[3.5] Making the Dungeoncrasher Useful?

[Lonely Tylenol]

There is a spell in Complete Scoundrel called Blockade. It's a Dru1/Rng1/Sor1/Wiz1 spell that creates a one-ton block of wood that perfectly fills a 5-foot-by-5-foot-by-5-foot cube in a square adjacent to yours. Conceivably, being an incredibly dense block, it is a surface that is both large enough and solid enough to crush someone against it, gaining the 8d6+(3*STR) bonus of the 6th-level Dungeoncrasher.

If you are adjacent to your enemy, this would be a matter of placing the block of wood in a diagonal square adjacent to you (to one side of your enemy), and then taking a five-foot step to another square adjacent to you (to the other side of your enemy), and then delivering the attack.

If you are not adjacent to your enemy, you can place the block adjacent to your original starting point, and then move around to the opposite side of your enemy (provoking or Tumbling out), attempting to deliver the Dungeoncrashing damage with a long-distance smash.

An at-will command-word item of Blockade is 1,800gp, and its use costs you a swift action (Rules Compendium, p. 84).

In addition to that, you could perform all of the usual shenanigans of the Blockade spell, such as creating actual blockades, or platforms to jump up to high places, or stepping stones to cross a shallow river without getting wet, etc. Of course, these utility uses are all available to everyone, but the Dungeoncrasher gets a specific, in-combat use for this item.

Assuming that this item can be used to create a reliable means of delivering Dungeoncrasher damage when you would normally be unable to (perhaps repeatedly if using Knockback)--say, in an open space, or an area where the enemy is not anywhere near a wall or other large object--does it make the Dungeoncrasher ACF any more useful as a general rule?

Follow-up: is there any way to improve upon this trick? Blockade is eligible for neither Reach Spell nor Enlarge Spell, since its range is 0 ft. (instead of Touch, Short, Medium, or Long). Aside from that, I can't think of a way that you can reliably create Blockades at range outside of a familiar who can activate command word items (such as an Imp or Quasit), which seems like a cost-prohibitive way for the already feat-intensive Ubercharger (or other charger) to activate Dungeoncrasher (if they even bothered with it).

Are there any ways to significantly improve upon this trick (if it is worth even committing to)? I know this isn't exactly going to revolutionize the high-op games where chargers are already putting out numbers best expressed with exponents, but it feels like a novel trick for a sub-class that relies on novel tricks to stay meaningful.

[Curmudgeon]

An at-will command-word item of Blockade is 1,800gp, and ...
Nonsense. Whether such an item exists is entirely up to your DM, as is its price if is possible for it to exist. The only items with a known cost are those specified in the rules. All custom items are at the whim of each individual DM.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Nonsense. Whether such an item exists is entirely up to your DM, as is its price if is possible for it to exist. The only items with a known cost are those specified in the rules. All custom items are at the whim of each individual DM.

Allow me to amend that, then: an at-will command-word item of Blockade is, using the guidelines set forth by the custom item creation rules in the SRD, 1800gp*.

Some exceptions may apply. See local DM for details.

EDIT: Now that that's settled, can I have some actual, relevant advice as to the feasibility of improving this strategy? As in, relevant to a table that already has a) a Dungeoncrasher Fighter, and b) an item of at-will Blockade.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

A command word item and even a use-activated item are activated with a standard action by default, but the spell itself has a casting time of a swift action. Put it on a wand and it's still a swift action per Rules Compendium, and it's only 15 gp per charge. You can put that in a wand chamber on your weapon and you're all set.

Speaking of spells to enable Dungeoncrasher, put two Fighter levels on a gish build and use Melf's Unicorn Arrow from PH2. It doesn't specify that the spell has to originate directly from you and push them away from you, so you can make it appear above them and bull rush them into the ground.

[Curmudgeon]

It doesn't specify that the spell has to originate directly from you and push them away from you, so you can make it appear above them and bull rush them into the ground.
The Bull Rush rules have something to say about that:
Bull Rush

You can make a bull rush as a standard action (an attack) or as part of a charge. When you make a bull rush, you attempt to push an opponent straight back instead of damaging him. You can only bull rush an opponent who is one size category larger than you, the same size, or smaller. Straight back is distinctly different from straight down.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

The Bull Rush rules have something to say about that:

Straight back is distinctly different from straight down.

Back is not necessarily horizontal, either. It's a reference to the rear, or the opposite of forward, assuming they turn to face you to get a good position to oppose the bull rush. You bull rush them straight back in line with your direction of travel. If your direction of travel is straight down, then you push them straight down.

[Curmudgeon]

Back is not necessarily horizontal, either. It's a reference to the rear, or the opposite of forward, assuming they turn to face you to get a good position to oppose the bull rush. You bull rush them straight back in line with your direction of travel. If your direction of travel is straight down, then you push them straight down.
D&D doesn't have facing, so you can't make that assumption. Plus them facing you as you drive them down into the ground would require them to be prone. Unless you have a way of making them prone before the bull rush, back isn't toward the ground.

[2xMachina]

What if you're flying directly above them? Surely the only reasonable direction is down?

[Curmudgeon]

What if you're flying directly above them? Surely the only reasonable direction is down?
For you, yes. However, that's something other than a bull rush. Bulls don't fly, you know. :smallbiggrin:

[Vin Robinson]

For you, yes. However, that's something other than a bull rush. Bulls don't fly, you know. :smallbiggrin:

I have had to explain that to so many of my players.

[Vaz]

D&D doesn't have facing, so you can't make that assumption. Plus them facing you as you drive them down into the ground would require them to be prone. Unless you have a way of making them prone before the bull rush, back isn't toward the ground.

If you can't assume they're facing toward you, by Bull Rushing them, you could possibly cause them to move into your space?

[Deophaun]

For you, yes. However, that's something other than a bull rush. Bulls don't fly, you know. :smallbiggrin:
Sure they do. Why else would buffaloes have wings?

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

D&D doesn't have facing, so you can't make that assumption. Plus them facing you as you drive them down into the ground would require them to be prone. Unless you have a way of making them prone before the bull rush, back isn't toward the ground.

I've seen enough episodes of Dragon Ball Z in which someone is flying in from above, and the defender is facing up and pushing up toward them, but gets shoved into the ground anyway. It totally works cinematically, and the RAW does not explicitly disagree with this use of the maneuver.

[SoraWolf7]

Sure they do. Why else would buffaloes have wings?

Are you sure they didn't drink some Red Bull?

[Keld Denar]

D&D doesn't have facing, so you can't make that assumption. Plus them facing you as you drive them down into the ground would require them to be prone. Unless you have a way of making them prone before the bull rush, back isn't toward the ground.

If you establish direction as a straight line connecting two points, and a line by definition exists in one dimension (composed of two directions of infinite magnitude), then there are only two directions that the target can move. Either the target moves toward you, or it moves away. Back is the only direction that makes sense WRT bullrushing.

I'm an engineer. I get to define the coordinate system!

[LogosDragon]

I've seen enough episodes of Dragon Ball Z in which someone is flying in from above, and the defender is facing up and pushing up toward them, but gets shoved into the ground anyway. It totally works cinematically, and the RAW does not explicitly disagree with this use of the maneuver.

Yes, but that requires that the person below be able to fly as well, which is what generally happens in that show, but probably won't be the case if you're Dungeoncrashing in 3.5.

Also, seriously? Using DBZ as an example for a RAW debate?

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Yes, but that requires that the person below be able to fly as well, which is what generally happens in that show, but probably won't be the case if you're Dungeoncrashing in 3.5.

Also, seriously? Using DBZ as an example for a RAW debate?

It was to rebut his claim that to be facing upward they would need to be prone, which is obviously not the case per my example.

[ChaoticDitz]

It was to rebut his claim that to be facing upward they would need to be prone, which is obviously not the case per my example.

Forgive me if I'm wrong (haven't watched DBZ) but aren't the characters in those situations usually hovering with their backs parallel to the ground? I don't think that is the case with something that is getting Dungeon-smashed from above.

Nonetheless, the rules might be different, but I don't see why smashing down on somebody would be disallowed by anyone but the strictest RAW DMs.

[TiaC]

Conceivably, being an incredibly dense block
16lbs/sqft is actually far from dense. The only woods I could find that are less dense are Balsa and Corkwood. Light wood tend to be at least mid 20s and the really dense woods approach 80lbs/sqft.

Also, are people really saying that if I'm facing away from you then you can't bullrush me?

[Darrin]

D&D doesn't have facing, so you can't make that assumption.

It does when you're flying. Hence minimum forward movement and restrictions on turning per maneuverability classes.

[Curmudgeon]

It does when you're flying. Hence minimum forward movement and restrictions on turning per maneuverability classes.
Still no facing. You have to maintain continuity of flight direction, but the character has no requirement to face any particular way while in flight.

[Piggy Knowles]

Actually, this has bothered me for a while. If there's no facing in 3.5 D&D, why does the table for tactical aerial movement include an option for "Move Backwards?" Is it just a remnant from 3.0? It's clearly separate from "reverse," as that's another option entirely (and reversing costs extra movement for those with good maneuverability, while it doesn't for those with perfect). What's the difference between moving backwards and reversing?

[Mr Adventurer]

Ah, D&D optimisation. Causing actual arguments over which way is up since 2013. :D

[IronFist]

It's not that "D&D does not have facing". It obviously does have - creatures have front and back and all. The thing is that facing does not change tactical movement and does not give bonuses or penalties to fighting (because you're not standing still for all of those 6 seconds).

[Slipperychicken]

It seems reasonable to assume that the initiator and subject of a Bull Rush attack would face directly toward one another (being locked in mortal combat and fighting for their lives), so that if one drew a line from initiator to target, then continued it, the target would move along that line.

[Person_Man]

Note that the Shock Trooper Feat gives you the ability to move an enemy 5 ft to the right or left for every 5 ft that you push them back with a Bull Rush. Shock Trooper is taken by pretty much every Fighter around ECL 6ish anyway. So that solves the problem of trying to "steer" an enemy into a specific space.

[Lonely Tylenol]

16lbs/sqft is actually far from dense. The only woods I could find that are less dense are Balsa and Corkwood. Light wood tend to be at least mid 20s and the really dense woods approach 80lbs/sqft.

Also, are people really saying that if I'm facing away from you then you can't bullrush me?

Okay, "incredibly" was hyperbolic. When I said "incredibly", I was not referring to extremely dense materials or any scientific metric--I mostly meant "a solid mass which significantly more dense than, say, cotton, or paper, or maybe human skin".

[TuggyNE]

Actually, this has bothered me for a while. If there's no facing in 3.5 D&D, why does the table for tactical aerial movement include an option for "Move Backwards?" Is it just a remnant from 3.0? It's clearly separate from "reverse," as that's another option entirely (and reversing costs extra movement for those with good maneuverability, while it doesn't for those with perfect). What's the difference between moving backwards and reversing?

Reversing is switching from forward flight to backward. Move backwards is just continuing in backward flight.

[Piggy Knowles]

Reversing is switching from forward flight to backward. Move backwards is just continuing in backward flight.

Right, I understand the concept of moving backwards. What I don't understand is why it is necessary, if there's no facing in 3.5. Shouldn't reversing be enough?

[TuggyNE]

Right, I understand the concept of moving backwards. What I don't understand is why it is necessary, if there's no facing in 3.5. Shouldn't reversing be enough?

Hmm, yeah, dunno. :smallconfused:

[Slipperychicken]

Shock Trooper is taken by pretty much every Fighter around ECL 6ish anyway.

With the main exception of Fighters whose players who either don't know about the feat, or who think it's unfair to use in play.