Fun Finds v6.0

[Amechra]

Here's a pair of nice boosts for Swift Ambusher builds:

The Dragonfire Strike feat adds 1d6 damage to the amount you deal with Sneak Attack, Sudden Strike, or Skirmish. By RAW, that means that attacks that get both Sneak Attack and Skirmish get +2d6 damage instead of +1d6.

Similarly, the Unseen Seer's Damage Boost class feature gives +1d6 damage to Sneak Attack, Sudden Strike, and Skirmish, which maxes out at +4d6 for each at 10th level.

Anyone know of other classes that have that "Damage Bonus" thing going on?

EDIT: Rogue Vests (MIC) do it too!

[Keldar]

Mythic Exemplar : Reikhartd (CChamp, 87) is interesting.  At second you either get Inspire Courage a limited number of times a day, or have your class levels stack with Bard for that ability.  But at 3rd, and 3 more levels you get this nugget:

You gain +1 level of a class-based extraordinary ability to grant bonuses to allies (such as a marshal's auras).

Unlike the other abilities on the class that improve another class' features, this one lacks the traditional existing qualifier.  The fact that the author used that qualifier elsewhere for the class but not here, and that the IC ability changes based on if you have another class with it or not, strongly reinforces the idea that its lack is RAI. 
I'm sure there are some shenanigans that can result from this.  Even if its merely slapping a marshal aura on a bard with full IC.  Cherry picking an (ex) buff from an otherwise crummy PrC that you wouldn't actually have to take a level in sounds interesting. 

[Amechra]

If you want to be technical, you're your own ally.

So if you are, say, a Dvati, any Ex buff for yourself is also a buff for multiple allies.

Technically.

*Ducks DMG, Hit By DMG II*

[Chemus]

That's not even a technicality; you're assumed to be included as one of your own allies unless an effect or ability specifically excludes you. Damn, now I'm looking for the citation...

Ninjedit: I see what you meant; self = ally, thus self buff (only) is fair game. Yeah its intent is a buff that has "your allies" or equivalent text.

[Amechra]

I think my favorite Dvati Bullshit^TM trick is Rage + the Mounted Rage feat + Bear Warrior.

You start RAGING! You choose to have one of your bodies BECOME A BEAR! Then you RIDE YOURSELF INTO BATTLE!

Yes, the Rage does stack with itself, because one of them is from you, and the other is being applied to you through Mounted Rage.

It gets even funnier with Frenzy (the FRENZIED BERSERKER! kind) - you don't have to attack yourself, after all.

[SorO_Lost]

A. The Dragonfire Strike feat adds 1d6 damage to the amount you deal with Sneak Attack, Sudden Strike, or Skirmish.
B. By RAW, that means that attacks that get both Sneak Attack and Skirmish get +2d6 damage instead of +1d6.

Those two sentences are mutually exclusive for pretty obvious reasons but it also serves to underline what "RAW" means to some people 

[Amechra]

In natural English, "or" can be either inclusive or exclusive. Without the word "either" (or some equivalent) prior to the clause, or some other way of obviously determining which is desired*, there's no way to distinguish except for preference.

Since the writer of the feats and abilities in question did not see fit to clarify which they were using, you can choose to read it as an inclusive or, meaning that the bonus can apply to any of the listed things, to a minimum of one.

Please, Sor0, learn basic English grammar before you make posts like that. It would help you immensely. Though I expect you'll ignore this post - you were the one arguing against grammar, after all  .

* Such as if the things connected by "or" were mutually exclusive, such as being asked to paint something red, blue, or yellow. No, you can't make the argument that adding +1d6 to one of three damage values is a mutually exclusive action.


In interest of further clarity...

DRAGONFIRE STRIKE

Benefit: When you gain extra damage from a sneak attack, sudden strike, or skirmish, you can choose for the extra damage to be fire damage. If you apply this effect, increase the extra damage dealt by 1d6 points. Make this choice for each attack after it is resolved but before damage is dealt. This is a supernatural ability.

Alas, when going back and checking the Unseen Seer, it appears that the damage bonus doesn't apply to more than one of the abilities - I had been checking a source where that part had been edited out, with no indication that that was the case. However, Dragonfire Strike contains no such language.

So thank you SorO, you did clarify things (not in the way you wanted - but a potential disappointment was prevented.)

[Kethrian]

It does read as though you choose whether to do fire damage for each of those sources.  So if you deal fire for both skirmish and sneak attack, each would get +1d6.  But then, fire is the most resisted damage energy type, so it's not that big of a bonus ...

[Amechra]

I didn't include the Special entry (which wasn't necessary for the clarification) - if your Dragon heritage uses a different energy type for their breath weapon (Acid, Cold, Electricity, or Sonic, to be precise), you use that instead of Fire.

So pick a Dragon with a better breath weapon.

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

I think my favorite Dvati Bullshit^TM trick is Rage + the Mounted Rage feat + Bear Warrior.

You start RAGING! You choose to have one of your bodies BECOME A BEAR! Then you RIDE YOURSELF INTO BATTLE!

I believe I did the bear cavalry much better in my ultimate bear build. /pimp

[SorO_Lost]

Please, Sor0, learn basic English grammar before you make posts like that. It would help you immensely. Though I expect you'll ignore this post - you were the one arguing against grammar, after all  .

Nah I don't hate you so I read it

But after all these years you finally learned it's not about nerfing, but the disappointment upon learning the "trick" never worked and the people talking about it were probably sheep and idiots.
*warm glowing sensation*

Also if you move past the and/or debate, your Feat says you make the choice for each attack, not ability. It also explicitly says it's an effect and effects (and Feats btw) have stacking rules to deal with too.

[Chemus]

You only make the choice whether to apply the damage at each attack; you don't apply the effect to the attack, but to the extra damage. Since SA, SS, and Skirmish damage are allowed to stack, for attacks that qualify for more than one, and the effect is applied to the damage, not the attack, it'd still stack, RAW.

[Amechra]

Naw, SorO, I always knew it was because you're an asshole. That's pretty obvious.

[SorO_Lost]

Naw, SorO, I always knew it was because you're an asshole. That's pretty obvious.

Awww, thanks man. Even if you meant that in a spiteful way.

@Chemus, nope. RAW text is you make the choice (singular) - apply this effect to X, Y, or Z - per attack (limiter). Not you make that choice three times for each ability or whatever you think you're reading. And since it says or instead of and each time you make the choice, again only once per attack instead of multiple  times, you can only choose one ability instead of all three. Also you didn't address stacking either and overlooked it. Remember, RAW stands Rules as Written and not bastardized opinions are fact.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

Mythic Exemplar : Reikhartd (CChamp, 87) is interesting.  At second you either get Inspire Courage a limited number of times a day, or have your class levels stack with Bard for that ability.  But at 3rd, and 3 more levels you get this nugget:

You gain +1 level of a class-based extraordinary ability to grant bonuses to allies (such as a marshal's auras).

Unlike the other abilities on the class that improve another class' features, this one lacks the traditional existing qualifier.  The fact that the author used that qualifier elsewhere for the class but not here, and that the IC ability changes based on if you have another class with it or not, strongly reinforces the idea that its lack is RAI. 
I'm sure there are some shenanigans that can result from this.  Even if its merely slapping a marshal aura on a bard with full IC.  Cherry picking an (ex) buff from an otherwise crummy PrC that you wouldn't actually have to take a level in sounds interesting.

And it's one of the rare few ways to improve a Divine Mind.

(let it go aDMg let it go ...)

[Chemus]

@Chemus, nope. RAW text is you make the choice (singular) - apply this effect to X, Y, or Z - per attack (limiter). Not you make that choice three times for each ability or whatever you think you're reading. And since it says or instead of and each time you make the choice, again only once per attack instead of multiple  times, you can only choose one ability instead of all three. Also you didn't address stacking either and overlooked it. Remember, RAW stands Rules as Written and not bastardized opinions are fact.

Benefit: When you gain extra damage from a sneak attack, sudden strike, or skirmish, you can choose for the extra damage to be fire damage. If you apply this effect, increase the extra damage dealt by 1d6 points. Make this choice for each attack after it is resolved but before damage is dealt. This is a supernatural ability.

First, the 'or' is the only possible sensible word; 'and' would require that the abilities be used simultaneously for the effect to function at all, and it was not used. As Amechra said, the word is ambiguous; it can be exclusionary (Are you A, B, or C? B? Oh, I'm sorry, this line is for A's only), or not (Are you A, B, or C? A? Well, as long as you're one of the three, you get the stuff.) Guess which fits here?

B, the gate is 'when you gain extra damage from a sneak attack, sudden strike, or skirmish,'

III.: the result of unlocking the gate is 'you can choose for the extra damage to be [energy] damage.'

Also, another gate: 'If you apply this effect,'

5- the result of unlocking this gate is: 'increase the damage dealt by 1d6.'

Then, instruction; when you can make the choice to add the effect: 'Make this choice for each attack after it is resolved but before damage is dealt.'

Senarily, there is an addendum: 'This is a supernatural ability.'

The effect is eligible to be applied to the extra damage whenever it occurs, choice is made at the resolution of the attack, prior to damage resolution. Each extra damage is discrete, and each explicitly stacks with the other. The (Su) clause checks for AMF on attempting to apply the effect. These are the RAW.

Results: An invisible, silenced blue dragonwrought kobold Rog1/nja1/sct1 with str 8, and cha 11, having taken DFS as 3rd level feat, moves 10' and claws at a 3rd level dwarf fighter, hitting on its attack roll.
The attack resolves, it gets extra damage from sneak attack (no dex, due to invis.), sudden strike (also no dex), and skirmish (moved at least 10').

Extra Sneak Attack damage, 'y' or 'n'? Y, 1d6
Decision: apply DFS to extra damage from Sneak Attack, 'y' or 'n'? Y
Gate: Antimagic area, 'y' or 'n'? N
Result: extra damage is electricity, add 1d6 to it.

Extra Sudden Strike damage, 'y' or 'n'? Y, 1d6
Decision: apply DFS to extra damage from Sudden Strike, 'y' or 'n'? Y
Gate: Antimagic area, 'y' or 'n'? N
Result: extra damage is electricity, add 1d6 to it.

Extra Skirmish damage, 'y' or 'n'? Y, 1d6
Decision: apply DFS to extra damage from Skirmish, 'y' or 'n'? Y
Gate: Antimagic area, 'y' or 'n'? N
Result: extra damage is electricity, add 1d6 to it.


Damage resolves: 1d2-1 slashing, plus 1d6+1d6 Sneak attack electricity, 1d6+1d6 Sudden Strike electricity, 1d6+1d6 Skirmish electricity damage all added to attack.

Rolling damage: 1d2-1 (8 str) claw, +6d6 electricity damage [average result: 1 slashing damage +21 electricity]
Gate: Electricity resistance or immunity, 'y' or 'n'? __

[SorO_Lost]

Your post could be a lot smaller if you tried some real psudocoding.

Like this

foreach( attack a in attacks )
   if ( allowedsneakattack || allowedsuddenstrike || allowedskirmish )
      if ( AskToApply( this ) )
         a.bonusdice += 1d6;

Benefit: When you gain extra damage from a sneak attack, sudden strike, or skirmish, you can choose for the extra damage to be fire damage. If you apply this effect, increase the extra damage dealt by 1d6 points. Make this choice for each attack after it is resolved but before damage is dealt. This is a supernatural ability.

Edit - Ahh can't color code boxes. Guess I'll use a quote.

[Chemus]

You still seem to think that the ability modifies the attack rather than the damage...the red part above is when you decide, not why or how.


In SorO's own class boosters thread/handbook/list thingummy, I got curious and looked at the Warlock entry. Got a small shock that there was a cross-class invocation list feat (scroll down to the Infernal Adept feat sidebar).

It says

You learn one invocation from another class's list, choosing an invocation no more than two grades lower than the highest grade of invocation you know. For instance, an 11th-level warlock could learn a least invocation from the dragonfire adept list, while a 16th level dragonfire adept could learn a least or lesser invocation from the warlock list.

RAW (obviously not RAI, cuz example!), that means you actually get any least, lesser, or greater, while still limited to greaters yourself, then if able to get dark, you'd be limited to lesser, greater and dark.

It is indeed silly-RAW, but it's fun to contemplate as a way to get a few more invocations on teh brokenzzz warlock/DfA chassis.

[edit] Actually, 'no more than two grades lower' also refers to dark invocations. 4 levels earlier than otherwise available. The first one cuts off least availability (oh noes!), but that's it[/edit]

[SorO_Lost]

In SorO's own class boosters thread/handbook/list thingummy, I got curious and looked at the Warlock entry. Got a small shock that there was a cross-class invocation list feat (scroll down to the Infernal Adept feat sidebar).

I know it's an amazing list where you can grab quick indexing and HTML links almost instantly.

It says

You learn one invocation from another class's list, choosing an invocation no more than two grades lower than the highest grade of invocation you know. For instance, an 11th-level warlock could learn a least invocation from the dragonfire adept list, while a 16th level dragonfire adept could learn a least or lesser invocation from the warlock list.

RAW (obviously not RAI, cuz example!), that means you actually get any least, lesser, or greater, while still limited to greaters yourself, then if able to get dark, you'd be limited to lesser, greater and dark.

'It' of course being WotC's website because I know I didn't use 1/10th that text in my post

And that's for posting that wad of BS. I might have wasted my time explaining how pure imaginary crap or very very bad interpretations has nothing to do with the "rules as written" and I might even have gone on to quote RC137 about how every effect, no matter the source, must follow spell-stacking rules just to point out how irrelevant you really are because nothing you invent will ever pass.

But it's clear you're a moron that just doesn't deserve that kind of attention. So thanks.

[Chemus]

Uh, dismissive much? Citation. Source. Rules.