Avalanche of Blade/Infinite Reflections - how good are they really?

[Aotrs Commander]

ToB's avalanche of Blades and Path of War's Infinite Reflections are basically the same thing; 7th level maneouvre, Full-Round action, give you an unlimited number of attacks, but at a stacking -4 penalty.



I was half-surprised to see PoW had not made any changes to, essentially Avalanche of Blades.



We will hence forth refer to the maneouvre as AoBIR, because frack it.



The question is really whether AoBIR is worth a 7th level maneouvre verses an Full Attack. A previously googled thread on these forums from 2013 suggested that in order to be better than Time Stands Still (which allows you two full attacks), the amount your attack roll needed to exceed the enemy AC was enormous (like 30 and rapidly going to over a hundred if you had extra attacks).

AoBIR is absolutely inferior to using TWF, despite the greater investement of feats.

AoBIR also suffers significantly from the problems of missing - even a natural 1 miss rolled early will frack things up more than they would for a Full Attack.



For a 7th level maneouvre, it has thus seems to only have a fairly niche use where it is marginally competative with a Full Attack and all of them seem to require stepping fairly well outside of normal parameters (like adding Wraithstrike or requiring Brilliant Energy or something).



What are people's actual, practical experience on the tabletop with these maneouvres? So then, IS it as mediocre as it appears to be? If it is under par, how could it be improved?



(I actually went as far as reducing the penalty for Avalanche of Blades to -2s (in the continuing Tome of Battle to Pathfinder 1 Upgrade project now on homebrew...) before I spotted Infinite Reflections and went "wait, really? Did I miss something?" I've currently set the penalty to stacking -3s as a compromise.)

[Thunder999]

It's probably quite nice on those 3/4 BAB and even 1/2BAB (Rajah) Initiators who generally have plenty of attack bonus, but do otherwise miss out on the quantity of attacks.

It's still not great, but mostly because the entire point of ToB and PoW is to give you better options than "I full attack again, just like I have every turn since we hit level 6"

[Rebel7284]

Do the subsequent attacks inherit temporary bonuses to the first attack, such as True Strike?

How good it is is certainly both campaign dependent (average AC) and built dependent (can you make touch attacks regularly or otherwise greatly boost your attack stat)

In the right built, it can certainly be very good.

[Aotrs Commander]

Do the subsequent attacks inherit temporary bonuses to the first attack, such as True Strike?

How good it is is certainly both campaign dependent (average AC) and built dependent (can you make touch attacks regularly or otherwise greatly boost your attack stat)

In the right built, it can certainly be very good.

It doesn't specifically say so, so no.

Very specific optimisation builds is out of what I consider the practical consideration - you can make Magic Missile exceptionally good with a very niche build, but that's not really a point I consider worth balancing against.

ToB/PoW classes do not seem to have much in the way of inherent wats to make touch attacks regularly to my moderate-level look, and the assumption is going to be most campaigns are not going to be primarily against slimes.

Really, AoBIF has to be competative output to TWF and appreciably better than a Full Attack. If it's demonstrably worst than what a Barbarian can achieve just on their base class (i.e. with TWF) over actual practical play (which means "it was really good this once in this 1st to 15/17/20 campaign" is not good enough), then it's problematic.



Put it this way, my last campaign ended with Barb/Fighter putting out 11 attacks per round (8 TWF, 2 extra from Haste/Actual Fighter Class Feature of 3.Aotrs and Bite) at a consistent average of +8 (+10 if charging) from party buffs. Notably, that's 5/11 at full BaB, 2 @ -5, 2 @ -10, 2 @ -15; he didn't often get get all 11 hits (as by that time, the chance of rolling at least 1 natural 1 are getting high, but that didn't inteerupt the rest of his attacks). (That by the end it was happening in enough combats I remember the number should tell you how consistent it was). that's admittedly a specialist, but is worth noting as a decent practical ceiling.

Avalanche of Blades would give you, to get even half that number of attacks - i.e. the same as a Full Attack (for a Warblade, with Haste)... 1 @ 0, 1 @ -4, 1 @ -8, 1 @ -12, 1@ -16, 1 @ -20 vrs 2 @ +0, 1 @ -5, 1 @ -10, 1 @ -15 for a hasted Full Attack, which is overall giving you a good lot better chance of landing those hits. As Haste - along with anything else that adds an extra attacks - doesn't have any effect on Avalance of Blades. That Avalanche of Blade can theorhetically continue forever is somewhat hard-coumtered by the fact if you miss, that's it. In the hands of the resident dice god, you might be fine - in everyone else's hands, against an enemy of normal AC, you're not.

"It's good at killing low AC enemies" is not really a good selling point, since EVEYTHING is good at that. Enemies with ACs that low are going to be subject to 3.5-maximum Power Attack if the point you're taking a -20 to AC and expecting a hit is happening. Even touch ACs are not generally THAT much worse. (Small sample size, but I just skimmed the AC/touch ACs of that end of that campaign - and the PCs did use Brilliant Aura, which amde the party's weapons touch as a default load for the cleric - and with a bias towards large monsters (with cleric levels), there was one monster with a difference of 20 and the others were 10-17-ish, so you might have gotten maybe six-seven attacks best case from Avalance of Blades.

I do get the impression everyone reads "unlimited attacks" and grossly underestimates how sharply that doesn't matter. (As the aforementioned prior thread noted, you can't expect to get more than 19 attacks, tops, because you miss on a natural 1. (You can assume for my purposes, at least, the availabilty of "things that mean you don't miss on a natural 1" are zero.)



But this is why I'm asking for what people who have used it in play have found. Theory crafting only gets you so far. (And sadly, the warblade in the party's (third...) player had to drop out before we got high enough.)

[Zarvistic]

There is Offensive metered foot and Crushing strike as feats to make this maybe more interesting since you can remove some of the penalty.

[Ignimortis]

It is, basically, an improved Full Attack for anyone who isn't doing TWF or high PA optimization. Like most of 3.5's content, it's not geared towards mid-to-high OP, but rather zero-to-low OP, and in that spot, it performs well. It isn't meant to outdo Time Stands Still either, and Time Stands Still is very likely to be superior in most if not all instances, as is proper for a maneuver two levels higher and thus harder to access.

For someone with a two-hander without much thought given to getting much out of PA, it can rather handily outdamage a full attack, as long as you have an attack bonus high enough to hit +0/-4/-8 automatically at level 13 (barring 1s), which shouldn't be too hard by that point. At the very least, it gives you one or more extra attacks, and that's nice, and it gets even nicer if you get a high roll streak. It's one of those "let's see how lucky I can get!" maneuvers, rather than a staple of any setup.

It might have used different wording for compatibility with other attack methods, however - for instance, something like this:

As part of this maneuver, you make a full attack against an opponent in range as normal aside from the following:

Your subsequent attacks made as part of this maneuver only suffer a -4 penalty instead of the normal -5.
You can continue to make attacks indefinitely regardless of how many attacks you normally get in your full attack, but if you miss on any attack you make as part of this maneuver, it immediately ends.

[Beni-Kujaku]

It is, basically, an improved Full Attack for anyone who isn't doing TWF or high PA optimization.

I mean, most level 13+ initiators will have Power Attack, or another way to capitalize on high attack bonus. In any case, Avalanche of Blades isn't even always as good as a regular full attack. First, you can only target one opponent, but even more, if you have any chance to miss, it's a chance that you'll not deal your next damage.

Low-op example without Power Attack: Warblade 13, +2 fire sword, 24 Str, GWeapon Focus, Melee Weapon Mastery, total +26/+21/+16, fighting an unbuffed CR 15 monster:

Fighting Nightmare Beast (AC 21): full attack: 0.95+0.95+0.8=2.7 average hits; AoB: 0.95*(1+0.95*(1+0.9*(1+0.7*(1+0.5*(1+0.3*(1+0.1*(1 +....)))))))~3.61

Fighting a Sea Drake (AC 26): full attack: 0.95+0.8+0.55=2.25 average hits; AoB: 0.95*(1+0.85*(1+0.65*(1+0.45*(1+0.25*(1+0.05*(1+.. .))))))~2.58

Fighting an Old White Dragon (AC 31): full attack: 0.8+0.55+0.3=1.65 average hits; AoB: 0.8*(1+0.6*(1+0.4*(1+0.2*(1+0.05*(1+...)))))~1.51

Fighting a Stonecrusher behemoth (AC 36): full attack: 0.55+0.3+0.05=0.9 average hits; AoB: 0.55*(1+0.35*(1+0.15*(1+0.05*(1+...))))~0.77

That's abysmal. Using a 7th level maneuver shouldn't reduce your chances to hit in some fights. Even when the first hit only misses on a 1, it's only marginally better, and only equivalent to another attack when you'd already only miss on a 1 if you had -5 to hit, in which case, you should clearly use Power Attack. To give an idea, using a 1st level maneuver (Burning Blade) gives you better damage per round in all cases. Granted Burning Blade is overpowered for its level, but at least it's pure bonus, and 6 levels below AoB.

[Ignimortis]

I mean, most level 13+ initiators will have Power Attack, or another way to capitalize on high attack bonus. In any case, Avalanche of Blades isn't even always as good as a regular full attack. First, you can only target one opponent, but even more, if you have any chance to miss, it's a chance that you'll not deal your next damage.

Low-op example without Power Attack: Warblade 13, +2 fire sword, 24 Str, GWeapon Focus, Melee Weapon Mastery, total +26/+21/+16, fighting an unbuffed CR 15 monster:

Fighting Nightmare Beast (AC 21): full attack: 0.95+0.95+0.8=2.7 average hits; AoB: 0.95*(1+0.95*(1+0.9*(1+0.7*(1+0.5*(1+0.3*(1+0.1*(1 +....)))))))~3.61

Fighting a Sea Drake (AC 26): full attack: 0.95+0.8+0.55=2.25 average hits; AoB: 0.95*(1+0.85*(1+0.65*(1+0.45*(1+0.25*(1+0.05*(1+.. .))))))~2.58

Fighting an Old White Dragon (AC 31): full attack: 0.8+0.55+0.3=1.65 average hits; AoB: 0.8*(1+0.6*(1+0.4*(1+0.2*(1+0.05*(1+...)))))~1.51

Fighting a Stonecrusher behemoth (AC 36): full attack: 0.55+0.3+0.05=0.9 average hits; AoB: 0.55*(1+0.35*(1+0.15*(1+0.05*(1+...))))~0.77

That's abysmal. Using a 7th level maneuver shouldn't reduce your chances to hit in some fights. Even when the first hit only misses on a 1, it's only marginally better, and only equivalent to another attack when you'd already only miss on a 1 if you had -5 to hit, in which case, you should clearly use Power Attack. To give an idea, using a 1st level maneuver (Burning Blade) gives you better damage per round in all cases. Granted Burning Blade is overpowered for its level, but at least it's pure bonus, and 6 levels below AoB.

Yes, it's far from being one of the best level 7 maneuvers. It might even be suboptimal in some situations (then again, so are many other strikes - Emerald Razor is nothing if not situational, for instance). But it's not exactly broken bad, and it gets better the more to-hit you have - the question here is how much to-hit and per hit damage you need to, say, offset not going for full PA on your full attack instead (keep in mind that you can still PA on maneuvers, it's just that this one doesn't exactly sync well with that).

The real issue here is that you can't use Shock Trooper with this maneuver...Otherwise it'd instantly be one of the top tiers.

[Aotrs Commander]

Yes, it's far from being one of the best level 7 maneuvers. It might even be suboptimal in some situations (then again, so are many other strikes - Emerald Razor is nothing if not situational, for instance). But it's not exactly broken bad, and it gets better the more to-hit you have - the question here is how much to-hit and per hit damage you need to, say, offset not going for full PA on your full attack instead (keep in mind that you can still PA on maneuvers, it's just that this one doesn't exactly sync well with that).

I mean, that's better than Ghost Blade (which is laughable - Path of War rightly had a maneouvre that did the same thing at level 1, not 6) is not exactly a good look.

That sound to me like an agreement it's not good enough.


The real issue here is that you can't use Shock Trooper with this maneuver...Otherwise it'd instantly be one of the top tiers.

I think that it doesn't benefit from Haste is a more widely-prevalent issue. Not everyone uses Shock Trooper (outside of build - like the aforemention barbarian, actually) and that proves there are just better ways to get more damage output consistently.



Further to Beni-Kujaku's point it occurs to me that Avalanche of Blade/Infinite Reflections is striaght up worse than a Full Attack with any extra +1 bonus ytu can scrounge up. The only area where it isn't worse is that you can, if you rely on RNG, maybe get more attacks, but the drop-off is very sharp (there's a reason iteratives stop at three, after all) and any miss, never mind a natural 1, borks you.




The equstion becomes how it could be properly balacned, then. Reduce the penalty? Make it a Standard, not a full-round?

[Ignimortis]

The equstion becomes how it could be properly balacned, then. Reduce the penalty? Make it a Standard, not a full-round?

Making it a proper full attack (benefits from Haste, TWF, etc) and reducing the penalty to -2 sounds like it'd be at least okay.

[Darg]

This might not be consolation, but it would stack with feats like psionic weapon and deep impact as it repeats the same attack. Unlike true strike, these feats aren't explicitly limited to one attack roll.

[ciopo]

It has a niche it fills: it's a way to get "iteratives" with a natural weapon.

If, say, you only have one bite attack.

It also interacts nicely with those special attacks that function as melee attack, like for example a shadow touch attack

Also with rider effects linked to (weapon you can use once/round), mostly poison on bites is what comes to mind, again

[Rebel7284]

It doesn't specifically say so, so no.

It does specifically say (at least in Avalanche of Blades) "You can then make another attack against that foe with a -4 penalty on your attack roll."

So it depends on if the calculation is based on the attack roll that actually happened or on your base attack roll as written on your character sheet. As a DM, I certainly would rule that True Strike does not help here, but I wouldn't say it's 100% clear.

But yes, if you are fighting average enemies with a typical Warblade built, this maneuver is VERY niche. However, we do a lot of character optimization on these boards, so we are very used to seeing unusual builds, some of which very much could take advantage of this. Jade Phoenix Mage tank with an Incanatrix support Wizard is perfectly reasonable high OP party after all (maybe with an Archivist for healing and traps) and then ending up with Persisted Wraithstrike (and Arcane Strike to boot) is REAL easy from there.

[Aotrs Commander]

This might not be consolation, but it would stack with feats like psionic weapon and deep impact as it repeats the same attack. Unlike true strike, these feats aren't explicitly limited to one attack roll.

Huh? They very clearly both (and both 3.5 and PF1) say "your attack with a..." That very clearly to me says attack, singlular. Not Full Attack, or Attack action, neither of which =/= attack (i.e. a single attack roll) Avalanche of Blades lets you make multiple attacks, not the same attack multiple times. I'm sorry, I can't see any way to read those that they arent on a single attack. I 100% wouldn't interpret that any other way as a DM, that's for certain.


It does specifically say (at least in Avalanche of Blades) "You can then make another attack against that foe with a -4 penalty on your attack roll."

So it depends on if the calculation is based on the attack roll that actually happened or on your base attack roll as written on your character sheet. As a DM, I certainly would rule that True Strike does not help here, but I wouldn't say it's 100% clear.

I would; it very definitely doesn't say "you make the same attack multiple times" or something, it says "you make another attack." Again, I can't legitimately see any way to read that other than as a seperate, new attack roll, same as you would anything else that doesn't, for example, very specifically say you hit things multiple times on the SAME attack roll (like PF1 Manyshot.)

Basically, if you roll the dice again (and you're not confirming a critical), it's not the same attack.

(Now, maybe I (and Path of War) might be guilty of explictly codifying it better ("Attack action" (Standard action to make an attack) very distinctly not the same as "attack" (thing are attached to one dice you chunk)), but...)




But yes, if you are fighting average enemies with a typical Warblade built, this maneuver is VERY niche. However, we do a lot of character optimization on these boards, so we are very used to seeing unusual builds, some of which very much could take advantage of this. Jade Phoenix Mage tank with an Incanatrix support Wizard is perfectly reasonable high OP party after all (maybe with an Archivist for healing and traps) and then ending up with Persisted Wraithstrike (and Arcane Strike to boot) is REAL easy from there.

I'm working in an practical optimisation environment, rather than a more throery-crafting one; and while that means in my case "a good chunk of 3.5 and a good chunk of PF1" it by no means is "anything from 3.5 or PF1" (I have (very) extensive lists of what is legal; Incantrix, being a from a Faerun source book (AND being frequently mentioned in regards to charop...), is not on it, for example). So there is basically not any persistent spell stuff you can easily access.
(Well, sans when "Owlcat!Mythic" comes into play, but I know I'm bringing that on myself...)


I always say a "mid-high" not "high" char-op environment. The occasional "I do 700 damage per round", but not "only a step or so down from Punpun."


So to large extent, I'm not terribly concerned about what you could do with a super-optimised-for-that-purpose build; in the same way when I was looking at Magic Missile and trying to decide if it was really good enough, I didn't take into account the super-optimised Magic Missile build on the forums... Nor the HILARIOUSLY broken Lich mythic power in Wrath of the Righteous that let me deal 1 point of ability damage to each phyiscal or each mental ability score every time you hit a foe with a spell and thus allowing my lich to ability-score-kill dragons in a round-and-a-half with Magic. Missile... As proof that, by itself, Magic Missile is absurdly broken.

I'm thus looking at MODAL balance, not maximums, if that makes any sense?

(As, at the end of the day, if I do decide "yeah, that's just too good," it gets nerfed. Like that one maneouvre from the WotC Falling Star school which did stacking fear effects on a save DC based on damage. That got hard-nerfed back to a regular saving throw after the first time we used it and realised it was effectively a no-save-and-suck win button to anything not hard-immune to fear...




Making it a proper full attack (benefits from Haste, TWF, etc) and reducing the penalty to -2 sounds like it'd be at least okay.

I think my issue with making it a Full Attack is it would SIGNIFICANTLY complicate the wording to make it clear and 100% absolute (I mean, I already thought the wording was already pretty absolute, but see above). You would then have to specify how it works with TWF, any ability that grants you extra attacks (e.g. Haste and stuff that is stackable with extra attacks from Haste1, iteratives... If you just say Full Attack, someone, somewhere is going to interpret that as "I get to make these infinite attacks on every single one of my normal attacks!"


I think either making it a Standard and leaving at -4 or reducing the penalty is the approach. -2 might almost be too good, but I guess I'll err on that side for the moment; trouble is, I can't really see until I've seen it in something approaching actual play (from a PC, me throwing it in on a NPC isn't terribly useful as a one-off).




1I was so freaking sick of the "this extra attack doesn't stack with other effects that grant you extra attacks like Haste" I specifically codified them in Adjunct Attacks, which specifically don't stack with themselves, and then I only had to change wording to "Adjunct Attack" or "is not an Adjunct Attack" to massive reduce the word-clutter and increase clarity.

Also, in both 3.5 and PF1, everyone that ever wrote a Fear effect as "as the Fear spell but" can go to a very specially place in Frack Off Mate And Actually Check And Write The Rules Properly And Clearly You Lazy Asshat Land.

[Darg]

Huh? They very clearly both (and both 3.5 and PF1) say "your attack with a..." That very clearly to me says attack, singlular. Not Full Attack, or Attack action, neither of which =/= attack (i.e. a single attack roll) Avalanche of Blades lets you make multiple attacks, not the same attack multiple times. I'm sorry, I can't see any way to read those that they arent on a single attack. I 100% wouldn't interpret that any other way as a DM, that's for certain.

I would; it very definitely doesn't say "you make the same attack multiple times" or something, it says "you make another attack."

It says "If your attack hits, you repeat the same attack again and again." Sounds to me that it makes the same attack again. And you can't say it's fluff because there already is italicized text above it.

[Aotrs Commander]

It says "If your attack hits, you repeat the same attack again and again." Sounds to me that it makes the same attack again. And you can't say it's fluff because there already is italicized text above it.

I can, because that's EXACTLY what that line from the second paragraph is. ToB just has unnecessarily TWO paragraphs of fluff text on a very large chunk of the maneouvres; it just only bothered to italicise the first one. Having had to got through every single maneouvre in ToB to look for the mechanics to compare to Path of War to evaluate and update ToB, I found that out very fast. Read 'em carefully, and you'll soon see that there are a huge number where the second paragraph under the italicised text just doesn't have any actual game mechanics in them.

(Take for example, because it's at the top of my document, Absolute Steel Stance: "The absolute steel stance allows you to enhance your mobility and speed. You move quickly, keep a sharp eye on your enemies, and are ready to instantly sidestep any incoming attacks." That's the second paragraph and it has absolutely no game mechanics in it; it's just guff, which either repeats or explains/attempts to justify the "read-aloud" italicised stuff above.)

To my enormous annoyance. It's nonsense purple prose that is completely redundant (I'm increasingly convinced to just delete the offending second paragraphs, frankly). I feel like they were only there in a desperate attempt to further justify Martials Having Nice Things. Nothing else ever needed two paragraphs of guff.

(The fact that we have to have this discussion about it is a faect of the fact ToB BADLY suffered from poor editing and proofing - see also stance progression, Swordsage 1st level skills, Iron Heart Surge and extending to the official errata which had three entries and then dropped into Complete Arcane. ToB was a good idea, but the execution of it was SEVERELY lacking in a lot of ways... Sadly something 3.5 was rather plagued with throughout; and from the sounds of it with all the rumbling around 5E, something WotC has never really fixed even to this day.)

The actual mechanics of Avalanche of Blades are as follows:


As part of this manoeuvre, you make a single melee attack against an opponent. If that attack hits, resolve your damage as normal. You can then make another attack against that foe with a –4 penalty on your attack roll. If that attack hits, you can make another attack against that opponent with a –8 penalty. You continue to make additional attacks, each one with an additional –4 penalty, until you miss or your opponent is reduced to -1 hit points or fewer. You must direct all these attacks at a single foe.

It's not mechanically the same attack repeated, that's just the fluff text. The actual mechanics above say you "you make another attack" and "make additional attacks."

But I will also point at the Path of War mirror: Infinite Reflections manages fluff and mechanics in much more sensible brevity:


As your blade connects, you seem to vanish, before reappearing around your opponent several times in succession and delivering blow after blow. Make a melee attack. If it hits, it deals weapon damage as normal, and you can make another melee attack with a –4 penalty on your attack roll. If that attack hits, you can make a further melee attack at a –8 penalty. You continue to repeat this process, taking a cumulative –4 penalty for each additional attack, until you miss an attack or you reduce your target to 0 or fewer hit points. You must direct all of these attacks at the same creature.

And as I'm considering the two as functionally the same (because they ARe, just with the serial numbers filed off), that's what I'm using

[Darg]

I can, because that's EXACTLY what that line from the second paragraph is. ToB just has unnecessarily TWO paragraphs of fluff text on a very large chunk of the maneouvres; it just only bothered to italicise the first one. Having had to got through every single maneouvre in ToB to look for the mechanics to compare to Path of War to evaluate and update ToB, I found that out very fast. Read 'em carefully, and you'll soon see that there are a huge number where the second paragraph under the italicised text just doesn't have any actual game mechanics in them.

(Take for example, because it's at the top of my document, Absolute Steel Stance: "The absolute steel stance allows you to enhance your mobility and speed. You move quickly, keep a sharp eye on your enemies, and are ready to instantly sidestep any incoming attacks." That's the second paragraph and it has absolutely no game mechanics in it; it's just guff, which either repeats or explains/attempts to justify the "read-aloud" italicised stuff above.)

To my enormous annoyance. It's nonsense purple prose that is completely redundant (I'm increasingly convinced to just delete the offending second paragraphs, frankly). I feel like they were only there in a desperate attempt to further justify Martials Having Nice Things. Nothing else ever needed two paragraphs of guff.

(The fact that we have to have this discussion about it is a faect of the fact ToB BADLY suffered from poor editing and proofing - see also stance progression, Swordsage 1st level skills, Iron Heart Surge and extending to the official errata which had three entries and then dropped into Complete Arcane. ToB was a good idea, but the execution of it was SEVERELY lacking in a lot of ways... Sadly something 3.5 was rather plagued with throughout; and from the sounds of it with all the rumbling around 5E, something WotC has never really fixed even to this day.)

The actual mechanics of Avalanche of Blades are as follows:



It's not mechanically the same attack repeated, that's just the fluff text. The actual mechanics above say you "you make another attack" and "make additional attacks."

But I will also point at the Path of War mirror: Infinite Reflections manages fluff and mechanics in much more sensible brevity:



And as I'm considering the two as functionally the same (because they ARe, just with the serial numbers filed off), that's what I'm using

You asked about practical experience with them. I answered with my experience with AoB.


This portion of the maneuver description explains what the maneuver does and how it works. It begins with a sentence or two of italicized “read-aloud” text that gives players an image of how the maneuver does what it does. If one of the previous lines in the maneuver description included “see text,” this section is where you find the explanation.

Just because you don't like how it was written doesn't mean the first paragraph does not contain relevant rules text. It's the exact same argument people have about Foresight. If you think only the "mechanical" terms matter, you disregard 3/4ths of the entire function of the spell. You wanted it to say "you make the same attack multiple times" for it to mean something specific and it fulfills that quite blatantly just with different words. The words say one thing and you adjudicate differently. You can do that, but that's in disagreement with the rules as they are written.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

The actual mechanics of Avalanche of Blades are as follows:That's clearly been poorly altered. The original text of ToB doesn't misspell "maneuvers" like that.

[NichG]

AoB was pretty much my highest damage move in a very high-end campaign I was in (Lv34 Swordsage/Cleric/Custom PrC/Outsider). Was regularly getting in 20-25 hits...

[Thunder999]

AoB was pretty much my highest damage move in a very high-end campaign I was in (Lv34 Swordsage/Cleric/Custom PrC/Outsider). Was regularly getting in 20-25 hits...

That seems improbable, 20 hits is a -80 to hit, and that's not counting the fact that you have about a 65% chance of rolling a nat 1 if you make 20 attacks, and that ends the whole thing.

Also, what on earth were you fighting that could take 20-25 hits?

[NichG]

That seems improbable, 20 hits is a -80 to hit, and that's not counting the fact that you have about a 65% chance of rolling a nat 1 if you make 20 attacks, and that ends the whole thing.

Also, what on earth were you fighting that could take 20-25 hits?

Well for one, the character had a few things to mitigate nat 1s, both normal stuff (luck feats/domain stuff) as well as some homebrew that effectively lowered the auto-fail to a 1/100 rather than 1/20. And for the other, this campaign was getting into Team Solars territory numbers-wise. The character basically did a ton of X stat to Y with very high stats, so they had a +123 to hit when starting the Avalanche, as well as generally going around with a Moment of Prescience, Improvisation, etc to stretch out those last few hits as needed.

By the end we were fighting homebrew things (e.g. >Colossal+ kaiju things) with HP totals >100k+ range, so the full Avalanche could actually fail to drop things.

[Ignimortis]

I think my issue with making it a Full Attack is it would SIGNIFICANTLY complicate the wording to make it clear and 100% absolute (I mean, I already thought the wording was already pretty absolute, but see above). You would then have to specify how it works with TWF, any ability that grants you extra attacks (e.g. Haste and stuff that is stackable with extra attacks from Haste1, iteratives... If you just say Full Attack, someone, somewhere is going to interpret that as "I get to make these infinite attacks on every single one of my normal attacks!"


I think either making it a Standard and leaving at -4 or reducing the penalty is the approach. -2 might almost be too good, but I guess I'll err on that side for the moment; trouble is, I can't really see until I've seen it in something approaching actual play (from a PC, me throwing it in on a NPC isn't terribly useful as a one-off).[/SIZE]

Actually, now that I've thought about it, making it a Full Attack does pretty much nothing, since all the extra attacks are wasted if you miss anyway, and if you don't miss, you get to make more of them. So make it a standard action, that makes it somewhat similar to being a Full Attack on the move.

[Gruftzwerg]

1) +X Adaptive Keen Falcion (or Kurki if you want to go for TWF)

2) Stance: Blood in the Water
crits give a stacking +1 bonus to attack and damage for 1min.

3) Lightning Mace feat
gives a free attack on a crit.

4) (optional) Greater Fly-By-Attack/Whirlwind Attack as combat opener to get Blood in the Water stacks ASAP.

...

Imho it's OKish depending on what you want. Could be played with or without going Ubercharger. The upside is, you get a bunch of attacks per turn without going for TWF or Natural Attacks. You get to keep you 2h STR bonus for all attacks. Depending on the build this could become very handy.

On a greater scale this will never outshine a straight optimized Ubercharger build. Because those will kill everything in a single blow and great cleave takes care of the remaining enemies. So, who cares about about extra attacks if everything dies in a single greater cleave charge?

But not everybody plays an over-optimized Ubercharger. So if you just want a nice build with some decent (not broken) damage, this might be an option. Poison builds or other builds with rider effects on hit (e.g. Touch of Golden Ice feat) can also profit from this. Sneak Attackers could exchange the Falcion into a Kukri and go for TWF maybe ontop (or go for a 2h sneak attack build maybe).

As said, unless your intend is to build an optimized ubercharger, this seems to be a nice alternative option to get extra attacks.

________________________________________

And then there are High STR builds. Take a War Hulk as example who gets +20STR over its 10 lvls. These builds have a high STR bonus to attacks and thus is imho the easiest way to get extra attacks here.

[loky1109]

Also, what on earth were you fighting that could take 20-25 hits?

Frenzied Berserker?

[Aotrs Commander]

Well for one, the character had a few things to mitigate nat 1s, both normal stuff (luck feats/domain stuff) as well as some homebrew that effectively lowered the auto-fail to a 1/100 rather than 1/20. And for the other, this campaign was getting into Team Solars territory numbers-wise. The character basically did a ton of X stat to Y with very high stats, so they had a +123 to hit when starting the Avalanche, as well as generally going around with a Moment of Prescience, Improvisation, etc to stretch out those last few hits as needed.

By the end we were fighting homebrew things (e.g. >Colossal+ kaiju things) with HP totals >100k+ range, so the full Avalanche could actually fail to drop things.

I think I can safely say that's in the territory beyond what I think even Epic/Mythic will reach in my games...!

(I genuinely don't think we'd have enough time in about 2 horus pe week to get through a single round of combat, not when there are eight players. It was slow enough at 18th level with six characters...




That's clearly been poorly altered. The original text of ToB doesn't misspell "maneuvers" like that.

If by that you mean when I copied it out of ToB to my document I replaced all the words with British spellings (as I do with literally everything I copy out from either edition of D&D), then yes. But the wording isn't changed:


As part of this maneuver, you make a single melee attack against an opponent. If that attack hits, resolve your damage as normal. You can then make another attack against that foe with a -4 penalty on your attack roll. If that attack hits, you can make another attack against that opponent with a -8 penalty. You continue to make additional attacks, each one with an additional ?4 penalty, until you miss or your opponent is reduced to -1 hit points or fewer. You must direct all these attacks at a single foe.

From here. (https://dndtools.net/spells/tome-of-battle-the-book-of-nine-swords--88/avalanche-blades--3620/)


As part of this manoeuvre, you make a single melee attack against an opponent. If that attack hits, resolve your damage as normal. You can then make another attack against that foe with a –4 penalty on your attack roll. If that attack hits, you can make another attack against that opponent with a –8 penalty. You continue to make additional attacks, each one with an additional –4 penalty, until you miss or your opponent is reduced to -1 hit points or fewer. You must direct all these attacks at a single foe.

I jusy copied it from my document because it was there and open and easier than doing a google search, copying from a PDF or laboruiously typing it by hand.

Sorry, but I feel like that if I have to spend all the time dealing with US spellings, it is not unreasonable to expect that just occasionally, you folk have to deal with British spellings.


Just because you don't like how it was written doesn't mean the first paragraph does not contain relevant rules text. It's the exact same argument people have about Foresight. If you think only the "mechanical" terms matter, you disregard 3/4ths of the entire function of the spell. You wanted it to say "you make the same attack multiple times" for it to mean something specific and it fulfills that quite blatantly just with different words. The words say one thing and you adjudicate differently. You can do that, but that's in disagreement with the rules as they are written.

If it doesn't have game mechanics, then it's not rules, it's fluff. Don't matter where in the description of the spell/feat/maneouvre/class feature or anything else written that goes, if it's not game mechanics, it's fluff. Whether they choose to make that fluff in italics as read-aloud or not is irrelevant to me (especially since they only started that in late 3.5). Take that paragraph out and it has no effect on game mechanics, excpet by your (very dubious, I'm sorry) reading of it, which is would make it completely different in function to literally every other attack in the game and contrary to what it even says in the next paragraph. It VERY DEFINITELY doesn't have enough explanatory text to say why it is the only sort of attack in the entire game that has super-special mechanics that let it apply bonuses that only apply to one attack onto multiple attacks; if that was their intention, they just straight-up failed in rules-writing.

(If anything, this just illustrates to me how important it is that (sod what rules there are about it) you should always capitalise game mechanics terms for precise clarity.)

I will absolutely die on the hill of "that is not game mechanics, it's fluff" (and Path of War backs me up here as well, for once), sorry.

[InvisibleBison]

If it doesn't have game mechanics, then it's not rules, it's fluff.

The whole notion of a fluff/crunch dichotomy is essentially homebrew. There's absolutely nothing in the text to support the notion that some text that's not explicitly called out as being rules isn't rules.

[NichG]

I think I can safely say that's in the territory beyond what I think even Epic/Mythic will reach in my games...!


Homebrew aside, that campaign was an exercise in understanding the different scaling laws behind different abilities in D&D. In that sense, Avalanche is distinctive because it's maybe the only way I know to have damage that scales quadratically with Strength forever rather than (eventually) linearly as happens when your attack bonus exceeds AC by enough and you run out of BAB for Power Attack.

In general in that campaign anything with a static magnitude of effect, even if that static effect was high, ultimately eventually became useless. So stuff like how Earthquake can make targets lose their actions without a save or how Limited Wish lets you hit with an attack without rolling ended up being a lot more noticable since that stuff works in the +200s territory just as well as in the +10s territory. Or how at some point sources of in combat returning from death overtook HP as the real combat endurance - works as well against a million damage as a hundred.

[Prime32]

You could give expand its niche a bit by having all the attacks combine into one strong hit, or by having each subsequent attack increase in power.

E.g.


Swinging wildly, you lash out at your opponent over and over.

As part of this maneuver, you make a single melee attack which ignores your insight bonuses to attack rolls and your opponent's insight bonuses to AC.

If your attack is a successful hit (but before calculating damage), you may choose to reroll your attack roll any number of times until you roll a miss. Each roll after the first is made at a stacking -4 penalty (reduced to -3 if your attack is made with a speed weapon, or you are under haste or a similar effect).

Use the highest of these attack rolls to determine the result of your attack. For each successful attack roll after the first, your attack deals +100% damage and your opponent takes a -2 penalty on saving throws until the end of your turn. This extra damage is not multiplied on a critical hit.

This maneuver counts as an area effect for dealing damage to swarms.

[Nihilarian]

Their value is probably a lot higher for anyone that targets touch ac.

Even if it's worse by default there's clearly so much room for growth it's hard to say it's a bad maneuver