Two haste weapons

[Darklone]

Guys, I haven't been thinking a lot about my houserule yet, but I like it more and more every page this thread grows.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Take:
8 * +X Returning Daggers of Speed. (Holy? Flaming?)
Quickdraw.
Close combat shot PrC ability.
As many dual wield feats as you can eat.
Add a light dusting of sneak attack.
Precise shot wouldn't hurt.

Stab, Throw (with 'speed' attack), Quickdraw. Rinse, Repeat.

8 melee + 8 ranged attacks every round.

Yay! I'll kill all the baddies, get the power ups AND win the game.

I can only say: HOLY FLAMING DAGGERS OF SPEED!

 

[Al]

8 Holy, Flaming, Returning Daggers of Speed?

If you can stump up the 1,024,000 gold pieces to afford it, go ahead...and get ready for a nice iron golem dungeon

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

8 Holy, Flaming, Returning Daggers of Speed?

If you can stump up the 1,024,000 gold pieces to afford it, go ahead...and get ready for a nice iron golem dungeon

Ouch! That's pretty steep.

I guess I'll have to delay my world domination plans: Well, if I don't get them by 6th level, then I'll have a huge sulky fit, throw dice, cry and quit the group. Cursing the 'grim n gritty' GMing as I go!

Guess I'll need to throw in a high UMD score and a wand of Summon Rust Moster Swarm. Ditto with the crying, sulking and dice throwing if I can't have that!

What does the term 'Awkward Munchkin player' mean?

 

[Kae'Yoss]

8 Holy, Flaming, Returning Daggers of Speed?

If you can stump up the 1,024,000 gold pieces to afford it, go ahead

Then it's only +1 returning daggers of speed. Should be much cheaper. And it's a rogue with a wand of improved invis

...and get ready for a nice iron golem dungeon

Adamantie Daggers.

 

[Scion]

We agree to disagree then.

That is fine, but it is literally impossible for the core rules to cover every single aspect of the universe that might somehow be made 'too powerful' by some 3rd party material or some combination of effects no matter what their source.

No matter what rules the core makes the core also says that specific spell/feat/whatever can override those rules by stating that they do. Therefore, nothing that the core says as rules can ever trump something put out later so long as that thing put out later says that it trumps the rules.

That line might be a bit confusing though But still, say that the core says something like, 'there is spell focus at +2 and nothing else can be used to increase saves'. Then, later on, some book comes out saying, 'this gives a +2 just like spell focus, but it stacks with spell focus even though the rules say that it cant' and at that point they do stack. Because the specific instance says that they do, no matter what the rules say about it.

Hence, the core rules should not be written to try to take into account everything that might be done at some future time. Not only would that require such huge books as to be useless, it would also require teams and teams of lawyers and mathematicians and other such people years, or possibly forever, just to have a chance of making it work. That is just completely implausible.

But I've said my bit, you may read the above or not, disagree or not. That is fine by me

I don't know about useful, but it's a question of style. Crits should not be so commonplace that you'll have a crit every other hit (unless you're lucky with the dice).

And as a matter of style it should be left up to individual dm's, not wholesale slaughtered. What is wrong with having luck (the dice), training (the feat), and helpful magic (the spell/enhancement)? Sounds like at that point it should happen pretty often.

Or I could say that people getting hit too often is bad style and bad for the game. Therefore everyone has there BAB reduced by 1/4 and str/dex only provide 1/4 the previous to hit modification and a whole slew of other changes. Just to make sure people dont get hit as much. Still a styleistic change, and still one that should not be in the core.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

But still, say that the core says something like, 'there is spell focus at +2 and nothing else can be used to increase saves'. Then, later on, some book comes out saying, 'this gives a +2 just like spell focus, but it stacks with spell focus even though the rules say that it cant' and at that point they do stack. Because the specific instance says that they do, no matter what the rules say about it.

Yes, but this special rule won't stack with another special rule unless it is stated that the two stack with itself (and with spell focus).

And as a matter of style it should be left up to individual dm's, not wholesale slaughtered.

But you have to make one ruling or the other. Any DM that wants it any other way can house rule from there.

 

[Scion]

Yes, but this special rule won't stack with another special rule unless it is stated that the two stack with itself (and with spell focus).

It could just as easily say that the new feat/spell/whatever stacks with everything else.

And then another book could say the same thing.

And then another.

And another.

The core cannot cover every base, especially when it states in itself that it is overridden by anything that states it overrides any other rules.

Therefore the core should be written to cover the groundrules, and it is up to dm's to determine what is good or bad in their games. As opposed to some massive multi-thousand page document that tries to cover everything and set things in stone.

It cannot do what you are asking it to do, therefore it should not. It should do the best it can with what it is, but that does not mean playing to the lowest denominator and nerfing everything it can just in case someone might make something that works well in some combination. That is just unreasonable.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

It could just as easily say that the new feat/spell/whatever stacks with everything else.

Now that one's way out there.

 

[Scion]

Now that one's way out there.

Savage species, roll with it, 'this damage reduction stacks with all other forms of damage reduction'

Not so far out there is it?