Aptitude and why people think they can do pun pun things to it

[BRKNdevil]

It seems pretty obvious that it was only meant for the same sort of things that a warblade can reassign considering the requirements and choice of feats they chose as examples when there are quite a few other feats in core that would allow its application to specific weapons. Like Manyshot, which really, really should have allowed more weapons for its use.

So why are there a bunch of rather useless threads trying to apply keen aptitude kukris to lightning maces when it doesn't work with them?

[Anlashok]

Probably because what you consider "pretty obvious" seems completely arbitrary.

[Sqmach]

While I agree it probably shouldn't do the things they claim, the fact is that it does by RAW. Any feat that works with a specific weapon works with an aptitude weapon, so that opens it up to many things like Lightning Mace which do specify specific weapons. I expect many DMs to throw the book at you when you try this, and that is well within their right as DM. We could go on and on forever about the actual intention of the rule, but we don't actually know what that is, nor do we have any way of finding it out, so it would be pointless.

[OldTrees1]

While I agree it probably shouldn't do the things they claim, the fact is that it does by RAW. Any feat that works with a specific weapon works with an aptitude weapon, so that opens it up to many things like Lightning Mace which do specify specific weapons. I expect many DMs to throw the book at you when you try this, and that is well within their right as DM. We could go on and on forever about the actual intention of the rule, but we don't actually know what that is, nor do we have any way of finding it out, so it would be pointless.

Correction: The RAW is ambiguous about where it draws the line. Different literate people reading the same sentence will draw different meanings even when trying to stick to RAW.

So we can go on and on forever about RAW but there will never be a consensus, so it would be pointless.

[heavyfuel]

I think people are, again, mistaking Aptitude Weapon for Weapon Aptitude. Happens every time.

The Warblade's Weapon Aptitude class feature is very restrictive, and has very little application - unless your DM likes to give you random treasures, in which case, it's a godsend.

Aptitude Weapons enhancement however, can be abused, and are not ambiguous by RAW.


A wielder who has feats that affect the use of a particular type of weapon, [...] can apply the benefits of those feats to any weapon that has the aptitude quality.

[ekarney]

What do you mean it's not that great?

It lets you reload your greatsword.

In seriousness, it's quite a good enhancement all things considered, it's helped bring a few builds of mine online, in addition it's literally one of the only ways to make a viable sling build.

[zergling.exe]

What do you mean it's not that great?

It lets you reload your greatsword.

This is gold. May I sig it? I too would like to rapidly reload my greatsword.

[ekarney]

This is gold. May I sig it? I too would like to rapidly reload my greatsword.

Of course you can!

[Curmudgeon]

Aptitude Weapons enhancement however, can be abused, and are not ambiguous by RAW.
Your elision removed the part which makes it not ambiguous and not particularly abusable.
Effect: A wielder who has feats that affect the use of a particular type of weapon, such as Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, or the like, can apply the benefits of those feats to any weapon that has the aptitude quality.

Weapon Focus [General]
Choose one type of weapon.

Greater Weapon Focus [General]
Choose one type of weapon for which you have already selected Weapon Focus.

Weapon Specialization [General]
Choose one type of weapon for which you have already selected the Weapon Focus feat.
So yes, any feat which affects a particular type of weapon following this "Choose one type of weapon" pattern may be reapplied with an Aptitude weapon. If it doesn't follow the pattern, it's not "or the like".

[Twurps]

+1 to curmudgeon.

However: Op's question wasn't 'What is the RAW on aptitude weapon enhancement?'
rather is was: 'So why are there a bunch of rather useless threads trying to apply keen aptitude kukris to lightning maces when it doesn't work with them?'

the answer is (My answer anyway):
People are people, not robots. And people have a few recurring quirks. One of them is that we are biased. We may try very hard not to be, but we are. Always.
The other is we have emotions, and when we get enthousiastic/annoyed/frustrated about something (e.g. lightning kukri's) these two quirks make us do weird things. We may read something, fully believing to be interpreting it as 'pure RAW', but it simply isn't. All reading needs interpretation applied to it (or the letters wouldn't even make words, and words wouldn't make sentences). And in this interpretation proces, our brain sneaks in a good dose of bias, based on our emotional state regarding the things we are reading.

I fully believe people (at least some of them), fully believe to have read the relevant text, interpreted it by pure RAW, and concluded lightning kukri's are a thing. Just as I have read it, fully believing I am unbiased, stick to raw, and concluded they are not a thing. Who is right? Only an unbiased person can tell. Exept they don't exist, so good luck with that.

[Chronos]

"Such as" is not restrictive. The text shows that you can use it on Weapon Focus. It does not prove that you can't use it on Lightning Maces.

[Aldrakan]

The other is we have emotions, and when we get enthousiastic/annoyed/frustrated about something (e.g. lightning kukri's) these two quirks make us do weird things. We may read something, fully believing to be interpreting it as 'pure RAW', but it simply isn't. All reading needs interpretation applied to it (or the letters wouldn't even make words, and words wouldn't make sentences). And in this interpretation process, our brain sneaks in a good dose of bias, based on our emotional state regarding the things we are reading.


So, so true. It's actually something that's been annoying me recently about TO threads - because they're about finding the most powerful things you can do this affects how they read the rules, and way too often this results in an insistence that the interpretation of an ambiguous rule that lets them do it is the one that's "RAW". I've actually seen the "peasant rail-gun" referred to as something you can do in the rules, even though it requires the DM to selectively apply, disable, and reapply real-world physics throughout the process.
This kind of clear unambiguous meaning is not what English is made for. There's a reason we have a massive profession devoted to arguing about what laws mean. Magic the Gathering has put considerable effort making its wording unambiguous but they still need judges at every draft and tournament.
It's also not what D&D rules are written for. Every game is supposed to have a judge sitting there the whole time to interpret any murkiness in the rules, or even rewrite them on the spot if it seems appropriate. A large number of TO questions really have the answer "Ambiguous, ask your DM", it's just that's a very unsatisfying way to end the thread.
This is very much one of those cases.


"Such as" is not restrictive. The text shows that you can use it on Weapon Focus. It does not prove that you can't use it on Lightning Maces.

Right, it also doesn't mean that you can.


Effect: A wielder who has feats that affect the use of a particular type of weapon, such as Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, or the like, can apply the benefits of those feats to any weapon that has the aptitude quality.

Someone gets to decide whether a feat is sufficiently similar to fall into the "and the like" category. Guess what, that person is the DM. Which means that it's not RAW legal or RAW illegal. It is up to the DM (and the DM will probably to say no).

[StreamOfTheSky]

I wish the OP were right, it's a horribly abusive enhancement and one of the only ones I ban. If I used Curmudgeon's interpretation, it'd be much more balanced, basically just warblade's class feature in item form.

In any case, I always thought the most abusive use was actually with Boomerang Daze. Though "Lightning Kukris" can be pretty ridiculous, too.

[Werephilosopher]

Right, it also doesn't mean that you can.

Indeed. The "feats that affect the use of a particular type of weapon" means that you can. "Such as" just gives examples.


Someone gets to decide whether a feat is sufficiently similar to fall into the "and the like" category. Guess what, that person is the DM. Which means that it's not RAW legal or RAW illegal. It is up to the DM (and the DM will probably to say no).

The Aptitude quality itself is not ambiguous - it qualifies for any feat that affects the use of a particular type of weapon. SOME of those feats include Weapon Focus "and the like," and whether a given feat qualifies as "and the like" is ambiguous, so up for DM adjudication; but that adjudication is inconsequential, since it doesn't have to fall under "and the like" to be affected by the Aptitude quality.

[Brova]

I wish the OP were right, it's a horribly abusive enhancement and one of the only ones I ban. If I used Curmudgeon's interpretation, it'd be much more balanced, basically just warblade's class feature in item form.

In any case, I always thought the most abusive use was actually with Boomerang Daze. Though "Lightning Kukris" can be pretty ridiculous, too.

It's not abusive at all. Seriously, Boomerang Daze is the only trick I've seen with it that is even "kind of good". Are you really telling me that it's too good for people to take four feats, one of which is Weapon Focus (Mace) to get an extra attack on like a quarter of their attacks if they up their threat range? That doesn't seem good.

[zergling.exe]

It's not abusive at all. Seriously, Boomerang Daze is the only trick I've seen with it that is even "kind of good". Are you really telling me that it's too good for people to take four feats, one of which is Weapon Focus (Mace) to get an extra attack on like a quarter of their attacks if they up their threat range? That doesn't seem good.

There was a TO thread a while ago that used Lightning Kukris to get infinite attacks. Can't recall the thread title though, shame.

[Brova]

There was a TO thread a while ago that used Lightning Kukris to get infinite attacks. Can't recall the thread title though, shame.

I'm pretty sure if you can get your threat range down to 2-20 from 18-20 you can do it from 20.

[Aldrakan]

Indeed. The "feats that affect the use of a particular type of weapon" means that you can. "Such as" just gives examples.

The Aptitude quality itself is not ambiguous - it qualifies for any feat that affects the use of a particular type of weapon. SOME of those feats include Weapon Focus "and the like," and whether a given feat qualifies as "and the like" is ambiguous, so up for DM adjudication; but that adjudication is inconsequential, since it doesn't have to fall under "and the like" to be affected by the Aptitude quality.

Unbelievable. You are splitting the sentence in half so that you can point to the first half and say see, that's the actual rule, as though the second half of the same sentence is irrelevant and not a direct clarification of the first.

Look if you go on a school outing and the teacher says "You can bring food, such as a sandwich, bag of chips, an apple, or the like." and you show up with a whole roast pig on a spit, you have violated the teacher's instructions.

[Vhaidara]

I'm pretty sure if you can get your threat range down to 2-20 from 18-20 you can do it from 20.

Not really. The base range and Keen/Improved Crit counts for 5 points in the range.

[Brova]

Not really. The base range and Keen/Improved Crit counts for 5 points in the range.

Eh, there are additive modifiers (some Barbarian ability for one, IIRC) that should make up for it. Honestly though, it's not a strike against the feat any more than white raven tactics looping is a strike against ToB.

[OldTrees1]

"Such as" is not restrictive. The text shows that you can use it on Weapon Focus. It does not prove that you can't use it on Lightning Maces.

"Such as, ..., or the like." is restrictive in the English language.

[ryu]

Unbelievable. You are splitting the sentence in half so that you can point to the first half and say see, that's the actual rule, as though the second half of the same sentence is irrelevant and not a direct clarification of the first.

Look if you go on a school outing and the teacher says "You can bring food, such as a sandwich, bag of chips, an apple, or the like." and you show up with a whole roast pig on a spit, you have violated the teacher's instructions.

Nope. That would be the teacher misusing language. Sorta like all those times you hear people use the word decimate to imply total annihilation of something rather than simply removing ten percent of it. Just because most people can speak English doesn't mean they can do it well.

[OldTrees1]

Nope. That would be the teacher misusing language. Sorta like all those times you hear people use the word decimate to imply total annihilation of something rather than simply removing ten percent of it. Just because most people can speak English doesn't mean they can do it well.

Pause for a moment. You are implying the language is being misused and are presuming that your personal usage is the accurate one. Instead take a moment to think about the following:

"Such as, ..., or the like." Is a description/definition of a set while "Such as, ..." is a list of examples. Just because a minority of optimizers equate the two does not mean that they are the same.

At this point you have 4 options:
1) Claim I am misusing the language
2) Claim you are misusing the language
3) Reference an objective source (note: a personal interpretation of an objective source =/= an objective source)
4) Ignore me

[ryu]

Pause for a moment. You are implying the language is being misused and are presuming that your personal usage is the accurate one. Instead take a moment to think about the following:

"Such as, ..., or the like." Is a description/definition of a set while "Such as, ..." is a list of examples. Just because a minority of optimizers equate the two does not mean that they are the same.

At this point you have 4 options:
1) Claim I am misusing the language
2) Claim you are misusing the language
3) Reference an objective source (note: a personal interpretation of an objective source =/= an objective source)
4) Ignore me

Option 1. Your examples are actually a negative for your point. Such as implies that their are options which meet the criteria without being explicitly mentioned. The word or denotes that additional things fit into the previously denoted category or list with a requirement for specification to determine the nature of the additional subgroup. ''or the like'' is either fully improper due to being an unnecessary repetition, or for giving no parameters to give any sort of meaningful criteria. It could also be argued to denote every option previous to the or as exclusive with all that is denoted after it.

[Werephilosopher]

Unbelievable. You are splitting the sentence in half so that you can point to the first half and say see, that's the actual rule, as though the second half of the same sentence is irrelevant and not a direct clarification of the first.

You could remove the second half of the sentence and the sentence would retain its original meaning, so, yeah. The second half gives examples pertaining to the first half, but it doesn't define every feat that could pertain to the first half.


Look if you go on a school outing and the teacher says "You can bring food, such as a sandwich, bag of chips, an apple, or the like." and you show up with a whole roast pig on a spit, you have violated the teacher's instructions.

You have followed the teacher's instructions precisely; you've just violated their intent. RAW vs. RAI.

[nyjastul69]

You could remove the second half of the sentence and the sentence would retain its original meaning, so, yeah. The second half gives examples pertaining to the first half, but it doesn't define every feat that could pertain to the first half.



You could remove the second half of the sentence and it would retain its meaning, so yeah, basically.
You have followed the teacher's instructions precisely; you've just violated their intent. RAW vs. RAI.

No, the RAW was violated. A roasted pig is not like the aforementioned foods.

[StreamOfTheSky]

It's not abusive at all. Seriously, Boomerang Daze is the only trick I've seen with it that is even "kind of good". Are you really telling me that it's too good for people to take four feats, one of which is Weapon Focus (Mace) to get an extra attack on like a quarter of their attacks if they up their threat range? That doesn't seem good.

Your definition of what's "good" vs. abusive is clearly different from mine, I don't play in the tippyverse.

Boomerang Daze is a very powerful feat you can easily use to daze-lock multiple enemies with extremely high save DCs, round after round, while still doing damage (indeed, the more damage, the higher the save DC!), pretty much instantly winning many encounters. Its *only* remotely balanced (like lightning mace) by requiring such a weak base weapon to use it with, and one that's not very optimized for the feat's benefit. Once you get your 2H Greatsword-hurling Lightning Ricochet Bloodstorm Blade in on the fun w/ aptitude property, the save DC is pretty much a gimme. The feat itself only requires Exotic Weapon Proficiency to obtain. So I guess it'd be 2-handed full blades instead of greatswords, then.

If you think that's only "kind of good," I'm glad I don't play in your games.

Your last part is about lightning mace abuse, not boomerang daze, but it's still wrong. Aptitude property can just let Weapon Focus (mace) apply to your kukris anyway. It may be a weak feat, but it's required for many things that are useful. Also, a cleric (war domain) or (I think mace is in one of the weapons groups...) swordsage dip can give it for free. And yes, of course its worth 4 feats. If it wasn't, why would so many people talk about it in the forums and make builds out of it? People want to do it because it's a darn good use of your feats for the benefit.

[Aldrakan]

You could remove the second half of the sentence and the sentence would retain its original meaning, so, yeah.

Um, yeah...if you accept your claim that the second half of the sentence doesn't modify the first, then removing the second half doesn't change the meaning of the first half. Very logical.

[Brova]

Boomerang Daze is a very powerful feat you can easily use to daze-lock multiple enemies with extremely high save DCs, round after round, while still doing damage (indeed, the more damage, the higher the save DC!), pretty much instantly winning many encounters.

Boomerang Daze requires that you invest two feats (Exotic Weapon Proficiency and Boomerang Daze), and doesn't come online until 6th level unless you are a Fighter. If you are a Fighter, I firmly believe you need all the help you can get. If you aren't a Fighter, you just spent all but one of your feats. In exchange, you get to hit two people a round with an attack that is very likely to daze. That's cool, but what are other people doing? Well, the Wizard has stinking cloud, which is a multi-round AoE disable. And web. And major image. And do I need to go on? The Cleric has animate dead, DMM: Persist if he wants it, and possibly rebuking of some kind. So yes, dazing on your attacks is good. But so is the stuff other people are doing.


Once you get your 2H Greatsword-hurling Lightning Ricochet Bloodstorm Blade in on the fun w/ aptitude property, the save DC is pretty much a gimme.

You mean at level nine, when people are running around with cloudkill, baleful polymorph, and magic jar, you can make two ranged attacks that daze people? If you happen to be a Warblade, take Point Blank Shot, and give up your maneuver progression?


And yes, of course its worth 4 feats. If it wasn't, why would so many people talk about it in the forums and make builds out of it? People want to do it because it's a darn good use of your feats for the benefit.

People talk about all sorts of nonsensical stuff on charop boards. I don't want to start a bunch of new internet fights, so I'm not going to list many, but there are a lot. For example, people talk about the power of Monks.

[Chronos]

An apple is an example of a thing you can bring. A bag of chips is an example of a thing you can bring. Things like apples or bags of chips are examples of things you can bring. A roast pig might or might not be an example of a thing you can bring, but the teacher never said you couldn't.

Can I bring an apple? Yes, I can, because the teacher said I can. Can I bring a banana? Yes, I can, because that's like an apple, and the teacher said I can bring things like apples. Can I bring a pig? I'd have to check to see if the teacher said anything else about pigs, because she didn't list pigs as an example, but if she didn't say anything else, then yes, I can.

[nyjastul69]

An apple is an example of a thing you can bring. A bag of chips is an example of a thing you can bring. Things like apples or bags of chips are examples of things you can bring. A roast pig might or might not be an example of a thing you can bring, but the teacher never said you couldn't.

Can I bring an apple? Yes, I can, because the teacher said I can. Can I bring a banana? Yes, I can, because that's like an apple, and the teacher said I can bring things like apples. Can I bring a pig? I'd have to check to see if the teacher said anything else about pigs, because she didn't list pigs as an example, but if she didn't say anything else, then yes, I can.

If you can justify that a roasted pig is like an apple or banana then you can bring it I guess. Good luck convincing someone of that however. I wouldn't consider them at all similar, or of the like.

[Hiro Protagonest]

The real question is... is it even broken? Why would you want your players to not be able to do this? Is it overpowered for your group? Then why are you even touching the warblade, your group shouldn't be playing at a T3 level. There's a great difference between "keen aptitude kukris" and "stack every possible crit modifier for near-infinite attacks". It's like using the Idiot Crusader trick to guarantee you have all your maneuvers, versus using the Idiot Crusader trick for infinite actions.

[killem2]

There was a TO thread a while ago that used Lightning Kukris to get infinite attacks. Can't recall the thread title though, shame.

Hate to break it to you and the other ban happy DMs, I allowed it. It was pretty overrated. We even have crit cards. It took a bit for the turn to end but over all. Pretty average.

DMs around here are too busy getting all worked up and scared over theoretical and not minding their sessions.

[Rubik]

If you can justify that a roasted pig is like an apple or banana then you can bring it I guess. Good luck convincing someone of that however. I wouldn't consider them at all similar, or of the like.All ARE similar, but they're also different. They all have skin, with soft flesh inside the skin. They're all nutritious and juicy. They can all be made into pies. They're all flesh from living things. They share the same ~90% of their genetic makeup that every living thing does. And lots of other traits, as well.

There are lots of similarities between the three. Is that similar enough to count? It's a resounding "maybe."

The roast pig also has plenty of similarities to a bag of chips or a sandwich, as well.

[Brova]

The real question is... is it even broken? Why would you want your players to not be able to do this? Is it overpowered for your group? Then why are you even touching the warblade, your group shouldn't be playing at a T3 level. There's a great difference between "keen aptitude kukris" and "stack every possible crit modifier for near-infinite attacks". It's like using the Idiot Crusader trick to guarantee you have all your maneuvers, versus using the Idiot Crusader trick for infinite actions.

Pretty much this.

Honestly, at the current cost of four feats a pop I probably wouldn't take any of these on a martial character, unless I was already taking most of the prerequisite feats or could use heroics and/or mirror move. I might grab Boomerang Daze, but I think Ubercharging or Tripping might just be better. These are good, but they aren't five feats worth of good.

[Aldrakan]

All ARE similar, but they're also different. They all have skin, with soft flesh inside the skin. They're all nutritious and juicy. They can all be made into pies. They're all flesh from living things. They share the same ~90% of their genetic makeup that every living thing does. And lots of other traits, as well.

There are lots of similarities between the three. Is that similar enough to count? It's a resounding "maybe."

The roast pig also has plenty of similarities to a bag of chips or a sandwich, as well.

I agree. It is indeed a maybe. But the person who's going to resolve that uncertainty is the teacher (or, to leave the analogy for a moment, the DM). And the teacher is most likely going to see that you deliberately chose the interpretation of her instructions that would allow you to do the thing you wanted to do regardless of what effect it had on the trip.

[nyjastul69]

... They share the same ~90% of their genetic makeup that every living thing does...

I'm sorry, can you point me to where D&D discusses genetics? I get where you're coming from. It just doesn't hold up to a certain level of scrutiny. What level of scrutiny is an 'ask your DM' thing.

A roasted pig is not similar to a ham sammich, or an apple, or a bag of chips.

[Sqmach]

A roasted pig is not similar to a ham sammich, or an apple, or a bag of chips.

They share similarities in that they are both foods. A roasted pig and a ham sandwich are even more similar, as ham comes from a pig.

To compare, the text of the ability in question here simply states that it applies to "feats that affect the use of a particular type of weapon." Looking strictly at that sentence, then things like lightning maces or boomerang daze do work. The ability then mentions specific feats, which are feats which do "affect the use of a particular type of weapon," but they are also feats that require you to PICK a particular weapon when you take them. The thing is, its not written as "feats that require you to pick a particular weapon." The disagreement here is whether the feats they give as examples add that additional element of picking the weapon as an actual rule, or if they just picked two feats which also happen to have that restriction in addition to affecting the use of a particular type of weapon.

In the food analogy, someone could say "you can bring food, such as a ham sandwich or a roast beef sandwich." One interpretation of that is that you can only bring a sandwich, but another is that you could bring any number of not listed foods, which may or may not be sandwiches, but are expected to be similar to a sandwich in some vague way. So if you only want people to bring sandwiches, why wouldn't you just say that from the start and make it clear? Because you write D&D books for a living and making horribly written rules and watching as the players bicker entertains you, of course.

Personally, I think the intent was for it to only apply in the more restrictive sense, where the only valid feats are the ones where you must pick the weapon when you take the feat, but that is not actually what is written. You can pull that additional rule out of the given examples, but its a matter of interpretation. Both sides have completely valid arguments because the ability is poorly written, so this argument isn't going anywhere, and neither side is going to convince the other of their viewpoint.

Can't we all just agree to disagree and leave it to our great and powerful DMs to make the call and respect their decisions?

[Chronos]

I'm not actually saying that a roasted pig is like an apple. I'm just saying that it's food, and that we can therefore bring it.

[Rubik]

I'm sorry, can you point me to where D&D discusses genetics? I get where you're coming from. It just doesn't hold up to a certain level of scrutiny. What level of scrutiny is an 'ask your DM' thing.You're verging on strawman territory here. Genetics isn't discussed in D&D, but it is a viable common ground between the foods mentioned, and is thus a similarity which one can use to argue that they are similar enough to warrant bringing the roasted pig.


A roasted pig is not similar to a ham sammich, or an apple, or a bag of chips.Oh really?

A ham sandwich is literally made from the same thing as the roasted pig.

An apple, roasted pig, and chips are all held in a skin/sack/container, and the contents are what are eaten.

The pig, sandwich components, and chips are always eaten cooked, rather than raw. The apple and whole sandwich can easily be cooked.

All are biological in nature, rather than, say, a mineral, like salt.

All can be grown on a farm.

There are more. I could keep listing them.

[nyjastul69]

You're verging on strawman territory here. Genetics isn't discussed in D&D, but it is a viable common ground between the foods mentioned, and is thus a similarity which one can use to argue that they are similar enough to warrant bringing the roasted pig.

Oh really?

A ham sandwich is literally made from the same thing as the roasted pig.

An apple, roasted pig, and chips are all held in a skin/sack/container, and the contents are what are eaten.

The pig, sandwich components, and chips are always eaten cooked, rather than raw. The apple and whole sandwich can easily be cooked.

All are biological in nature, rather than, say, a mineral, like salt.

All can be grown on a farm.

There are more. I could keep listing them.

I used a ham sandwich and a roasted pig for that exact reason. They are not things that are alike. YMMV. As I said, ask your GM.

[Yael]

What do you mean it's not that great?

It lets you reload your greatsword.

Also requesting for siggin' this, it's hilarious.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I used a ham sandwich and a roasted pig for that exact reason. They are not things that are alike. YMMV. As I said, ask your GM.

Gamemasters: purveyors of lunch. :smalltongue:

[daremetoidareyo]

It is actually fun to have weapon aptitude from warblade to allow you to convert style feats into big ole combos.

human warblade 1: power attack, weapon focus (don't matter)
fighter 2: weapon focus (don't matter)
fighter 3: 2WF, bearfang (CW)
martial rogue 4: axe spike (RoS)
martial rogue 5: pointblank shot
warblade 6: tormtor school

You get a few spare attacks and a free grapple attempt. Switch all the weapons to whatever you want to 2WF with, instead of dropping your main weapon for the bearfang, you throw it at someone else.

Still barely competes with fireball + metamagic.

[Necroticplague]

The infinite attacks actually didn't have too much to do with Aptitude Kukri. Just as much, if not more, of the abuse in that trick comes from abusing 3.0-based rules to get ridiculous crit ranges. The Lightning Kukri is just something to do with the crit range.

[nyjastul69]

Gamemasters: purveyors of lunch. :smalltongue:

Where is the bacon in all this? It's all about the bacon.

[ekarney]

Hate to break it to you and the other ban happy DMs, I allowed it. It was pretty overrated. We even have crit cards. It took a bit for the turn to end but over all. Pretty average.

DMs around here are too busy getting all worked up and scared over theoretical and not minding their sessions.

Right here.
One of my players has a 10 - 20 range at the moment, and we were discussing this sort of thing and I told him about the lightning mace trick.
It's been 3 levels since then and he hasn't even bothered with it.

Also honestly I think the interpretation of the rules comes down to:
1. Does it offer rich fluff and really interesting options?
or
2. Does it offer a significant an interesting use of power/versatility?

because the nerfed warblade option offers neither of those, and from my experience WotC only publishes things that offer one of those 2 things.

[Chronos]

In order to get an actual infinite number of attacks, you have to either threaten on literally every roll (which means some way of dealing with auto-miss on a 1), or you have to generate more than one extra attack per threat (Roundabout Kick is the usual choice here) plus threaten on at least 10-20.

[Brova]

In order to get an actual infinite number of attacks, you have to either threaten on literally every roll (which means some way of dealing with auto-miss on a 1), or you have to generate more than one extra attack per threat (Roundabout Kick is the usual choice here) plus threaten on at least 10-20.

It only works if you threaten on every roll. Otherwise you will eventually (though potentially not for a very long time) run out of attacks. Though as the number of attacks you've made increases, the number of times you have to miss also increases, so it will probably end up being "enough to kill whatever needs killing".

[OldTrees1]

It only works if you threaten on every roll. Otherwise you will eventually (though potentially not for a very long time) run out of attacks. Though as the number of attacks you've made increases, the number of times you have to miss also increases, so it will probably end up being "enough to kill whatever needs killing".

Not true.
If each success increases the number of failures you can suffer by 1, then you only need slightly more than a 50% chance of a success to get a finite chance of going infinite.

This is in part due to the Law of Large numbers(which comes into play once the number of failures you can suffer increases).

For any stretch, there is a greater finite chance of it being equal failures/successes, more successes, or more but insufficient failures than there is for it to be enough failures to stop the chain reaction. This status quo/stopping ratio only grows as our number of successes increases the failure/success ration needed to stop. As our successes build up towards infinite, the chance of stopping decreases towards infinitesimal. Thus the infinite sum of our stopping chances ends up being a finite chance that is less than 1(100%).

[XeraEternal]

RAW I tend to agree that there's really no limitation on it, and tbh there really aren't that many true abuse cases besides Lightning Kukri and Boomerang Daze. I define abuse here as "altering the impact of the feat so as to vastly increase its power." Lightning Mace is designed to work with something with a limited critrange, tossing it on a pair of aptitude kaori resin kukri and dropping your critrange to something absurdly low is altering the impact level of the Lightning Mace feat dramatically. Boomerang Daze I find less abusive, though allowing a melee character access to it while keeping their increased damage levels over ranged characters could fall into that definition as well, particularly since the effect is more useful to someone in melee range.

That being said, most of the other feats really don't do much worth calling for Abuse... one could maybe make a case about the feats that let monks flurry with other weapons, but frankly given that someone would have to be playing a monk in the first place, and that the end result is already something that Barbarians have ACF's to replicate, and can be replicated by spells, I really can't say it's an abuse case. Past that, there's things like Hand Crossbow Focus, which while abusive, if you're going to let a player buy an aptitude ballista then you're clearly okay with them cheesing it up a bit (and even then, they'll still be getting outdamaged by the party mage and any melee characters in the party).

The ONLY argument that I would say holds much standing, is that specifically taking feats for the sole purpose of combining them with aptitude weapons is extremely difficult to explain from a character development perspective, and therefore I find it somewhat lacking from a creativity perspective if someone uses them in an actual game. How, exactly, did your character decide that he was going to go through all this effort to learn to throw a boomerang such that it would daze an opponent, and then suddenly they get their hands on a special greatsword and they not only abandon this style of combat they dedicated themselves to (remember that feats are intended to represent dedicated effort that a character put in that gave them access to these special abilities), but also somehow has figured out how to apply those strikes from his boomerang to fighting with this new weapon he's only just picked up? You can argue that the aptitude property makes him ABLE to do such incredible things, but that doesn't explain the character's REASONING. Why would someone who has such an affinity for ranged combat suddenly want to charge at people with a big sword?

[Necroticplague]

The ONLY argument that I would say holds much standing, is that specifically taking feats for the sole purpose of combining them with aptitude weapons is extremely difficult to explain from a character development perspective, and therefore I find it somewhat lacking from a creativity perspective if someone uses them in an actual game. How, exactly, did your character decide that he was going to go through all this effort to learn to throw a boomerang such that it would daze an opponent, and then suddenly they get their hands on a special greatsword and they not only abandon this style of combat they dedicated themselves to (remember that feats are intended to represent dedicated effort that a character put in that gave them access to these special abilities), but also somehow has figured out how to apply those strikes from his boomerang to fighting with this new weapon he's only just picked up? You can argue that the aptitude property makes him ABLE to do such incredible things, but that doesn't explain the character's REASONING. Why would someone who has such an affinity for ranged combat suddenly want to charge at people with a big sword?
The reverse, getting the Aptitude weapon, then developing the Style feat, is both fairly likely (Aptitude is only a +1, a lot of Style feats have some heavy feat investment), and pretty easy to rationalize. For example: "I can rip a man's weapon out of his hand, then use the momentary weakness in his defensive stance to punch him in the face". +1 Aptitude UAS+Steal and Strike (Style feat meant to be used with rapier+kukri). "I can punch a man in the same place quick enough that the second wond aggravates the first to devastating effect.+1" Aptitude UAS+Stone breaker (style feat menat to be used with two light picks).

[XeraEternal]

The reverse, getting the Aptitude weapon, then developing the Style feat, is both fairly likely (Aptitude is only a +1, a lot of Style feats have some heavy feat investment), and pretty easy to rationalize. For example: "I can rip a man's weapon out of his hand, then use the momentary weakness in his defensive stance to punch him in the face". +1 Aptitude UAS+Steal and Strike (Style feat meant to be used with rapier+kukri). "I can punch a man in the same place quick enough that the second wond aggravates the first to devastating effect.+1" Aptitude UAS+Stone breaker (style feat menat to be used with two light picks).

True, but I'm referring to the fact that often people refer to getting the feats early in their career to make sure to optimise the character. The earliest you can possibly get an aptitude weapon is level 5, and that's assuming you pour all of your wealth into it. Even going that route, buying a weapon to abuse its property with a bunch of feats you don't yet have is also kinda weird. Not saying you CAN'T explain it, as you did a good job of doing so, but it makes a lot less sense to figure out how to apply ranged feats to a melee weapon, even IF you get the weapon first. It's not impossible, but you'd have to fluff it damn hard.

[Twurps]

Hate to break it to you and the other ban happy DMs, I allowed it. It was pretty overrated. We even have crit cards. It took a bit for the turn to end but over all. Pretty average.

DMs around here are too busy getting all worked up and scared over theoretical and not minding their sessions.

I take offence to the notion that anything RAW discussed on this forum, and/or any RAW oppinion I voice therein, is a reflection on how I play the game.

There's this forum, and then there's D&d the tabletop game. sometimes, by happy accident, there might even be resemblences.

[Necroticplague]

Even going that route, buying a weapon to abuse its property with a bunch of feats you don't yet have is also kinda weird.

Depends on what exactly the 'aptitude' property does IC (the book isn't exactly very explanatory). If you think of it as 'turns the weapon into a very versatile thing, capable of many different styles at once', then it seems to make perfect sense to first acquire an Aptitude weapons, then develop various ways to utilize its unique property. It's versatile nature easily lets it perform feats weapons of its types shouldn't be remotely capable of doing, so you end up developing a style around it that would normally be physically impossible. And it's not until later, when you get a weapon with the proper properties, that you realize what trait your former weapon takes on to do what you want.

[Brova]

Y'all are forgetting something important. Odd as they may seem, the rules of D&D are the rules of the world D&D characters live in. In the actual world, there's no real reason why you should need to know logic and math to make a computer game about shooting communist robots. But that's how it works. Similarly, one would assume that people are aware that Aptitude weapons exist and that mastering an esoteric but effective fighting style and then buying an aptitude weapon is an effective strategy. I mean, is it really any weirder than a Wizard learning dimension anchor and magic circle against lemmings now so that he can use planar binding later?

[Taveena]

In order to get an actual infinite number of attacks, you have to either threaten on literally every roll (which means some way of dealing with auto-miss on a 1), or you have to generate more than one extra attack per threat (Roundabout Kick is the usual choice here) plus threaten on at least 10-20.

11-20. 10-20 is a 55% crit chance. At 50% crit chance with Lightning Maces and Roundabout Kick, you generate two attacks. Something really interesting that came up in another LM/Disciple of Dispater thread was someone who asked their mathematician friend about it, which was summarized with "The average number of attacks is infinite but it will always come to an end."

Related is the guy who had an Aptitude Kukri build, and was hit with a Death Urge. Failing the save, he proceeded to attack himself about 2500 times for something like 800,000 damage.

[Vhaidara]

11-20. 10-20 is a 55% crit chance. At 50% crit chance with Lightning Maces and Roundabout Kick, you generate two attacks. Something really interesting that came up in another LM/Disciple of Dispater thread was someone who asked their mathematician friend about it, which was summarized with "The average number of attacks is infinite but it will always come to an end."

Related is the guy who had an Aptitude Kukri build, and was hit with a Death Urge. Failing the save, he proceeded to attack himself about 2500 times for something like 800,000 damage.

It wasn't a kukri set up. It was crossbows, and it was from the old Test of Spite.


How do I remember that? He mentioned how many bolts he had.

[Taveena]

It wasn't a kukri set up. It was crossbows, and it was from the old Test of Spite.


How do I remember that? He mentioned how many bolts he had.

RIGHT, and Great Crossbows have the 18-20 threat range, and Aptitude Great Crossbow is very common even for NON infinite loops just because that means Hand Crossbow Focus works and as a result you can bloody full attack.

[Chronos]

Quoth Taveena:

11-20. 10-20 is a 55% crit chance.
Right. It needs to be at least 50% to get two extra attacks, and Roundabout Kick requires you to confirm the crit, not just threaten it, so you have at least a 1 in 20 chance of not getting that one.

And even if you had an exactly 50% chance to get two extra attacks, that's only sort of infinite: The mean expected number of attacks is infinite, but all other measures, like the median, will still be finite, and you're guaranteed to run out of attacks eventually. Putting the chance at greater than 50% means that you're likely to go infinite in every sense.

So yes, I meant 10-20, not 11-20.

[gorfnab]

It wasn't a kukri set up. It was crossbows, and it was from the old Test of Spite.
How do I remember that? He mentioned how many bolts he had.
Here you go. Test of Spite: Olo vs PhoenixRivers (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?125698-Test-of-Spite-Olo-vs-PhoenixRivers&p=6968457#post6968457)
Basically the build focused on Hand Crossbow Focus, Aptitude Hand Crossbows, and Lightning Maces.

[Taveena]

Right. It needs to be at least 50% to get two extra attacks, and Roundabout Kick requires you to confirm the crit, not just threaten it, so you have at least a 1 in 20 chance of not getting that one.

And even if you had an exactly 50% chance to get two extra attacks, that's only sort of infinite: The mean expected number of attacks is infinite, but all other measures, like the median, will still be finite, and you're guaranteed to run out of attacks eventually. Putting the chance at greater than 50% means that you're likely to go infinite in every sense.

So yes, I meant 10-20, not 11-20.

Ah. 10-20 is harder to do, though, because it's an odd prime threat range, which means you need 18-20 Keen + Disciple of Dispater and THEN a further two to your threat range from somewhere.

[martixy]

Aptitude Weapons are funny like that.

But it's a good "shtick" for mundanes to have. It's also why I houserule a slight addition to the Weapon Aptitude class feature: If it can be done with the item property derived from it, it can be done with it.

I have played and seen my fair Aptitude "abuse". And abuse is quoted, because, while it fits the technical definition of the word, it is far below the level of things like metamagic, simulacrum, iron wall, ice assassin, metamorphosis and their ilk.
I think it's an interesting option for players to have. Let the mundanes have something fun for once is what I always say.
A major skill any DM can learn is letting go of their tendency for knee-jerk reactions to surprises or their own preconceived notions. Outside of my regular group I have yet to meet anyone possessing it.

[Talionis]

We have never banned Aptitude weapons at our tables, but our DMs would ban infinite combos or combos that in balance the game. The Players approach the DM about these kinds of things and they work out agreements.

If memory serves, the DM didn't let him get a crit range bigger than 12-20. That's still a big crit range and it's obvious to most people that crit range was nerves between 3.0 and 3.5. It felt like something fun for him to work toward, but didn't break our game.

Honestly it's fun to find or work towards breaking a game, but it's not fun for players or DM s if you do.

My advice is to communicate.

[Stegyre]

"Such as, ..., or the like." is restrictive in the English language.
Indeed, it is. It's called ejusdem generis: when you have specific examples followed by a general one, the general one is limited to the same types as the specific examples.

It's just a simple recognition that it's virtually impossible to make an exhaustive list.

[martixy]

We have never banned Aptitude weapons at our tables, but our DMs would ban infinite combos or combos that in balance the game. The Players approach the DM about these kinds of things and they work out agreements.

If memory serves, the DM didn't let him get a crit range bigger than 12-20. That's still a big crit range and it's obvious to most people that crit range was nerves between 3.0 and 3.5. It felt like something fun for him to work toward, but didn't break our game.

Honestly it's fun to find or work towards breaking a game, but it's not fun for players or DM s if you do.

My advice is to communicate.

There is no way to get infinite combos, unless the DM slips up. And by that I mean allow 3.0 material where the crit system worked differently and be ignorant enough not to comprehend the math of how crits scale.
You see, there is only a single 3.5 legal way(that I'm aware of) to increase threat range past 15-20. And that is the Psychic Weapon Master (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20040827d) for +2. Even then, truly infinite combos are practically impossible(theoretically not, but also theoretically you can start rolling 20s from tomorrow till the end of time, theoretically you could also pass though walls).

In fact, I ran a test:
Over 100000 rounds with 6 attacks(BAB=11) with a 13-20 range, with both LM and RK and 50% hit chance(e.g. dice roll>=11 is a hit), I got: mean = 11.8, stDev = 8.1.
With a 25% hit chance I got: mean = 7.6, stDev = 2.3.
That's an average of 5-6 extra attacks with a pretty significant variance in case #1 and an average of 1-2 extra attacks and a decently small variance in case #2.
(For the curious, the largest outliers, in order were 278 and 49. And as you'll notice the calculation terminated in finite time, since I'm here posting about it).

I realize that over the table it's a bad for the flow of the game to roll many attacks every round, but it's certainly far from infinite, and pretty doable given the data above.

At my table the DM postulated the condition that I can only play that build if I write something to expedite the process, but I guess you can't expect every D&D player to be a programmer too. :smallbiggrin:

[Telok]

Can you run that math again at 70% hit chance? That's a prone target or a flat footed target with a +4 dodge AC.

Or Wraithstrike, that's a nice spell. And what's the mode on those stats? That could be more important than the mean.

[OldTrees1]

Indeed, it is. It's called ejusdem generis: when you have specific examples followed by a general one, the general one is limited to the same types as the specific examples.

It's just a simple recognition that it's virtually impossible to make an exhaustive list.

Yay! We have an English/Law Major(or at least someone that knows the terms) that can help answer this question.



Now that we know the relevant term, we can even google (1st 3 results seemed reputable) some objective sources to list:
(http://thelawdictionary.org/ejusdem-generis/)
(http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Ejusdem+generis)
(https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ejusdem_generis)



Now those who still think Aptitude applies broadly, I invite you to consider and interpret this new evidence from objective sources. Does this change your position?

[Chronos]

Now try running the numbers with a 95% hit chance, because you're pretty quickly going to hit that if you're using the Blood in the Water stance.

And there are a few other ways to get expanded crit range in 3.5, but it's really hard to fit them all onto the same character. A 7th-level streetfighter barbarian (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20070228a) gets +1 to crit range when charging, and this explicitly stacks with keen or improved crit. And I'm pretty sure there's also a 9th-level spell somewhere that does it too-- I thought I remembered it being human-only, but I'm not seeing it in Races of Destiny.

[Necroticplague]

Yay! We have an English/Law Major(or at least someone that knows the terms) that can help answer this question.



Now that we know the relevant term, we can even google (1st 3 results seemed reputable) some objective sources to list:
(http://thelawdictionary.org/ejusdem-generis/)
(http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Ejusdem+generis)
(https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ejusdem_generis)



Now those who still think Aptitude applies broadly, I invite you to consider and interpret this new evidence from objective sources. Does this change your position?

Not really. As far as I can see, that only means that "or the like" is limited to meaning "like weapon focus, greater weapon focus, and weapon specialization". However, Aptitude functions on "feats that effect the use of a particular type of weapon", not "or the like", except insofar as "or the like" is a subset of "feats that effect the use of a particular type of weapon". The way the relevant clause is punctuated (flanked by commas on both sides) marks the examples as a nonrestrictive clause. By definition, the removal of a nonrestrictive clause has no impact on the meaning of the sentence, because is contains only extra, nonessential information (in this case, examples of some acceptable feats).

[Segev]

As written, the listed feats are examples, not a complete set. There is insufficient data provided to specify what about those feats makes them acceptable, but not others which meet the definitional criterion established before the list of examples. Their most obvious purpose is to illustrate to the reader that there are, in fact, feats with which this weapon property works, and allow the reader to examine them for the functionality.

It may be that Curmudgeon's interpretation is the intended reading, that the pattern to be discerned is "choose one weapon." That is not, however, explicitly stated, and while one could draw that inference, it is not guaranteed to be correct. The RAW do not specify that.

For that to be the RAW, rather than RAI (whether you mean "interpreted" or "intended"), it would have to have said something akin to, "Weapons with the Aptitude property may be used with feats for which you must choose a specific weapon when you take the feat, such as [list] and the like, even if the Aptitude weapon is not the kind of weapon you chose when you took the feat."

That is not, however, what was written. What was written allows the use of any feat which requires a particular kind of weapon. In fact, if it did not list the examples provided, one could have argued that the RAW excluded those feats, because they can be used, in theory, with any sort of weapon; the restriction to one kind is made at the selection of the feat. I wouldn't call it a good argument, but it's a valid one to make. The examples clearly included those feats, however, which indicates that that is not an intended restriction. And it is within the denotation of the language sufficiently that it is not a contradiction, but merely a needed clarification.

[martixy]

Can you run that math again at 70% hit chance? That's a prone target or a flat footed target with a +4 dodge AC.

Or Wraithstrike, that's a nice spell. And what's the mode on those stats? That could be more important than the mean.



Now try running the numbers with a 95% hit chance, because you're pretty quickly going to hit that if you're using the Blood in the Water stance.

And there are a few other ways to get expanded crit range in 3.5, but it's really hard to fit them all onto the same character. A 7th-level streetfighter barbarian (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20070228a) gets +1 to crit range when charging, and this explicitly stacks with keen or improved crit. And I'm pretty sure there's also a 9th-level spell somewhere that does it too-- I thought I remembered it being human-only, but I'm not seeing it in Races of Destiny.
Ooohhh... thanks for that resource. :)
If you figure out which 9th level spell you are talking about, please - do tell!
(I am aware of a few that make crits auto-confirm against certain creatures.)

With 95% it's still highly unlikely.
Given the number of trials I ran, I'd say those are pretty consistent results. Only thing missing is a plot. :smallbiggrin:
You also get a bonus million rounds run(last row), while I was trying to figure out how vBulletin tables worked.
Unsuccessfully - I have no idea how to make them fancy.
On that note, is there a reference, or a tutorial somewhere?




Hit %
Att/round
Mean
stDev
Mode
Max Outlier


70
6
17
13.9
8
292


95
8
33.9
25.5
14
415


95
8
34.0
25.8
14
348


95
8
33.9
25.7
14
338


95
8
33.9
25.5
14
315


95
8
34.0
25.8
14
438

[DarkSonic1337]

There is no way to get infinite combos, unless the DM slips up. And by that I mean allow 3.0 material where the crit system worked differently and be ignorant enough not to comprehend the math of how crits scale.
You see, there is only a single 3.5 legal way(that I'm aware of) to increase threat range past 15-20. And that is the Psychic Weapon Master (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20040827d) for +2. Even then, truly infinite combos are practically impossible(theoretically not, but also theoretically you can start rolling 20s from tomorrow till the end of time, theoretically you could also pass though walls).


Actually, you can do even better with the Disciple of Dispater prestige class.

It is a 3.0 prestige class, but because it has not been reprinted it is 3.0 legal as-is. It also increases your critical threat range and EXPLICITLY stacks with improved critical. With 8 levels of it, improved critical, and an 18-20 base weapon you can get 9-20 crit range.

[martixy]

Actually, you can do even better with the Disciple of Dispater prestige class.

It is a 3.0 prestige class, but because it has not been reprinted it is 3.0 legal as-is. It also increases your critical threat range and EXPLICITLY stacks with improved critical. With 8 levels of it, improved critical, and an 18-20 base weapon you can get 9-20 crit range.

Oh, FFS.
I knew this was gonna come up...
To which I explicitly say: NO. I reject your reality and substitute my own.
We all know the "if it hasn't been reprinted" spiel.
And I already addressed it too, though not explicitly.
Crits were designed to play differently in 3.0. That specific game-design principle was abandoned in 3.5 in favour of another. So the underlying system was reprinted, and we should follow the new design. So there.

[Telok]

I think the spell is Hero's Blade from Ebberon. 9th level cleric spell that doubles the crit range and explicitly stacks with Imprpved Crit but not Keen Edge.

Matrixy: is the build you're using the one that gets bonus attacks on a threat or only on a confirmed crit?

[Rubik]

Matrixy: is the build you're using the one that gets bonus attacks on a threat or only on a confirmed crit?AHEM.

I think you mean the Great and Powerful Matrixy.

[martixy]

I think the spell is Hero's Blade from Ebberon. 9th level cleric spell that doubles the crit range and explicitly stacks with Imprpved Crit but not Keen Edge.

Matrixy: is the build you're using the one that gets bonus attacks on a threat or only on a confirmed crit?

That's Lightning Maces and Roundabout Kick respectively.
And the answer is both.

Edit: I don't know about great and powerful... more like meek, but cunning. :D

[Telok]

That's Lightning Maces and Roundabout Kick respectively.
And the answer is both.

Ok, I know what the difference is. My old build from before it got popular (and using mace/rod of withering instead of kukri) runs Dancing Mongoose, Lightning Recovery, Blood in the Water, and Improved TWF for 7 attacks with 4 of them at max bonus and a reroll (level 12 build and I think he had a magic that let him get a rend attack too). You're using the kick feat for one extra attack instead of two from Mongoose. That build with a 19 - 20 threat was getting 5 to 8 hits a round on average. That's why I was confused, a build with a 15 - 20 threat but fewer attacks was getting about the same number of hits.

[martixy]

Well it's not really any specific build we're talking about here.

Just me enabling all of the things in the program.
It was about how much of a runaway sequence we would get(the answer is decently, but not horribly, which was kinda the point).
From my testing the threshold for that is somewhere around 10-11.

It's also fun when you finally get lucky and proc like 20 attacks per round.
I've had some very cool moments that way.

Obviously it's a build that relies on luck even more so than normally, since you get to roll literally a crapton of dice, but it's that much sweeter when things line up for it. Or at least I enjoy builds like that.
And don't try this in a fumble game. Just trust me on that one.
(Just to reiterate, in case someone who isn't familiar with these builds wants to try them out.)

[Curmudgeon]

Actually, you can do even better with the Disciple of Dispater prestige class.

It is a 3.0 prestige class, but because it has not been reprinted it is 3.0 legal as-is. It also increases your critical threat range and EXPLICITLY stacks with improved critical. With 8 levels of it, improved critical, and an 18-20 base weapon you can get 9-20 crit range.
martixy already covered most of this, but I'll point out one critical detail: DoD Iron Power explicitly stacks with 3.0 Improved Critical. A 3.0 prestige class has no ability to alter the workings of 3.5 Improved Critical — a core feat which hadn't been written yet.

[Hiro Protagonest]

martixy already covered most of this, but I'll point out one critical detail: DoD Iron Power explicitly stacks with 3.0 Improved Critical. A 3.0 prestige class has no ability to alter the workings of 3.5 Improved Critical — a core feat which hadn't been written yet.

Right. And you can't enter Disciple of Dispater at all because it requires 3.0 Power Attack, not 3.5.

You're the one who's always following things exactly to the letter. It says "Improved Critical". It does not say "3.0 Improved Critical".

[Chronos]

On Disciple of Dispater: Unupdated 3.0 material can be used in 3.5 with only minor adjustments. It is very easy to argue that, given that most threat-range expanders stacked in 3.0 but not 3.5, unstacking the threat-range expanders is one of the minor adjustments needed in this case. It's not an ironclad argument, of course, but it at least provides a solid justification for a DM to say no.

And yeah, Hero's Blade was the spell I was thinking of.

[Curmudgeon]

Right. And you can't enter Disciple of Dispater at all because it requires 3.0 Power Attack, not 3.5.

You're the one who's always following things exactly to the letter. It says "Improved Critical". It does not say "3.0 Improved Critical".
You use the updates for same-named abilities, so 3.5 Power Attack and Improved Critical automatically replace 3.0 Power Attack and Improved Critical feats.

If there were a 3.5 Disciple of Dispater it would automatically replace the 3.0 version. There is not, so the DM applies minor updates, as Chronos has already pointed out. You don't get to pick and choose which combinations of 3.0 and 3.5 rules you prefer; instead, all 3.5 content is used and the DM makes adjustments of 3.0 material before it can be used in their game. As an aid to making those adjustments, Wizards of the Coast has provided a rule for resolving disagreements.
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.
Iron Power (Ex): When using an iron or steel weapon, a 4th-level disciple of Dispater gains a +1 insight bonus on attack and damage rolls. Furthermore, his threat range is doubled as if he were using a keen weapon. At 8th level, the insight bonus improves to +2, and the threat range triples. This ability does not stack with the keen weapon quality, but it does stack with the Improved Critical feat.
IMPROVED CRITICAL [GENERAL]
...
Special: You can gain Improved Critical multiple times. The effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon.

This effect doesn’t stack with any other effect that expands the threat range of a weapon (such as the keen edge spell). Iron Power (from Book of Vile Darkness) says it stacks with Improved Critical. Improved Critical (from Player's Handbook) says it doesn't stack with any other effect that expands the threat range of a weapon. The Primary Sources Errata Rule says the Player's Handbook is correct here.

[DarkSonic1337]

Wouldn't Iron Power vs Improved Critical be an example of specific vs general though?

Improved Critical generally doesn't stack with effects that improve threat range, but Iron Power specifically mentions stacking with improved critical.

Or would you also argue that the Hero's Blade spell (Eberron Campaign Setting, p. 112) that specifically states it stacks with improve critical does not stack with improved critical?

The only difference between these two examples is that one of them is 3.0 and the other is not. Your argument that the Iron Power ability could be errata'd while making "minor adjustments" to incorporate it into a 3.5 game is fair, but I don't think the primary sources rule applies here.

[Curmudgeon]

Wouldn't Iron Power vs Improved Critical be an example of specific vs general though?
No. One is a feat, and the other is a class ability. Neither is a general rule.

[martixy]

On Disciple of Dispater: Unupdated 3.0 material can be used in 3.5 with only minor adjustments. It is very easy to argue that, given that most threat-range expanders stacked in 3.0 but not 3.5, unstacking the threat-range expanders is one of the minor adjustments needed in this case. It's not an ironclad argument, of course, but it at least provides a solid justification for a DM to say no.
This is what I meant by "differently".
I simply argued updated game system design carries weight in this case.
And Curmudgeon put it in explicit RAW terms.

And it's especially important to unstack multiplicative expanders. From the tests I ran, we start truly diverging at about 10-11 range(wasn't able to get it to work with 12). So think of this as our version of renormalization.


And yeah, Hero's Blade was the spell I was thinking of.
Yisss.... thank you. :smallbiggrin:
I shall steadfastly try to abuse that spell at some point in the future.

On that note... I am now morbidly curious - besides Pun-Pun and this, is there some other way of breaking the game that fundamentally(I'm talking infinity style)?


On a less-conceptual note... To get it 9-20 you need 7 levels of that barbarian, 7 levels of PWM, 3 levels of warblade(crit confirm - actually has a pretty significant impact for this build), something to qualify for PWM(say PW2), 17 levels of cleric.
That's 36 levels altogether. So either be an epic character or near-epic with a cleric buddy in the party(or be gestalt).
Cleric 17 / Barb 1 // PW 2 / WB 3 / PWM 6 / Barb 6 / PWM 1

Super awkward, but hey, 9-20 on charge or vs flat-footed folk. And decent or even full BAB depending on if you use fractional BAB or not.
Level 4 PW gets you Psionic Lion’s Charge(much easier than the Tiger Claw maneuver) in case you skip warblade 2/3.
Both PW/PWM and Cleric are wisdom based too.

Also, I came up with a couple of related home-brew feats:
1. Aimed shot [Fighter Bonus Feat, General]

You choose to aim exclusively for your foe's vital spots. You miss more frequently, but when you do hit, it's usually where it really hurts!

Prerequisites:
Proficient with ranged weapon, Precise shot, BAB +6

Benefit:
You may elect to take -4 penalty to your attack in exchange for a +1 bonus to your weapon's threat range. You can take a greater penalty in exchange for a greater bonus to threat range, but only up to your BAB. The bonus to threat range stacks with Improved Critical and Keen Edge or a keen arrow, but as usual these don't stack between themselves.


2. Targeted Strike [Fighter Bonus Feat, General]

You choose to strike exclusively at your foe's vital spots. You miss more frequently, but when you do hit, it's usually where it really hurts!

Prerequisites:
Proficient with melee weapon, Weapon Focus, BAB +6

Benefit:
You may elect to take -4 penalty to your attack in exchange for a +1 bonus to your weapon's threat range. You can take a greater penalty in exchange for a greater bonus to threat range, but only up to your BAB. The bonus to threat range stacks with Improved Critical and Keen Edge, but as usual these don't stack between themselves.

Special:
You can use this feat with Power Attack, but the combined penalty from both must not exceed your BAB.
I'm especially keen(heh heh) on the ranged version, but even the melee version is not that unbalanced, since attack bonus plays such a massive role in breaking any potential runaway sequences.
Not theoretically, but to the point where any creature weak enough to create a runaway loop isn't going to be worth XP to that character anymore.

[Chronos]

Just Warblade 1 is enough, since that gets you the Blood in the Water stance. A stacking +1 to hit (and to damage) every time you threaten a crit means that starting about halfway through the first round, every attack hits (and every threat confirms) on anything but a natural 1.

As for other infinite tricks, my personal favorite is the d2 crusader. The short version is that there's a stance that lets you re-roll your damage and add it whenever you roll max damage, and there's a feat that lets you treat all damage rolls of 1 as 2. So if you're wielding a weapon that does 1d2 damage, you always either roll a 2, or roll a 1 that's treated as a 2, and either way, you get to roll again... and again, and again.

[Telok]

At around 15th level you can have an artificer make a 3/day item (scabbard in my case) of Hero's Blade. But I wan't using it on a crit build, it was just for that extra fun.