D&D General The rapier in D&D

[GrimCo]

magic armor property which could negate crits and sneak attack

Fortification - light, medium and heavy. Chance to negate SA and crits are - 25,75 and 100% and those are +1,+3 and +5 enchantment bonuses.

And let's not forget. In 3.x you still added STR to damage, even with finesse weapons. For classes that used finesse weapons, STR was tertiary stat at best ( Bards wanted both CHA and DEX, Rogues DEX and INT; both benefited from decent CON since both are D6 classes). As a rogue, your high DEX was good for to hit. Main damage came from SA and crits (hence rapier), without it, it's 1d6 + 0-2 , depending on stats and was weapon masterwork or not.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

"Nearly everything"? Come on. Did you spend all your 3e time fighting undead and constructs, or is this statement maybe a little hyperbolic?

A lot of it. Those two groups still are the largest proportion of enemies in our games. "This tomb has been sealed for millennia. You won't find anything living in here."

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It's a ROCK! It doesn't have any vulnerable spots!

I cast Vicious Mockery. I can still hurt it's feelings.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's a ROCK! It doesn't have any vulnerable spots!

Makes sense to me.

 

[SkidAce]

It's a ROCK! It doesn't have any vulnerable spots!

What about that little "crevice" right there?

 

[Micah Sweet]

A lot of it. Those two groups still are the largest proportion of enemies in our games. "This tomb has been sealed for millennia. You won't find anything living in here."

Sounds like something to take up with your GM if it's causing you grief.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I cast Vicious Mockery. I can still hurt it's feelings.

Sapience really ought to be a requirement for that spell IMO.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Sounds like something to take up with your GM if it's causing you grief.

No grief, I never play rogues anyway. But if you look through most published adventures you will see that undead are by far the most common enemy creature type. It's a game about tomb raiding, what else would you expect?

 

[Remathilis]

What's wrong with Dwarf Necromancers and Gnomish Barbarians?

In 1999? It was the Hallmark of munchkin players who didn't care about racial identity and only wanted to play the most powerful or wacky combos imaginable. Specifically, ruined the story that dwarves hated magic and were so antimagical they couldn't do it (possible exceptions for clerics, depending on edition) and paladin was a human only concept and the ability to be one a human racial trait. (No joke, that was argued). The concept of any race being any class was so reviled that the 3.0 DMG added a half-ass "option" for the DM to limit them placed in the optional rules section.

I've come to believe that, except for the most hardcore grognards who still use 1e initiative RAW, most people and game publishers allow any race/class combo. But that was a huge area of disagreement when it was announced.

 

[Mannahnin]

Not natively. I haven't played 3e in many years. Google helped me find two:

• The Alternative Class Feature Penetrating Strike (Rogue ACF, Dungeonscape, replaces Trap Sense) allows you to deal half of your SA damage to immune targets so long as they re flanked.
• The spell Grave Strike(Cleric1 Paladin 1, Spell Compendium) takes a swift action, but for one round, you can sneak attack undead (but not crit them). One level cleric dip or Use Magic Device (forget how that interacts with swift actions) to use.

Dungeonscape was Feb 2007, Jason Bulmahn and Rich Burlew (hey, Order of the Stick!). Neat. We never used that one.

I do recall Grave Strike, now that you mention it. You'd generally have to give up attacking with your off hand to wield the wand, and engage in wandsploitation (1st level wands being a classic exploit in 3E), but it'd at least let you SA undead most of the time.