Dealing Dex damage v3.5

[Yaitanos]

So I have an awesome idea on how to kill a dragon in a game I'm playing in. But to do it I need a little help. I need a way to deal Dex damage. Preferably not with poisons as they would be too expensive for us to make strong enough to affect the dragon. I don't need to deal a lot of dex damage, as very few dragons have dex scores over 10. I just need enough to incapacitate it. It would also be very beneficial if I didn't kill the thing right away, as I'd like to find it's horde.

Preferably I'd like to do this with spells, sneak attack and weapon abilities. Are there any weapon abilities like weakening just for dex instead? I also need a way to ignore natural armor for one shot.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Shivering touch AKA the Dragon Killer (http://dndtools.eu/spells/frostburn--68/shivering-touch--1291/)

[geekintheground]

shivering touch deals 3d6 dex damage as a touch attack. level 3 cleric/wiz/sorc spell.

[Yaitanos]

Thats a nice spell. Won't affect a dragon with the cold subtype though. Which is what we are facing, it's a white. Probably should have mentioned that. My bad. Also, touch spells miiiiight not be the best choice here. Would very much like to avoid having to get close to this thing... well having any of the casters getting close. As a FoP I plan on burrowing into it's hide as a bolt.

[eggynack]

Lahm's finger darts (BoVD, 98) could be what you want then. Roughly comparable dexterity damage, except at a reasonable range, and without the cold issue.

[LTwerewolf]

Energy substitution shivering touch, touched by a spectral hand.

[geekintheground]

Energy substitution shivering touch, touched by a spectral hand.

i dont think that works since the immunity is written into the spell itself.

[StoneCipher]

Or have a familiar deliver the touch spell.


i dont think that works since the immunity is written into the spell itself.

If the DM really wants to nitpick, sure. Its not like you gain any much of a larger advantage by being able to effect cold.

[Yaitanos]

Lahm's finger darts (BoVD, 98) could be what you want then. Roughly comparable dexterity damage, except at a reasonable range, and without the cold issue.

I like this plan, I really do. And affording a scroll of this wouldn't be hard at all. Even at a level high enough that I could beat it's Spell Resistance easily. But to be safe, could you think of a way to help me overcome the SR while using a scroll?

[Elkad]

Lahm's finger darts (BoVD, 98) could be what you want then. Roughly comparable dexterity damage, except at a reasonable range, and without the cold issue.

3.0, which some might have a problem with.

And depending on the dragon, good chance the caster will run out of fingers before the dragon runs out of Restorations :)
Or it will just have Sheltered Vitality up.


OP better have a backup plan...

[LTwerewolf]

i dont think that works since the immunity is written into the spell itself.

If the dm is going to nitpick that much, then just go with ray of clumsiness, ray of exhaustion, possibly a curse or enervation. Use Quill blast for a -1 to saves. Curse of impending blades will debuff ac if you need help hitting the like 8 ac you need to for the touch attacks. Throw an irresistible dance in there if you're concerned that you need more time to do it.

[eggynack]

I like this plan, I really do. And affording a scroll of this wouldn't be hard at all. Even at a level high enough that I could beat it's Spell Resistance easily. But to be safe, could you think of a way to help me overcome the SR while using a scroll?
Assay SR tends to be pretty good at that sort of thing.


And depending on the dragon, good chance the caster will run out of fingers before the dragon runs out of Restorations :)
Or it will just have Sheltered Vitality up.

Seems rather unlikely on both counts. Dragons cast off of the sorcerer list, after all, at least for the most part. Even if the dragon does have access, lahm's finger darts has a reasonable chance of just taking out the dragon in one hit at some levels, which limits the utility of restoration, and sheltered vitality has a duration that makes it very difficult to have up prior to battle.

[Oddman80]

Is the dragon evil? If so, the exalted feat "Touch of Golden Ice" deals 1does 2d6 + target's CHA modifier DEX damage (Fortitude save - DC 14).

This is great on a pouncing animal companion with (5 contact attacts/turn)... Or even better, a totemist, as they can really wrack up the number of natural attacks per turn. It shouldn't take long for a dragon to eventually roll a 1 on the save, and het incapacitated.

[Yaitanos]

Assay SR tends to be pretty good at that sort of thing.

Edited cause I'm a doof and got the spells mixed up with others. Assay SR sounds like the way to go. Buying the first scroll at a CL of 13, plus a scroll of Assay SR at standard, will allow me to overcome just about any dragons SR, and ensure that I'm doing enough Dex damage to take it out.

[LTwerewolf]

Assay Spell Resistance (http://dndtools.eu/spells/spell-compendium--86/assay-spell-resistance--3850/) and lower spell resistance (http://dndtools.eu/spells/draconomicon--92/lower-spell-resistance--1041/) pretty much make spell resistance worthless.

[eggynack]

Yes, but that will save could be an issue. And I'd like to hit it with the dex damage before it realizes it's being attacked. After all, just about every dragon slaying guide recommends that you have the element of surprise.
Assay spell resistance has no save, and a swift action casting.

[StoneCipher]

Is the dragon evil? If so, the exalted feat "Touch of Golden Ice" deals 1does 2d6 + target's CHA modifier DEX damage (Fortitude save - DC 14).

This is great on a pouncing animal companion with (5 contact attacts/turn)... Or even better, a totemist, as they can really wrack up the number of natural attacks per turn. It shouldn't take long for a dragon to eventually roll a 1 on the save, and het incapacitated.

Most dragons will laugh at that fort save. Then pummel you 6 feet under.

[ShurikVch]

Hamstring Attack (http://dndtools.eu/spells/tome-of-battle-the-book-of-nine-swords--88/hamstring-attack--3739/)

Phantasmal Assailants (http://dndtools.eu/spells/spell-compendium--86/phantasmal-assailants--3538/)
Jungle's Rapture (http://dndtools.eu/spells/spell-compendium--86/jungles-rapture--4673/)
Wooden Blight (http://dndtools.eu/spells/complete-champion--57/wooden-blight--632/)
Dirge (http://dndtools.eu/spells/spell-compendium--86/dirge--4386/)
Scourge (http://dndtools.eu/spells/spell-compendium--86/scourge--4132/)

Bonebreaker Hammer (1d6, on crit.) 18312 gp
Diseased (1d3, Filth Fever) +1

[Yaitanos]

Most dragons will laugh at that fort save. Then pummel you 6 feet under.

Which is why I'm trying to avoid saves. I will need it to fail two consecutive will saves though so I can learn the location of it's hordes and what defenses it has there. The base save is at 20 right now, and I can bump it up to 22 with a casting of eagles splendor. It's a supernatural ability and I won't be able to level before this happens. Thoughts?

[Elkad]

Seems rather unlikely on both counts. Dragons cast off of the sorcerer list, after all, at least for the most part. Even if the dragon does have access, lahm's finger darts has a reasonable chance of just taking out the dragon in one hit at some levels, which limits the utility of restoration, and sheltered vitality has a duration that makes it very difficult to have up prior to battle.

I was thinking all dragons had access to cleric/domain spells, but a re-check shows white dragons don't. I'd just never assume the dragon doesn't know you are coming...

If he gets even a single round for Sheltered Vitality (even if he has to drink a potion of it), the plan just went out the window. Or at least needs altering for another group member (or 3) to lead with big dispels hoping to drop his buffs.

[Boci]

If the DM really wants to nitpick, sure. Its not like you gain any much of a larger advantage by being able to effect cold.


If the dm is going to nitpick

You cannot argue "oh but reasonable..." for shivering touch, because baring a high powered game, "oh but reasonable" it ceases to do 3d6 dex damage with no save, and instead becomes a penalty, has a reduced damage amount, allows a fort save for half, or any combination of those 3.

[StoneCipher]

You cannot argue "oh but reasonable..." for shivering touch, because baring a high powered game, "oh but reasonable" it ceases to do 3d6 dex damage with no save, and instead becomes a penalty, has a reduced damage amount, allows a fort save for half, or any combination of those 3.

Yes you can. {scrubbed} It's up to the DM to make decisions like that. I would allow it, and I don't think it would really break anything it hasn't already broken. If a player wants to do stuff like that to my monsters, they can. However, I make sure to take note of them trying to use broken things to their advantage and I become more harsh on them for it. If they want to break my game, I will return the favor.

[Yaitanos]

You cannot argue "oh but reasonable..." for shivering touch, because baring a high powered game, "oh but reasonable" it ceases to do 3d6 dex damage with no save, and instead becomes a penalty, has a reduced damage amount, allows a fort save for half, or any combination of those 3.


Yes you can. {scrub the post, scrub the quote} It's up to the DM to make decisions like that. I would allow it, and I don't think it would really break anything it hasn't already broken. If a player wants to do stuff like that to my monsters, they can. However, I make sure to take note of them trying to use broken things to their advantage and I become more harsh on them for it. If they want to break my game, I will return the favor.

And that's where I'm stopping this before it devolves into an argument. Already decided that while the spell was nice, it wasn't what I was looking for. As I am not a spell caster and will have to use scrolls.
I have what I'm looking for to get it's dex down, now I just need to kill it's will save.

[eggynack]

Yes you can. {scrub the post, scrub the quote} It's up to the DM to make decisions like that. I would allow it, and I don't think it would really break anything it hasn't already broken. If a player wants to do stuff like that to my monsters, they can. However, I make sure to take note of them trying to use broken things to their advantage and I become more harsh on them for it. If they want to break my game, I will return the favor.
But it is already broken, which is the point. It's a spell currently being used to one-shot a dragon. The point is, not everyone has to run the game like a rule Nazi, but it's not right to only run the game like that when it's convenient to you. If you are running the game like that, then the spell doesn't work against the dragon. If you're not, then the spell probably wasn't intended to be this ridiculous. I suppose you could argue that the designer intended the game to work the way you want more than they intended the game to work that other way you don't want, thus indicating that you're on a feasible rule Nazi strata wherein both of your desired rules are in effect, but that'd be a basically impossible thing to prove.

Edit: I still don't really understand why you want to drop the will save. Nothing thus far being used targets it.

[LTwerewolf]

And that's where I'm stopping this before it devolves into an argument. Already decided that while the spell was nice, it wasn't what I was looking for. As I am not a spell caster and will have to use scrolls.
I have what I'm looking for to get it's dex down, now I just need to kill it's will save.

Invisible spell+mind fog, touch of idiocy, ray of stupidity, summon an allip to attack it.

[Boci]

Yes you can.

Fair enough, I should not have spoken in absolutes for a game played in so many ways. Let me amend my statement:

If you argue that shivering touch should be changed so that an energy subbed version of the spell will affect creatures of the cold type, you cannot complain when the DM nerfs the spell for being too powerful to other spells around its level.

[Bronk]

Is the dragon evil? If so, the exalted feat "Touch of Golden Ice" deals 1does 2d6 + target's CHA modifier DEX damage (Fortitude save - DC 14).


Golden Ice by itself has a fixed DC of 14, but the 'Touch of Golden Ice' feat is a supernatural ability, and the effect's DC scales like other special abilities:

DC = 10 + 1/2 the creature's HD + the modifier for the ability score on which the ability is based + other modifiers (often racial)

So, depending on the character, it could still be a viable option.

[Yaitanos]

Fair enough, I should not have spoken in absolutes for a game played in so many ways. Let me amend my statement:

If you argue that shivering touch should be changed so that an energy subbed version of the spell will affect creatures of the cold type, you cannot complain when the DM nerfs the spell for being too powerful to other spells around its level.

Shall we end this with saying that if you use Energy substitution to change the subtype of the spell, creatures with the new energy subtype (or corresponding elemental type) are thus rendered immune to the effects of the spell?

[Boci]

Golden Ice by itself has a fixed DC of 14, but the 'Touch of Golden Ice' feat is a supernatural ability, and the effect's DC scales like other special abilities:

DC = 10 + 1/2 the creature's HD + the modifier for the ability score on which the ability is based + other modifiers (often racial)

So, depending on the character, it could still be a viable option.

Golden ice is a ravage (a poison that only affects evil creatures) with contact DC: 14. The feat may be supernatural, but all it does is subject evil creatures you touch to Golden Ice. Since it is a specific substance, its DC likely does not scale.


Shall we end this with saying that if you use Energy substitution to change the subtype of the spell, creatures with the new energy subtype (or corresponding elemental type) are thus rendered immune to the effects of the spell?

There's plenty of reasonable interpretation, that is potentially one. You could argue that shivering touch as a spell is tied too deeply to the concept of cold for energy sub to explain the RAW without changing it, or nerf the spell, any number of approaches depending on the game, the DM and the players. My main argument was that you cannot pick and choose when to use RAW because it says so and when to use common sense houserules based on which works best for you.

[Yaitanos]

And touch of idiocy with Assay Spell Resistance wins out for reducing will saves! Thank you all for your help! It was much appreciated!

[Bronk]

Golden ice is a ravage (a poison that only affects evil creatures) with contact DC: 14. The feat may be supernatural, but all it does is subject evil creatures you touch to Golden Ice. Since it is a specific substance, its DC likely does not scale.

The feat grants a supernatural ability, which is a subset of special abilities, which follow the scaling rule I listed. Just as a poison is a specific substance, but becomes more powerful as the poisonous creature becomes more powerful, the same is true for the Golden Ice ravage when dealt by a creature.

[StoneCipher]

Shall we end this with saying that if you use Energy substitution to change the subtype of the spell, creatures with the new energy subtype (or corresponding elemental type) are thus rendered immune to the effects of the spell?

That's the way I would have it. I should have clarified if anyone thought otherwise.

If you sub in fire, the immunity changes to fire. I think that's a reasonable assumption to make using energy substitution.

[Boci]

The feat grants a supernatural ability, which is a subset of special abilities, which follow the scaling rule I listed.

Except the feat doesn't grant a supernatural ability, its supernatural in nature and subjects those you touch who are evil to touch of golden ice.


Just as a poison is a specific substance, but becomes more powerful as the poisonous creature becomes more powerful

Most poisons derived from creature list the creature's size. Check the DMG page 297. It specifies whether the poison is is from a small, medium or large specimen, and gives a fixed DC.


That's the way I would have it. I should have clarified if anyone thought otherwise.

If you sub in fire, the immunity changes to fire. I think that's a reasonable assumption to make using energy substitution.

Sure its reasonable, but then its also reasonable for a DM to nerf the spell. And as I pointed out, you can keep it as is and explain that with fluff. There's no wrong answer, except when you are inconsistently to make sure the outcome works best for you.

[StoneCipher]

Sure its reasonable, but then its also reasonable for a DM to nerf the spell. And as I pointed out, you can keep it as is and explain that with fluff. There's no wrong answer, except when you are inconsistently to make sure the outcome works best for you.

I'm just saying that it's the DM's decision to allow and disallow. I'm not expecting a DM to just roll over and take it. I'm speaking from a DM's perspective. It's a broken spell to begin with, and my point is that energy sub would not break it much more than it already is. To allow the spell to begin with is already inviting pain.

I'm very liberal with what people want to do, but if they want to break the game and cheese, I have ways to shut it down. I usually allow it to happen once, because it makes for interesting gameplay if every character has that one moment where they were completely badass. After that, I expect them to be more judicious and fair otherwise they'll have something nasty come and find them. It's always good to know more cheese than your PCs.

[Boci]

I'm just saying that it's the DM's decision to allow and disallow. I'm not expecting a DM to just roll over and take it.

I know, but that's what I read in the two posters I originally quoted, who took the effort to point out how nitpicky a DM who ruled as such would be without acknowledging how broken the spell was.


I'm speaking from a DM's perspective. It's a broken spell to begin with, and my point is that energy sub would not break it much more than it already is.

For the purpose of an encounter with a white dragon the ruling does make a huge difference.


I'm very liberal with what people want to do, but if they want to break the game and cheese, I have ways to shut it down. I usually allow it to happen once, because it makes for interesting gameplay if every character has that one moment where they were completely badass. After that, I expect them to be more judicious and fair otherwise they'll have something nasty come and find them.

I like this approach because it is fair, but at the same time it kinda annoys. In a role playing game I need to be able to understand what the mechanics represent in game, so I need to understand in game why that super powerful move my character just used cannot be employed again.


It's always good to know more cheese than your PCs.

Never hurts sure, but not all DMs know how to win a RAW armsrace with their players.

[Bronk]

Except the feat doesn't grant a supernatural ability, its supernatural in nature and subjects those you touch who are evil to touch of golden ice.


That's right, it grants an ability that is supernatural. A supernatural ability.


Most poisons derived from creature list the creature's size. Check the DMG page 297. It specifies whether the poison is is from a small, medium or large specimen, and gives a fixed DC.

Larger size means more HD and a higher Con, which equate to a higher poison DC.

[Boci]

That's right, it grants an ability that is supernatural. A supernatural ability.

Arguably not, its a supernatural feat that exposes any evil creature you touch to golden. That is arguable the ability it grants "exposed touched evil creature to golden ice", which has not save, the supernatural ability it producing a magical substance, like minor creation to make a poison. In both cases, the source of the poison/ravage does not influence the DC. This the interpretation I use and most others. Yours has merit, I'd need to think a bit more about it.

[Zilzmaer]

In both cases, the source of the poison/ravage does not influence the DC.

Then why does the description for, say, a monstrous centipede specify that the poison DC is Con-based? If the particular creature didn't matter, it shouldn't have to give that information to DMs who want to beef up their monsters.

[Boci]

Then why does the description for, say, a monstrous centipede specify that the poison DC is Con-based? If the particular creature didn't matter, it shouldn't have to give that information to DMs who want to beef up their monsters.

Because the creature isn't using magic/a supernatural ability to summon/subject its target to a specific type of poison, unlike touch of golden ice. Its a different case and it was my mistake to bring it up earlier.

[Phelix-Mu]

Golden ice is a ravage (a poison that only affects evil creatures) with contact DC: 14. The feat may be supernatural, but all it does is subject evil creatures you touch to Golden Ice. Since it is a specific substance, its DC likely does not scale.

Counterargument: Poisons have fixed DCs, but creatures that have poisonous attacks have a DC that scales with their HD. The Touch of Golden Ice could plausibly be viewed in the same light as the poison a snake delivers.

At least, it would be far from broken if it did. The other option is hardly worth a feat (especially one that goes away from time-to-time).

[Boci]

Counterargument: Poisons have fixed DCs, but creatures that have poisonous attacks have a DC that scales with their HD. The Touch of Golden Ice could plausibly be viewed in the same light as the poison a snake delivers.

At least, it would be far from broken if it did. The other option is hardly worth a feat (especially one that goes away from time-to-time).

Probably not broken no, but very powerful. Dealing 1d6 + target's cha mod (+1 vs. undeador elemental, +2 vs. clerics of evil dieties/outsider) dexterity damage to all evil creatures is pretty powerful once the DC scales with you, and ravages do appear to pierce poison immunity and an undead's immunity to fort saves (that don't also apply to objects) and their immunity to physical state damage. I doubt you could name many feats with a comparable power level, and that is before you even consider the secondary damage.

But then since it is exalted you could argue that is the point.

[Phelix-Mu]

Probably not broken no, but very powerful. Dealing 1d6 + target's cha mod (+1 vs. undeador elemental, +2 vs. clerics of evil dieties/outsider) dexterity damage to all evil creatures is pretty powerful once the DC scales with you, and ravages do appear to pierce poison immunity and an undead's immunity to fort saves (that don't also apply to objects) and their immunity to physical state damage. I doubt you could name many feats with a comparable power level, and that is before you even consider the secondary damage.

But then since it is exalted you could argue that is the point.

Yeah, it would be quite powerful except for a bunch of caveats:

- Role play dependent: Some DMs might play hard ball with making an Exalted character act that way, and if they don't so act, bye bye feats.

- No effect on non-evil creatures: Although in a campaign with Exalted you can probably expect to mainly be fighting evil enemies, this is unlikely to be universally the case, and it will be of no avail against things like elementals, oozes, plants, animals, a plethora of outsiders and such that are fairly common in campaigns and generally neutral.

- Requires contact: Up front and personal is rarely the creme de la creme of optimal tactics, and I don't think this feat changes that. There are builds that can take advantage of this, no doubt, but that's true of any game mechanism; in general, standing back while delivering beat face is much superior to delivering it yourself.

Most of the Exalted feats are tragically bad. This I would like to think of as a good exception to that rule (along with Exalted Companion, Exalted WS, and a few others).

[Boci]

Yeah, it would be quite powerful except for a bunch of caveats:

- Role play dependent: Some DMs might play hard ball with making an Exalted character act that way, and if they don't so act, bye bye feats.

- No effect on non-evil creatures: Although in a campaign with Exalted you can probably expect to mainly be fighting evil enemies, this is unlikely to be universally the case, and it will be of no avail against things like elementals, oozes, plants, animals, a plethora of outsiders and such that are fairly common in campaigns and generally neutral.


The problem is, you kinda need to measure an ability based on how it performs in optimal circumstances. There is room for allowing situational abilities to be somewhat more powerful, but that is narrow margin unless the circumstances are ridiculously complex, and are they not here. Its "able to roleplay exalted" and "fighting evil creatures" won't be an uncommon occurrence, and as you noted the two actually play together, the former making the latter more likely.


- Requires contact: Up front and personal is rarely the creme de la creme of optimal tactics,

It certainly is the most optimal tactics for quite a few classes, and the assumption would be they are the ones who take this, not the wizard in the back/floating above the battlefield.

[Phelix-Mu]

It certainly is the most optimal tactics for quite a few classes, and the assumption would be they are the ones who take this, not the wizard in the back/floating above the battlefield.

Well, contact is significantly more constrained than melee. There are only a few classes that do barehanded by default, but I concede that you do have a point.

On the other hand, compare with wand of shivering touch. Wand is still superior for less resource, usable by wider range of characters, as broke as ever, more potential versatility in delivery, and works on a potentially wider range of enemies (although that will vary significantly campaign-to-campaign). All in all, I don't see a buff to Touch of Golden Ice putting it above already available options.

Plus, it's available to non-casters and those not proficient in UMD, which makes me inclined to make it better, as opposed to having it age into obscurity as per the fixed DC interpretation.

[Boci]

Well, contact is significantly more constrained than melee. There are only a few classes that do barehanded by default, but I concede that you do have a point.

On the other hand, compare with wand of shivering touch. Wand is still superior for less resource, usable by wider range of characters, as broke as ever, more potential versatility in delivery, and works on a potentially wider range of enemies (although that will vary significantly campaign-to-campaign). All in all, I don't see a buff to Touch of Golden Ice putting it above already available options.

Plus, it's available to non-casters and those not proficient in UMD, which makes me inclined to make it better, as opposed to having it age into obscurity as per the fixed DC interpretation.

You're comparing apples to oranges. Not only is shivering touch a broken spell that is generally recommended to be nerfed or used responsibly by PC and DM alike, its a 3rd level spell, of course it, and the vast majority of 3rd level spells, will be more power than a feat that triggers passively with no limit to how many times you can use it per day.

Even with the fixed DC, some enemies, like undead, will have a low fort save which will keep it viable in later levels, and even opponents with a +13 or higher fort save still have a 5% chance of being affected, which a lot better than being immune, which evil creatures pretty much cannot be, a rare occurrence in D&D.

If the DC scaled, the feat could become a must have for unarmed characters. Whether or not this is a problem depends on how you feel exalted feats should work. Roleplaying an exalted character can be pain, but moderating mechanical power with rp is always a tricky edge to walk on.