Pearl of Black Doubt- A bag of rats for your AC

[Myrmex]

In my current campaign, the warblade has the stance pearl of black doubt, which increases his AC by 2 (dodge bonus) every time an opponent misses him for that round. It's been a decent ability, but most combats have involved pretty brutal NPCs and monsters, so it's really just a way to keep secondary+ attacks off of him. However, we've now moved to large scale battles where literally hundreds of monsters are attacking him. If the first couple don't him, NOBODY will, ever.

Which leads me to think- what would the best way to maximize this ability? Having 100 commoners follow you around would be messy for dungeon travel. Maybe a portable hole of grigs with a psionic shrink person (the one that works on non-people)?

[monty]

You're still going to get hit on natural 20s. Having people punch you in the middle of combat would be a really bad idea, I think.

[Colmarr]

However, we've now moved to large scale battles where literally hundreds of monsters are attacking him.

Once you reach this point, it's time to introduce some of the rules from Heroes of Battle, particularly the ones that allow you to resolve massed ranged attacks as a single attack roll.

Not only does it speeds things up, but it will keep Pearl of Black Doubt under control.

You're still going to get hit on natural 20s. Having people punch you in the middle of combat would be a really bad idea, I think.

The only way I can really see it working is by having the "whatever"s attack the warblade for subdual damage (-4 to hit) and have the warblade be somehow immune to subdual damage. There are a couple of ways to get that immunity but I can't recall them off the top of my head.

[Myrmex]

You're still going to get hit on natural 20s. Having people punch you in the middle of combat would be a really bad idea, I think.

You have them shoot at you from range. Even if 5% of them hit (they won't in my game, since we play with nat 20 = 30 and nat 1 = -10), that's only 5d1 damage, or 5 damage, since they are all using tiny weapons (shuriken, maybe?). If you had the option to trade 5 HP for a +100 dodge bonus to your AC every round, would you do it?

Once you reach this point, it's time to introduce some of the rules from Heroes of Battle, particularly the ones that allow you to resolve massed ranged attacks as a single attack roll.

Not only does it speeds things up, but it will keep Pearl of Black Doubt under control.

I use an online die roller. Works pretty good.

[lsfreak]

Isn't there a rule somewhere that you can voluntarily fail any roll? Get lots of something, they all voluntarily fail their attack rolls.

[jcsw]

You have them shoot at you from range. Even if 5% of them hit (they won't in my game, since we play with nat 20 = 30 and nat 1 = -10), that's only 5d1 damage, or 5 damage, since they are all using tiny weapons (shuriken, maybe?). If you had the option to trade 5 HP for a +100 dodge bonus to your AC every round, would you do it?



I use an online die roller. Works pretty good.

Or you can get DR.

[ErrantX]

There's also aid another actions in which a whole host of folks all basically pin the warblade down and then one dude stabs him. If that doesn't work, do what I did and set an upper limit on Pearl of Black Doubt equal to the character's Initiator Level. That way it can get grisly, but moderately manageable.

-X

[AslanCross]

Isn't there a rule somewhere that you can voluntarily fail any roll? Get lots of something, they all voluntarily fail their attack rolls.

I've done this. My Paladin/Swordsage was using Pearl of Black Doubt to boost her AC into the stratosphere (the monsters boosting her AC was bad enough), and a party member would give me a boost by shooting at me and failing voluntarily. Honestly I wouldn't have allowed that if I were the DM, but by RAW it works.

Unfortunately I've only seen my AC go up to about 49 (from a base of 43). Still pretty hardcore, though.

[lord_khaine]

now that we are discussing Pearl of Black Doubt, then i had an idea for a Swordsage who combined it with mobility to move though his opponents provoking attacks of opportunity, and then hoping they would miss because of the +4 dodge bonus.

but i have newer had the chance to test it, any comments on if it might work or not?

[Kaiyanwang]

now that we are discussing Pearl of Black Doubt, then i had an idea for a Swordsage who combined it with mobility to move though his opponents provoking attacks of opportunity, and then hoping they would miss because of the +4 dodge bonus.

but i have newer had the chance to test it, any comments on if it might work or not?

Mmhh, I play gestalt and I want to introduce ToB soon... Scout//Swordsage with this combo (and other ones) would be nice..

Isn't there a feat in RoTW you can take instead of dodge, raising your AC if yuou move? Am I wrong?

[BobVosh]

1. Take Leadership
2. Get silly amounts of followers. Give them rocks.
3. Throw rocks, fail their attack
4. ??
5. Profit

[averagejoe]

You're still going to get hit on natural 20s. Having people punch you in the middle of combat would be a really bad idea, I think.

Why not just equip them with whips, then? Any armor at all will completely negate the damage.

[JeminiZero]

This might be another potential for nano-machines. Get yourself surrounded by thousands of microscopic animated objects, get them delay action and attack you right after the end of your turn and fail their attack roll. Voilá, ludicrous AC.

[Curmudgeon]

Isn't there a rule somewhere that you can voluntarily fail any roll?

House rule? Probably. RAW? No. Core rules only allow you to voluntarily fail a saving throw to accept the result of a spell. Rules Compendium expands this to allow you to fail any saving throw. That's it. D&D is a game of heroic achievement (not ignominious failure), so options for failure aren't part of the game.

[Meat Shield]

Isn't there a feat in RoTW you can take instead of dodge, raising your AC if yuou move? Am I wrong?

Don't know about RotW, but Desert Wind Dodge in Bo9S if interchangeable with Dodge. The dodge bonus is granted to all attacks, but you have to move 10' if I remember right.

[paddyfool]

Isn't there a feat in RoTW you can take instead of dodge, raising your AC if yuou move? Am I wrong?

Expeditious dodge. Gives you a +4 Dodge bonus while charging, iirc. Actually quite useful for avoiding those pesky AoOs.

For the original poster and maximising this ability in a non-cheesy way: If you've found a way, any way, to make your AC stratospheric, the other thing you might want would be fortification of some kind to limit the damage you take from crits. Equally, you could particuarly benefit from some form of re-roll for when someone dangerous does score a hit. Just don't do it if your DM tends to be easily irritated...

[Kaiyanwang]

Expeditious dodge. Gives you a +4 Dodge bonus while charging, iirc. Actually quite useful for avoiding those pesky AoOs.

Thank you. We start to stack a lot of AC. Time to rely on bounding assault, maybe.

OP: as a DM, I tend to outright kill players relying on combos relying on friendly attacks, unless are desperate and well placed (like, I remember, a fighter punching the frienzed berserk to drive a situation to a mandatory fight).

Wacth out, many DM become nasty if see such tactics

[Epinephrine]

Expeditious dodge. Gives you a +4 Dodge bonus while charging, iirc.

Nope - gives +2 dodge to AC when you move 40' in a round.

[lsfreak]

House rule? Probably. RAW? No. Core rules only allow you to voluntarily fail a saving throw to accept the result of a spell. Rules Compendium expands this to allow you to fail any saving throw.

Ah, okay. That doesn't work then.

[AslanCross]

Strange, I remember someone on these boards saying you could voluntarily fail things like dispel checks.

[Person_Man]

I love nanobots and theoretical optimization, but I can't imagine that a real DM would allow what you propose.

Anywho, by itself it's a very useful stance. My suggestion is that you pick up a Miss Change (Cloak of Displacement, Ring of Blinking, etc). Then throw in Robilar's Gambit when you qualify, and maybe Karmic Strike (though the pre-reqs suck). This would also be a good candidate for a Confound the Big Folk build, IMO.

[VirOath]

House rule? Probably. RAW? No. Core rules only allow you to voluntarily fail a saving throw to accept the result of a spell. Rules Compendium expands this to allow you to fail any saving throw. That's it. D&D is a game of heroic achievement (not ignominious failure), so options for failure aren't part of the game.

Technically, you can also willingly fail any skill check. You still roll, and you still can succeed, but you opt to take a failed option. So the roll doesn't matter. (Willingly set off a trap using a disable device roll, bluff but give the signs that you are clearly lying, etc.)

But then I suppose you can rule that a bluff check is also needed so others don't know you threw in the towel.

And it's also a reason for the entire party not to piss off the rogue wearing the mantle of invul in a classic concussive fireball trap. (20x20 room, one way door on each side, normally a rope bridge too.


But I laughed at the Pearl of Black Doubt abuse. Reminds me of Battery Vamps out of other games, that had to get in combat before they could get in combat (Upsetting something small like a dog to get a benefit in combat normally only gotten for being hit or missed.)

But two things to remember. I think it would only work against targets you considered hostile, so having a bunch of followers throw rotten fruit at you "shouldn't" work. The other thing is that if they remove your Dex bonus to AC, you should be losing your dodge as well.

So it's not foolproof.

[NEO|Phyte]

Strange, I remember someone on these boards saying you could voluntarily fail things like dispel checks.

Closest I can think of to this is choosing not to automatically SUCCEED on a dispel check vs your own Explosive Runes, while casting at the lowest possible caster level, to basically guarantee detonation.

[Waspinator]

You know, this is why a lot of Tome of Battle things like the healing strikes state that the opponent involved must be actually hostile...