Invisible Blade from CW -- almost TPK'd my group.

Sounds like they were a little weak on strategy. A party with a composition like this facing a lightly-armored, dagger-wielding opponent should have had all the fighters charge him and full-attack him, and he would be dead. Concentrating all your attacks on one opponent at a time ensures dead opponents, and the only foes capable of avoiding this sort of concentration are spellcasters, who can fly and turn invisible and reasonably undetectable with ease.

And no, this is just not that deadly. I'd be much more worried about a straight rogue with blink and a ghost touch weapon, or (heaven forfend) a properly-prepared straight spellcaster.
PsiSeveredHead said:
Boosting your Bluff check is even easier, and I'd be wary of any class that lets you do something four times (or more) better than Improved Feint.
Eh. Boosting your Bluff check is far weaker than just obviating the need for the check altogether, which is what any effect that generates invisibility or the equivalent (again, blink is the superior option, IMHO) can do with ease.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


A fighter 11 DEAD.
A cleric 11
A psychic warrior 11 NEAR-DEATH.
A Rogue3/Sorceror6/Arcane Trickster2
An Evoker 9 (new character) DEAD.
A Rogue 9 (new character) DEAD.

missing from the group were a paladin (somewhere around level 9, and a monk/cleric/sacred fist around the same level.

They fought the invisible blade, fist of hextor, and spellsword, a cleric7/sorceror3 and a fighter/monk/Weapon Master armed with a quarterstaff.
A more tactical group would have put the rogue and the psychic warrior on the cleric/sorceror and sneak attack/power attacked him into oblivion while the cleric or evoker hit cast a fear spell of some sort on the fighter heavy and apparently multiclass heavy opposition who all look to have bad will saves. Heck, even a glitterdust for a will save of be blinded would take the bite out of their attackers, and that is one spell the Trickster should always have ready so he can have new targets to sneak attack.

Speaking of the trickster, he threw fireballs and magic missiles from outside? Why bother with the rogue and trickster levels if you aren't going to sneak attack? Poor tactical decision. And a straight classed 11th level fighter should have had so many tactical feat based options that the first time he got nailed by the invisible blade he should have been able to grapple, spring attack, trip, or something that prevents opponents from getting full attacks. Sitting there and trading full attacks when you are not on the winning side of the equation is the role of barbarians, not feat-rich fighters.

Or heck, with as much firepower as they've got with 3 casters and 3 warriors to defend them, why not retreat and pound your foes into submission at range? What are they going to fight back with? 2 magic missiles from the cleric/sorcerer3?

Sounds like people too in love with bringing their swords to a battle and not their brains. If one of your companions actually drops, you need to snap out of your 'we have to fight toe-to-to' mentality and start looking around for ways to fight on your terms.
 

Darklone said:
Blur. Cheesy and cheap. Blink is IMHO not as good as Blur if you worry about meeting rogues.

Agreed. A Ftr11 without a lousy potion of blur to shut down sneak attacks hasn't thought ahead very far, in my opinion.
 

Jeremy said:
Sounds like people too in love with bringing their swords to a battle and not their brains. If one of your companions actually drops, you need to snap out of your 'we have to fight toe-to-to' mentality and start looking around for ways to fight on your terms.
But Jeremy, you know that can be difficult to do, even for an experienced group of players.

One of the *very* cool things about 3rd ed D&D is the ability to fight tactically. Earlier editions just didn't have that option. Many players are still (even after years of 3e or 3.5e play) stuck in the "charge!" mind-frame. It's not an easy habit to break!

Finally: it's probably a mistake to second guess these players or their in-combat choices. You really don't know how the combat went down. The DM would have to give us a round-by-round for us even to be close to understanding why so many died.
 

Probably true. I just have this picture in my head of a party being eaten by a remorhaz. Big dangerous brute. Unless you avoid going toe-to-toes with it. :)
 

"Toe-to-toes" Hee, hee! :lol:

Last session, our DM threw a Alchemical Golem at us. Immune to magic (of course!), and once you killed it, it explodes for 8d6 acid damage, 15' spread.

......The DM was pretty p*ssed-off that my fellow players and I kept it away from us with a few Evard's Black Tentacles, then killed it from a distance with arrows. Hah!!
 
Last edited:

Hang on a minute
You threw a CR15 encounter at a party AND let the attackers get ambush on a level 11 party and your suprized they all died.
I think you need to go read your DMG, thats a party level +5 encounter.. they are ment to die.

As an aside given you cant get more ranks than youlevel in a skill, even with a high affecting stat and skill focus whenup against a fighter BAB progression the blade should only suceed about 50% of the time assuming 0 ranks in sense motive.

Majere
 

Majere said:
As an aside given you cant get more ranks than youlevel in a skill, even with a high affecting stat and skill focus whenup against a fighter BAB progression the blade should only suceed about 50% of the time assuming 0 ranks in sense motive.

Level + 3.

Ftr11 with no ranks in Sense Motive adds +11 to his opposed roll.

The Invisible Blade had a +15. She was Taking 10 on her Bluff checks, for 25.

The fighter needs a 14 or higher to beat the Bluff check, so the Invisible Blade will succeed 65% of the time.

-Hyp.
 

Majere said:
.. you cant get more ranks than youlevel in a skill,...
Not at all true. You can get level + 3 ranks in a skill. That +3 makes a huge difference in opposing roll checks. Try the math!

Majare said:
..whenup against a fighter BAB progression the blade should only suceed about 50% of the time assuming 0 ranks in sense motive.
....Depending on what the phrase "and other modifiers" means. :)

Tell you what: you give me the opposing modifiers, and I'll calulate the chance of success! (I'll bet in this example, the chance is around 90%!)
 

Remove ads

Top