1st level spells at level 1, they get them at lvl 4.
I believe you're thinking of regular Ranger, not Mystic Ranger. (double-checks) Yep, Mystic Ranger gets Level 1 spells at Level 2, similar to Bard in its early progression.


You'll need some kind of magic when it comes to fighting stuff immune to critical hits, anyway.
True, although it's worth remembering that you can get some nonmagical ability to Sneak Attack undead via the Death's Ruin ACF in Complete Champion. No one cares about Trap Sense anyway. People usually forget about this ACF because it's horrible compared to Penetrating Strike for a melee rogue ... but it's a good choice on a ranged rogue.

[Morty]

A Swordsage dip... yes, that could work. It would fit the flavor I'm imagining for this character as well. As always, ToB comes to the rescue when one needs to make a non-magical character concept work. I'm not terribly familiar with how maneuver-granting magic items work, though.
I'd consider taking a level in Swordsage instead of Fighter, but it would make this build too feat starved. There's never enough feat slots. So it'd have to be both.

[toapat]

Distracting Attack may or may not work for its own wielder, but it certainly works (and was intended for) the ranger's allies. A ranger with Distracting Attack in the party is a great asset for a crossbow rogue.

as written it works, because it is not using a specified definition of Ally

[Talionis]

Well, if you want, I can tell you how to make a fully automatic heavy+ crossbow for only 18k. Give yourself 5 levels of assassin and I can also make it a crossbow shotgun.

The full auto isn't RAW, but if you break down the various components it works. The shotgun bit is totally RAW tho.

I would like to see this! Always looking for good ideas and that sounds like a good one.

[JaronK]

The easiest full auto heavy crossbow (or, better yet, great crossbow) is an Aptitude Crossbow combined with Hand Crossbow Focus from Drow of the Underdark. That'll let you free action reload it. Might as well make it a Great Crossbow at that point for the better range and better crit range.

JaronK

[toapat]

The easiest full auto heavy crossbow (or, better yet, great crossbow) is an Aptitude Crossbow combined with Hand Crossbow Focus from Drow of the Underdark. That'll let you free action reload it. Might as well make it a Great Crossbow at that point for the better range and better crit range.

JaronK

that only works with a loose interpretation of Aptitude weapon that treats things like Lightning Maces (which is a weapon specific but not weapon keyed feat) the same as Weapon Focus (Longsword). The wording is extremely bad on aptitude weapon, as it contains way too much fluff in it

[Talionis]

that only works with a loose interpretation of Aptitude weapon that treats things like Lightning Maces (which is a weapon specific but not weapon keyed feat) the same as Weapon Focus (Longsword). The wording is extremely bad on aptitude weapon, as it contains way too much fluff in it

With as many feats as that combo requires it better be really powerful. Unless it is just too powerful for the campaign. In general, ranged non-magical weapons are hard to optimize and get decent damage levels.

[toapat]

the Lightning Maces build is worth it, assuming your DM lets you access to Disciple of Dispater (which lets you get upto a critical range of 9-20) and lets the Aptitude enchantment apply to technique feats and not just weapon keyed feats

You also do not need proficiency in great crossbows with the property, so long as you have a granted racial bonus feat weapon proficiency

[Curmudgeon]

the Lightning Maces build is worth it, assuming your DM lets you access to Disciple of Dispater (which lets you get upto a critical range of 9-20)
Disciple of Dispater is a 3.0 prestige class, and its special allowance with respect to Improved Critical is for the 3.0 Improved Critical feat. This class, written before the 3.5 core rules, can't override those rules. The trick only works if you pull the wool over your DM's eyes, and that's an awfully risky thing to try. (Rocks fall, your PC dies -- that sort of risky.)

[toapat]

Disciple of Dispater is a 3.0 prestige class, and its special allowance with respect to Improved Critical is for the 3.0 Improved Critical feat. This class, written before the 3.5 core rules, can't override those rules. The trick only works if you pull the wool over your DM's eyes, and that's an awfully risky thing to try. (Rocks fall, your PC dies -- that sort of risky.)

1: Rule 2: If it was not reprinted or updated, then it is legal
2: Rule 3: Specific Trumps General.
3: Rule 1: No player or DM is to make the game less fun for eachother.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

All you need to do is make your opponents denied dex bonus to AC to enable sneak attack. That's not too difficult, actually.

First off, if they can't see you, then you get sneak attack dice. So things like a Ring of Blinking can enable it.

Second off, a simple Wand of Grease does wonders for making opponents forced to try a Balance check. They'll make it, that's not the problem. The problem is that by making a Balance check with less than five ranks, they are denied dex bonus to AC.

Pixie race has Improved Invisibility always-on. Sure, it's a +4 LA race, so you'll only have six levels of Rogue, but you've got guaranteed sneak attack damage against anything that can't see invisibility.

Also, don't forget Wands of Gravestrike/Golemstrike/Vinestrike so you can sneak attack the respective normally-immune-to-sneak-attack things.

[Flickerdart]

Invisibility is useful, but don't go that far out of your way to get it - the number of things that can see invisible or have non-visual means of detecting you ramps up significantly after the point you're at right now.

[toapat]

or Distracting Attack Ranger.

Targetteer 1 is given almost always with an archer. They are one of 3 ways in the game to get Dex to Damage with bows, and you get 2 exotic weapon proficiencies. the problem is, as has been stated before, that it is a bow specific ability.

[LanSlyde]

:::Full-Auto Heavy+ Crossbow:::
1) On page 116 of the Arms and Equipment Guide you have the Self-Loading Crossbow for 12,350gp that reduces the reload time to a move action. A sidebar on the same page states that if you have the Rapid Reload feat reloading a Quick-Loading crossbow is a free action.

2) Take the same Self-Loading bow, break down its components, +1 enhancement = 2000gp; masterwork heavy crossbow = 350gp. This leaves sets the Self-Loading enchantment as a flat 10,000gp. The description is that it self-***** the string. The quick-loading enchantment (MIC page 41) gives your crossbow what amounts to an extra-dimensional gun clip. Both the quick-loading and self-loading enchantments by themselves reduce the normal reload time to a move action. However, with the self-loading enchantment cocking the string for you and the quick-loading enchantment setting the bolt for you at this point all you have to do is pull the trigger. So personally I think they should interact to reduce the reload time to a free action. But this method is not RAW.

:::Crossbow Shotgun:::
This creation is a little easier to follow.

Take the splitting enchantment (Champions of Ruin page 42) and the Arrow-split spell (CoR page 28). Use arrowsplit on a Splitting crossbow, for one shot you fire two arrows that then split into 1d4 + 1 arrows. Giving a minimum of 4 and maximum of 10 arrows at a single target.

Sadly, after reviewing things I realized that the Splitting enchantment uses the Arrowsplit spell in its creation. So you would end up negating the Splitting enchantment when casting Arrowsplit. That said, few people pay attention to the component spells of weapon enchantments. So feel free to try and slip this by your dm. See the following argument.

[Curmudgeon]

1: Rule 2: If it was not reprinted or updated, then it is legal
I've never used that house rule; I always use the actual WotC rules instead.

[Flickerdart]

Sadly, after reviewing things I realized that the Splitting enchantment uses the Arrowsplit spell in its creation. So you would end up negating the Splitting enchantment when casting Arrowsplit. That said, few people pay attention to the component spells of weapon enchantments. So feel free to try and slip this by your dm.
Why would the weapon enchantment possibly care what spells are cast on the weapon?

[toapat]

I've never used that house rule; I always use the actual WotC rules instead.

that isnt a houserule, that is simply in a more upfront location then it actually is in the books.


Why would the weapon enchantment possibly care what spells are cast on the weapon?

typically like effects do not stack

[Flickerdart]

typically like effects do not stack
No. Effects with the same name do not stack. Effects with different names that do only slightly similar things stack all the way to the bank.

[LanSlyde]

Why would the weapon enchantment possibly care what spells are cast on the weapon?

Because the splitting enchantment requires the Arrowsplit spell in its creation. Meaning it uses the Arrowsplit spell to split the bolt. The same spells do not stack.

Haste + haste = haste

magic weapon + magic weapon = magic weapon

Casting darkflame arrow on a bolt twice would not net you 4d6 dmg per round, and Arrowsplit twice on a single bolt would not net you 4 - 10 bolts per shot.

But like I said, you can probably sneak it by your dm.

[Flickerdart]

Because the splitting enchantment requires the Arrowsplit spell in its creation. Meaning it uses the Arrowsplit spell to split the bolt. The same spells do not stack.

Haste + haste = haste

magic weapon + magic weapon = magic weapon

Casting darkflame arrow on a bolt twice would not net you 4d6 dmg per round, and Arrowsplit twice on a single bolt would not net you 4 - 10 bolts per shot.

But like I said, you can probably get sneak it by your dm.
Just because the enchantment requires the spell doesn't make it the spell. You know how you can tell? Because they have different effects. And also different names.

But please do cite a rule that actually says "weapon enchantments do not stack with spells used to create them."

[Fyermind]

Haste and speed explicitly states that for that case they do not stack. It would imply that you had to mention it to say they don't stack. It's not strong RAW, but may be enough to swing a DM interpretation a little.

[LanSlyde]

Just because the enchantment requires the spell doesn't make it the spell. You know how you can tell? Because they have different effects. And also different names.

But please do cite a rule that actually says "weapon enchantments do not stack with spells used to create them."

I cannot cite "weapon enchantments do not stack with spells used to create them."

I am simply using common sense. The splitting enchantment uses Arrowsplit to split your arrows.

Casting casting arrowsplit on a bolt thats about to have another arrowsplit cast on it (when fired) would not stack as it's the same spell. One casting is coming from you, the other from your weapon. Don't get me wrong, I'd like it to stack, but I know plenty of DMs that would argue that they don't. So interpret it however you want.

[Flickerdart]

I am simply using common sense. The splitting enchantment uses Arrowsplit to split your arrows.
If it were using arrowsplit , the text of the two would be the same. However, it is not. Why do you believe that this different effect is caused by the same spell, even though nothing supports that position? Do you also think that Bane weapons activate Summon Monster I when they're fired, because the spell is used to make them?

[LanSlyde]

If it were using arrowsplit , the text of the two would be the same. However, it is not. Why do you believe that this different effect is caused by the same spell, even though nothing supports that position? Do you also think that Bane weapons activate Summon Monster I when they're fired, because the spell is used to make them?

... you know thats actually a pretty solid argument. I think I'll use it next time my DM gets huffy.

[Curmudgeon]

that isnt a houserule, that is simply in a more upfront location then it actually is in the books.
No, it's a house rule. Here's the actual rule for determining which takes precedence when there's a 3.5 rules conflict (as there is with Disciple of Dispater's Iron Power saying its threat range expansion stacks with Improved Critical, and 3.5 Improved Critical saying nothing of the sort stacks with it):
Errata Rule: Primary Sources

When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.

Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the Dungeon Master's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The Dungeon Master's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities. So the primary source on rules for playing the game is correct, and Iron Power can't override that.

[JaronK]

You're forgetting that the specific overrides the general, which trumps the primary source thing (otherwise the fact that the DMG says there's 11 base classes would mean there's no other base classes in the game). The Disciple specifically says it stacks for purposes of that class, the general rule in general says it doesn't stack, so by RAW it does indeed stack.

With that said, it's obviously using a 3.0 mechanic that doesn't work that way anymore, and thus shouldn't work now... much like 3.0 magic items that grant skill bonuses grant bonuses that are now too high. RAW they still work, but RAI is actually clear here.

JaronK

[Morty]

I'm not really interested in borderline rules-legal solutions, but thanks all the same. Perhaps I'll try to actually make a character sheet for this guy later, say on level 6, and see how it works.

[toapat]

I'm not really interested in borderline rules-legal solutions, but thanks all the same. Perhaps I'll try to actually make a character sheet for this guy later, say on level 6, and see how it works.

1: It isnt borderline, Curmudgeon is just being ignorant of a small crosssection of rules in the game

2: Its not for the specific cheese you are looking for, which is Aptitude Great Crossbow with EWP: Hand Crossbow (Weapon Proficiencies are keyed feats, so they work with aptituded) and Hand Crossbow Focus,

[Curmudgeon]

1: It isnt borderline, Curmudgeon is just being ignorant of a small crosssection of rules in the game
Please point out which rules I'm ignorant of, with quotes or book and page citations. I'm always eager to improve my knowledge of D&D rules.

[toapat]

Please point out which rules I'm ignorant of, with quotes or book and page citations. I'm always eager to improve my knowledge of D&D rules.

DMG P6, Adjudicating:

A rule found in a rulebook overrides one found in a published adventure unless the rule deals with something specific and limited to the adventure itself.

Reworded in the Rules compendium on P5, to read as this:

Order of Rules Application: General to Specific exception. A general rule is a basic guideline, but a more specific rule takes precident.

Thus, because Disciple of Dispater specifically says it stacks with Improved critical, it does.

[Morty]

I'm not interested in using Disciple of Dispater anyway, so this point is moot.

[toapat]

I'm not interested in using Disciple of Dispater anyway, so this point is moot.

as i said, its not an archery build when i brought it up, its a critstorm build focused on turning a single hit into many.

specifically, you are looking for Aptitude Great Crossbow+Hand Crossbow proficiency+ Hand Crossbow Focus. You are proficient with a full Auto railgun

[Curmudgeon]

DMG P6, Adjudicating:

A rule found in a rulebook overrides one found in a published adventure unless the rule deals with something specific and limited to the adventure itself.
A published adventure would be something like "Barrow of the Forgotten King". Nothing mentioned thus far has been drawn from a published adventure. (You can find a list of published adventures here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dungeons_%26_Dragons_adventureshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dungeons_%26_Dragons_adventures).)

Reworded in the Rules compendium on P5, to read as this: Now that we know what a "published adventure" is, that's clearly not "reworded" at all.

Order of Rules Application: General to Specific exception. A general rule is a basic guideline, but a more specific rule takes precident.

Thus, because Disciple of Dispater specifically says it stacks with Improved critical, it does.
Disciple of Dispater is a 3.0 prestige class, so its Iron Power ability stacks with 3.0 Improved Critical. It couldn't possibly be an exception to the 3.5 Improved Critical, because that feat didn't exist to be excepted at the time.

[toapat]

A published adventure would be something like "Barrow of the Forgotten King". Nothing mentioned thus far has been drawn from a published adventure. (You can find a list of published adventures here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dungeons_%26_Dragons_adventureshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dungeons_%26_Dragons_adventures).)
Now that we know what a "published adventure" is, that's clearly not "reworded" at all.

Disciple of Dispater is a 3.0 prestige class, so its Iron Power ability stacks with 3.0 Improved Critical. It couldn't possibly be an exception to the 3.5 Improved Critical, because that feat didn't exist to be excepted at the time.

1: DMG 3rd edition wording. There was no prior work before it.
2: Willful ignorance of the rule
3: Again, anything not updated is legal. Disciple of Dispater was not updated, and specifically states it works in conjunction with Improved Critical.
4: There is only one rule change in the entire Rules Compendium that is specifically wrong, and that is the change to Forgoing Saves and Spell Penetration., where it eliminates the Harmless descriptor from the game.

[Malroth]

a 1 lv warlock dip and the feat "blend into shadows" can give you the ability to hide in plain sight as an immediate action, I'd imagine this would be a huge boon to a sneak attacker without disposable minions.

[Curmudgeon]

1: DMG 3rd edition wording. There was no prior work before it.
2: Willful ignorance of the rule
I have no clue what you're getting at with most of these numeric lists you're using. Do you think you could try again, with sentences? I'd appreciate it.

3: Again, anything not updated is legal.
As far as I can tell, that's still just your house rule. Repeating it isn't furthering this discussion. I've quoted the Primary Sources Errata Rule, which specifies something quite different. There's also this, from page 4 of the 3.5 Dungeon Master's Guide:
This is an upgrade of the d20 System, not a new edition of the game. This revision is compatible with all existing products, and those products can be used with the revision with only minor adjustments. Bringing the Disciple of Dispater into compliance with the 3.5 rules change regarding threat ranges would be an example of a minor adjustment to an existing product.

4: There is only one rule change in the entire Rules Compendium that is specifically wrong, and that is the change to Forgoing Saves and Spell Penetration., where it eliminates the Harmless descriptor from the game. Again, I'm clueless how this pertains to the discussion.

[toapat]

I have no clue what you're getting at with most of these numeric lists you're using. Do you think you could try again, with sentences? I'd appreciate it.

Again, I'm clueless how this pertains to the discussion.

Specifically finding Rule 3 of 3.5 is a pain in the ass, because it was specific to the WotC site, not printed.

Rules Compendium, Barring the Forgoing saving throws rules, Is more Accurate then any prior published book for rules. The specific instance where it is wrong is the reason most people believe that Spell Resistance is terrible, and also ignores precident common in the spell tables.

[Curmudgeon]

Specifically finding Rule 3 of 3.5 is a pain in the ass, because it was specific to the WotC site, not printed.
If you can't find it, perhaps your memory is playing tricks on you. Certainly what you remember on this point is at odds with the (easy to find) WotC rules I've quoted.

[toapat]

If you can't find it, perhaps your memory is playing tricks on you. Certainly what you remember on this point is at odds with the (easy to find) WotC rules I've quoted.

{Scrubbed}

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Welcome to the GitP forums, where a discussion on a crossbow-wielding rogue devolves into a discussion on an obscure 3.0 PrC and how one of its abilities, which has absolutely nothing to do with said crossbow-wielding rogue, does or does not interact with the 3.5 ruleset.

Besides, if we were going to be bringing 3.0 material into here, use Deepwood Sniper.

[toapat]

Besides, if we were going to be bringing 3.0 material into here, use Deepwood Sniper.

OA samurai too

[ShneekeyTheLost]

OA samurai too

See sig for my preferred samurai base class :smalltongue:

[Morty]

More on topic, if I take one Fighter level I can get Dead Eye, Deadeye Shot and Crossbow Sniper by level 6. Without the Fighter dip, I'd need to take flaws, which is just a little too min-maxy to me. Either way, this suits me since if I were to actually play this character it would be in E6, and level 6 of Rogue doesn't give me a whole lot apart from an upgraded Trap Sense (which I'd trade away for something more useful anyway). Looks like I can't squeeze a Swordsage level in there though, which is a shame.

I'm also wondering how this build would work in Pathfinder. On the one hand, Pathfinder gives you more feats but on the other hand, I wouldn't have access to the three feats I need. Any ideas on how to make it work using PF material?

[ShneekeyTheLost]

More on topic, if I take one Fighter level I can get Dead Eye, Deadeye Shot and Crossbow Sniper by level 6. Without the Fighter dip, I'd need to take flaws, which is just a little too min-maxy to me. Either way, this suits me since if I were to actually play this character it would be in E6, and level 6 of Rogue doesn't give me a whole lot apart from an upgraded Trap Sense (which I'd trade away for something more useful anyway). Looks like I can't squeeze a Swordsage level in there though, which is a shame.

I'm also wondering how this build would work in Pathfinder. On the one hand, Pathfinder gives you more feats but on the other hand, I wouldn't have access to the three feats I need. Any ideas on how to make it work using PF material?

Wait... you are worried about feats in an E6 game? You DO realize that you keep getting feats as you gain xp, even though you never go up in level... right?

[Morty]

Of course I know that. But I didn't plan it to be E6 from the beginning. Besides, I want this character to work at level 6, not level 6 + some experience.

[toapat]

im pretty certain that archery is, like everything that got better with time in 3.5, significantly worse in PF.

as far as an E6 character, i actually would think you would be better with 3 Penetrating attack rogue, 1 assassin/avenger, 2 Unseen Seer

this gets you 5d6 sneak attack, 2nd level spells, and the ability to apply apply 2.5d6 to anything.

note though you need to be allowed to qualify for a PrC when going into it though.