Cloud of Knives Build 3.5

[Skullruss]

I intend to build a cloud of knives based character (using persistent spell, twin spell, and repeat spell to pump out knives). I will likely be going master spell thief with unseen seer for hunters eye and pumping SA. I had a few questions which would help make this character actually good:

1. Does cloud of knives proc sneak attack and other on-hit effects, if so what other effects would be good to get for him?
2. Do the knives count as thrown weapons/projectiles for the purposes of buff spells, again if so please let me know what you would suggest.
3. If I use fell drain, does it proc here or no due to the damage being a weapon.
4. Any misc. suggestions are appreciated.

[Nifft]

I think Persistent works, but I don't think you can use Twin or Repeat to fire multiple knives per round.

I think you're limited to one knife per round:



Each round as a free action at the beginning of your turn, you can release one of these knives at (...)


If you're using Twin or Repeat as a safeguard against dispel then that might be viable, but it seems unusual.

[Rebel7284]

Multiple spells with the same effect typically don't stack. You may be able to pull it off with Share Spell and some familiars/animal companions/etc.

[Fouredged Sword]

Cloud of knives does proc sneak attack just as any other attack. Note, you can only make one sneak attack per action due to the volley rules except for full round actions.

And cloud of knives is a spell. It is a weapon like spell, so it will benefit from things like weapon focus and weapon specialization, but it is not actually a weapon. It benefits from fell drain and such. Feats that apply to knives should not apply to cloud of knives. Feats that apply to spells should.

One way you CAN get an extra knife each round is to have a familiar and share the spell with the animal sitting on your shoulder. Because you can share personal range spell with a familiar who is touching you it can also make an attack each round. It even uses no more spell slots and has your BAB. It does not have your sneak attack though, but you can share hunter's eye as well so giving your familiar +sneak attack items may be useful anyway as they will benefit whenever you give your familiar sneak attack via spells.

If you can find a way to make cloud of knives increase AC, add temp HP, heal, or add to the target's saves you can then take 4 levels of spellguard of silverymoon and turn it into a touch range spell and thus a viable target for chain spell.

[Goaty14]

If you can find a way to make cloud of knives increase AC, add temp HP, heal, or add to the target's saves you can then take 4 levels of spellguard of silverymoon and turn it into a touch range spell and thus a viable target for chain spell.

Casting it as a Favoured Soul with the one PHBII ACF give it Temp. HP. Downside is that you have to get arcane casting, which will make you lose CLs unless you enter spellguard via something like southern magician.

[Falontani]

Symbionts all get Share Spells with host. Is there a limit to the number of symbionts you can have?

[daremetoidareyo]

Symbionts all get Share Spells with host. Is there a limit to the number of symbionts you can have?

How many body parts you got?

[Bakkan]

Check to see how your DM interprets the interaction between Invisible Spell (Cityscape) and cloud of knives. RAW it likely does nothing, but Invisible Spell is ambiguous enough (as always) that it's not unreasonable to rule that the knives generated by an invisible cloud of knives ignore DEX and get a +2 bonus to attack. Don't push this if the DM shuts it down, it's overkill at many tables.

[Fouredged Sword]

Check to see how your DM interprets the interaction between Invisible Spell (Cityscape) and cloud of knives. RAW it likely does nothing, but Invisible Spell is ambiguous enough (as always) that it's not unreasonable to rule that the knives generated by an invisible cloud of knives ignore DEX and get a +2 bonus to attack. Don't push this if the DM shuts it down, it's overkill at many tables.

Even if the knives are invisible, you are not. The attacker needs to be invisible. I know, it makes little sense, but that is how the rules work.

That said, greater invisibility is a wonderful spell.

Mix spellguard of Silvermoon with Warweaver for "And then there are knives". Also pairs well with Ring of Blades and the selective spell from spellguard to give all your allies a AOE around them that ignores the party and kills the enemy so long as you have a type difference from your enemy.

[Jowgen]

Even if the knives are invisible, you are not. The attacker needs to be invisible. I know, it makes little sense, but that is how the rules work.

This, although if one wanted to make an argument for it, there is Bladeshimmer, CS p. 114. Makes weapons invisible, if the oponent fails their spot check against your Sleight of Hand +10 they are flatfooted.

[Climowitz]

I like where this is going, perhaps adding a bit of Daggerspell mage should work. Please share your build after you have it. Including spells if you please.

[Zaq]

Symbionts all get Share Spells with host. Is there a limit to the number of symbionts you can have?

If there’s a limit, it’s either really high or is based on a cost that can be obviated somehow. Isn’t that the basis of the Nasty Gentlemen build? I may have to look that one up once I’m not on mobile.

[Long_shanks]

I made a build once, using persistent greater invisibility, cloud of knives and hunter's eye.

T'was something like Spellthief 1/Binder 1/Wizard 3/Unseen seer 4/Anima mage 10/ X 1

Ends up with level 17 wizard casting, +18d6 SA (1 from spellthief, 2 from unseen seer, 2 from assassin's stance, 7 from hunter's eye (CL 21 with practiced spellcaster), 3 sudden strike from Malphas (vestige) and 3 from Andromalius (vestige). I remember ending around 24-25d6 of SA, but I can't remember how I managed to do that; probably some CL shenanigans with Hunter's eye and a rogue level at level 20.)

Plus, depending reading of Master spellthief, 18 die of sneak attack can just ruin any spellcaster you encounter.

[Mato]

RAW it likely does nothing, but Invisible Spell is ambiguous enough that it'sUnreasonable to suggest homerules for extra bonuses.

Misleading vividness is a type of appeal and it's a fallacy. Invisible spell isn't very ambiguous, it very clearly states the spell's effects have no visual manifestation and all other aspects remain unchanged. Your argument is a large pile of compositional fallacies starting from the assertion that invisible spell is ambiguous instead of being worded to prevent everything you just said. Then you're trying to apply the invisibility condition creatures can be under to the spell, rather than the creature affected by it. And I'm not even sure what you're trying to get to with the idea that all unobserved visual displays render a target flat-footed. Searing light moves at the speed of light, does it always strike flat-footed targets or are the people in D&D's world naturally FTL? I think you need to tone down skimming forum posts as evidence for your opinion of what something should say.


I intend to build a cloud of knives based character (using persistent spell, twin spell, and repeat spell to pump out knives).Twinned & repeat won't work.

You're better off using snowcast to add the cold descriptor to it which serves as a gateway for other abuse. Like now that it has a descriptor to it it's eligible for energy substitution and energy admixture, the latter adds an equal amount of damage of your chosen energy type.

[eversilentone]

You're better off using snowcast to add the cold descriptor to it which serves as a gateway for other abuse. Like now that it has a descriptor to it it's eligible for energy substitution and energy admixture, the latter adds an equal amount of damage of your chosen energy type.

No idea if this is any good, but does this work?

Human Bard 6/Lyric Thaumaturge 5/finish to taste (Sublime Chord would be grand)

1) Snowcasting
H) Heighten Spell
3) Melodic Casting
6) Energy Substitution
9) Born of Three Thunders
12) free
15) free
18) free

Optionally add a Dragonmark and Mark of the Dauntless although I assume the daze from BoTT would only apply on the initial casting, so not necessarily a problem with Metamagic Rod: Extend before combat. Metamagic Song would be great in Sublime Chord (but almost everything is great in Sublic Chord...) - this could open up Persistent Spell shinangans...

But Cloud of Knives with Snowcast/Energy Substitution (Electricity)/Born of Three Thunders with Sonic Might from Lyric Thaumaturge for a 6th level spell is:

1d6+5 (half electricity, half sonic)
6d6 sonic damage through Sonic Might

Not earth shattering but nice damage for a free action and the Reflex>Prone from BoTT is pretty nice.

[Bakkan]

Unreasonable to suggest homerules for extra bonuses.


I disagree, so long as OP presents the request only once and immediately accepts a negative response. I don't know what the table environment is that he plays in, and his DM may or may not rule in ways that go beyond RAW. If the OP knows that the DM introduces no or very few and minor houserules, then my advice should be ignored.



Misleading vividness is a type of appeal and it's a fallacy. Invisible spell isn't very ambiguous, it very clearly states the spell's effects have no visual manifestation and all other aspects remain unchanged. Your argument is a large pile of compositional fallacies starting from the assertion that invisible spell is ambiguous instead of being worded to prevent everything you just said. Then you're trying to apply the invisibility condition creatures can be under to the spell, rather than the creature affected by it. And I'm not even sure what you're trying to get to with the idea that all unobserved visual displays render a target flat-footed. Searing light moves at the speed of light, does it always strike flat-footed targets or are the people in D&D's world naturally FTL?


I disagree that I have used misleading vividness, mainly because the phrase "visual manifestation" in the feat description is vague. For example, I can see reasonable arguments both for and against thinking that a creature conjured with a (Summoning) or (Calling) spell is a visual manifestation of that spell.



I think you need to tone down skimming forum posts as evidence for your opinion of what something should say.


First, I made no attempt to claim that the rules "should" say anything. They say what they say, and in my opinion what they say, in this case, is vague. I didn't even say how I would rule it at a table I was DM'ing for.

Second, your accusation that I form opinions about the game by "skimming forum posts" is condescending, insulting, unfounded, and quite rude. Please don't do that again.