3.5 Complete Adventurer - Ninja
decalod85
So, I was thinking about making me a ninja for an up coming game. Not
sure of the level cap.
Anyway, two questions occurred to me while reading the class
description.
Ghost walk: the text of this ability says "invisible" for one round
as a swift action. Does that mean I can activate ghost walk, attack
someone, move next to another opponent, and wait for them to move and
AOO? It does not say "like the spell invisibility"....
Sudden Strike: what are some good ways (feint is one) to deny that
dex bonus to AC so I can roll the big damage?
Darin McBride
>
> So, I was thinking about making me a ninja for an up coming game. Not
> sure of the level cap.
>
> Anyway, two questions occurred to me while reading the class
> description.
>
> Ghost walk: the text of this ability says "invisible" for one round
> as a swift action. Does that mean I can activate ghost walk, attack
> someone, move next to another opponent, and wait for them to move and
> AOO? It does not say "like the spell invisibility"....
For a straight-forward comparison, compare against the "Invisibility, Swift"
spell, also in Comp Adv (p153) which does say that it's just like the spell
"invisibility" except as "above".
Personally, I'd read the text literally as written. You activate it, and
will remain invisible until the same time in your next turn. It is
Supernatural, which does imply a few exceptions, such as wandering into an
anti-magic or dead-magic zone, or being exposed by an invisibility purge, or
seen by see-invisible spells.
> Sudden Strike: what are some good ways (feint is one) to deny that
> dex bonus to AC so I can roll the big damage?
Ghost walking. And don't go after rogues or barbarians, i.e., watch out for
uncanny dodge. IMO, rogues' "sneak attack" is better than the ninja sudden
strike, so you'll have to really play on your other strengths. If you're
going to use feint, which is a great idea, don't forget Improved Feint
(which means Combat Expertise first), Skill Focus (Bluff), and to max out your
bluff skill (ranks, attribute, and any synergies you can find). I also think
there's a feat or something out there that reduces the feint to a swift
action, but I don't know where that is, or if I'm just dreaming.
Now that I think about it, I wonder about a ninja wielding a small weapon
who specialised in grappling... isn't the pinned creature denied dex, even
if they are a rogue? Hmmm...
Harold Groot
<deca...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>So, I was thinking about making me a ninja for an up coming game. Not
>sure of the level cap.
>
>Anyway, two questions occurred to me while reading the class
>description.
>
>Ghost walk: the text of this ability says "invisible" for one round
>as a swift action. Does that mean I can activate ghost walk, attack
>someone, move next to another opponent, and wait for them to move and
>AOO? It does not say "like the spell invisibility"....
Every DM I have ever played with treats this like the spell
INVISIBILITY with a duration of 1r. If you attack you become visible.
If they had wanted you to stay invisible when attacking they would
have referred to IMPROVED INVISIBILITY.
>Sudden Strike: what are some good ways (feint is one) to deny that
>dex bonus to AC so I can roll the big damage?
Get a RING OF INVISIBILITY so you can attack invisibly many times per
day. (At low levels, potions of INVISIBILITY).
Take 5 levels of Invisible Blade (Complete Warrior) so you can feint
as a Free Action - but as noted in the Errata, you can only do so once
per round. (With 3 levels of IB you can feint as a move action). IB
also gives you Sneak Attack dice like a rogue - it stacks with Sudden
Strike.
Take Improved Initiative to increase your chances to strike while
opponents are flat-footed.
decalod85
> On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 12:52:15 -0800 (PST), decalod85
>
>
> >So, I was thinking about making me a ninja for an up coming game. Not
> >sure of the level cap.
>
> >Anyway, two questions occurred to me while reading the class
> >description.
>
> >Ghost walk: the text of this ability says "invisible" for one round
> >as a swift action. Does that mean I can activate ghost walk, attack
> >someone, move next to another opponent, and wait for them to move and
> >AOO? It does not say "like the spell invisibility"....
>
> Every DM I have ever played with treats this like the spell
> INVISIBILITY with a duration of 1r. If you attack you become visible.
> If they had wanted you to stay invisible when attacking they would
> have referred to IMPROVED INVISIBILITY.
Well, it says "invisible, not invisibility, in the book, and the PHB
(page 309) definition of invisible does not include anything about
appearing when attacking. Since there is no such condition as
"improved invisible", I think this is a misinterpretation. Also, when
the books want you to refer to a spell, they say "works like the spell
xxxxxx".
The DMG has a nice long entry on the invisible "condition". It does
not mention that you appear when you attack, and it does not imply a
link to the spell.
I checked the errata page, at http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20040125a.
It said nothing about this.
It badly nerfs the Ninja class if you do this, and I would not want to
play it in that game. You have already lost a whole bunch of sneak
attacks by not being able to hit flanked foes, so it seems like a make
up for it some. This, I think, makes Combat Reflexes almost a
requirement for the Ninja. Turn invisible, hit someone, move over by
someone else, wait for the AOO.
It's not like the bad guys don't know where you are after you hit
them. They know, and you will be visible next round. It's just not
that big of an advantage.
> >Sudden Strike: what are some good ways (feint is one) to deny that
> >dex bonus to AC so I can roll the big damage?
>
> Get a RING OF INVISIBILITY so you can attack invisibly many times per
> day. (At low levels, potions of INVISIBILITY).
Bing, that's awesome. Or, get a spellcaster with greater invis, you
can run around the whole fight hacking off limbs.
I was thinking weapon augment crystals, as well, from Magic Item
Compendium, would help with constructs and undead.
decalod85
<dmcbr...@naboo.to.org.no.spam.for.me> wrote:
> decalod85 wrote:
>
> > So, I was thinking about making me a ninja for an up coming game. Not
> > sure of the level cap.
>
> > Anyway, two questions occurred to me while reading the class
> > description.
>
> > Ghost walk: the text of this ability says "invisible" for one round
> > as a swift action. Does that mean I can activate ghost walk, attack
> > someone, move next to another opponent, and wait for them to move and
> > AOO? It does not say "like the spell invisibility"....
>
> For a straight-forward comparison, compare against the "Invisibility, Swift"
> spell, also in Comp Adv (p153) which does say that it's just like the spell
> "invisibility" except as "above".
>
> Personally, I'd read the text literally as written. You activate it, and
> will remain invisible until the same time in your next turn. It is
> Supernatural, which does imply a few exceptions, such as wandering into an
> anti-magic or dead-magic zone, or being exposed by an invisibility purge, or
> seen by see-invisible spells.
The first line of the invisibility spell says essentially "You become
invisible." They use the same condition, but the arcane spell has
extra rules that do not apply to Ghost Step. So any spell or ability
that affects being invisible works against the invisibility spell or
the Ghost Step ability.
> > Sudden Strike: what are some good ways (feint is one) to deny that
> > dex bonus to AC so I can roll the big damage?
>
> Ghost walking. And don't go after rogues or barbarians, i.e., watch out for
> uncanny dodge. IMO, rogues' "sneak attack" is better than the ninja sudden
> strike, so you'll have to really play on your other strengths. If you're
> going to use feint, which is a great idea, don't forget Improved Feint
> (which means Combat Expertise first), Skill Focus (Bluff), and to max out your
> bluff skill (ranks, attribute, and any synergies you can find). I also think
> there's a feat or something out there that reduces the feint to a swift
> action, but I don't know where that is, or if I'm just dreaming.
Well, you can team up with a spellcaster, and try to get them into one
of the 6 or 7 conditions that deny them their dex bonus to AC.
In a group fight, I see the ninja prowling the edges, looking for
people alone. A ninja would also definitely want to take on two
rogues, who would proceed to flank him and turn him into mush.
> Now that I think about it, I wonder about a ninja wielding a small weapon
> who specialised in grappling... isn't the pinned creature denied dex, even
> if they are a rogue? Hmmm...
Won't work. A grappled opponent is only denied dex bonus to AC
against attackers that are not grappling.
Now, if you have a partner who grapples them, stabby stabby time!
Harold Groot
<deca...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Mar 3, 6:54=A0pm, ques...@infionline.net (Harold Groot) wrote:
>> On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 12:52:15 -0800 (PST), decalod85
>>
>> <decalo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >So, I was thinking about making me a ninja for an up coming game. =A0Not
>> >sure of the level cap.
>>
>> >Anyway, two questions occurred to me while reading the class
>> >description.
>>
>> >Ghost walk: =A0the text of this ability says "invisible" for one round
>> >as a swift action. =A0Does that mean I can activate ghost walk, attack
>> >someone, move next to another opponent, and wait for them to move and
>> >AOO? =A0It does not say "like the spell invisibility"....
>>
>> Every DM I have ever played with treats this like the spell
>> INVISIBILITY with a duration of 1r. =A0If you attack you become visible.
>> If they had wanted you to stay invisible when attacking they would
>> have referred to IMPROVED INVISIBILITY.
>
>Well, it says "invisible, not invisibility, in the book, and the PHB
>(page 309) definition of invisible does not include anything about
>appearing when attacking. Since there is no such condition as
>"improved invisible", I think this is a misinterpretation. Also, when
>the books want you to refer to a spell, they say "works like the spell
>xxxxxx".
>
>The DMG has a nice long entry on the invisible "condition". It does
>not mention that you appear when you attack, and it does not imply a
>link to the spell.
>
>I checked the errata page, at http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=3Ddnd/er=
>/20040125a.
>It said nothing about this.
The definition of the condition is one thing, the question is "What
ends the condition?" As I said, every DM I knows (9 in number, in 3
separate groups) uses the same answer as for the spell - you get to
make a single attack when invisible, but that ends your invisibility.
If you play in a group that has decided this doesn't apply, well, it's
possible your group has it right and our group has it wrong. It's
also possible that it's the other way around.
I would suggest the player discuss this matter with his DM and the
other players in the group. He can just report that the newsgroup is
split on how it should be played, so they will have to make up their
own minds. Then when he knows how his group will play it he can make
his decision on whether to take the class or not.
>It badly nerfs the Ninja class if you do this, and I would not want to
>play it in that game. You have already lost a whole bunch of sneak
>attacks by not being able to hit flanked foes, so it seems like a make
>up for it some. This, I think, makes Combat Reflexes almost a
>requirement for the Ninja. Turn invisible, hit someone, move over by
>someone else, wait for the AOO.
>It's not like the bad guys don't know where you are after you hit
>them. They know, and you will be visible next round. It's just not
>that big of an advantage.
I haven't seen anyone play a ninja at conventions (where I commonly
pick up information on how other groups play). It's quite possible
that people don't play ninjas at conventions because they feel the
ninja is too weak - and they may feel that way because the other DMs
are likewise using the definition that "invisibility ends when you
attack". But while I would SUSPECT that this definition is
widespread, I have no proof of how it's used beyond my 3 playing
groups. It would be nice to hear from others here.
And even if I'm correct, I'm not saying it would be a bad House Rule
to allow it to continue for the full round. The limited duration and
limited number of times per day would not make it overwhelmingly
powerful. Significantly more powerful, yes, but not overwhelming. I
only played one ninja (but in more than one group), and that was for
flavor more than power anyway. Rather than being a battle monster, I
was most often using Ghost Step for unseen infiltration - getting past
sentries invisibly and the like.
>> >Sudden Strike: =A0what are some good ways (feint is one) to deny that
>> >dex bonus to AC so I can roll the big damage?
>>
>> Get a RING OF INVISIBILITY so you can attack invisibly many times per
>> day. =A0(At low levels, potions of INVISIBILITY).
>
>Bing, that's awesome. Or, get a spellcaster with greater invis, you
>can run around the whole fight hacking off limbs.
>
>I was thinking weapon augment crystals, as well, from Magic Item
>Compendium, would help with constructs and undead.
Well, so much depends on what level you are talking about (and
therefore, how much magic you could expect to have). As I recall, the
weapon crystals only really help with undead and constructs if you get
the Greater Weapon Crystals - and those have to be put on a weapon
with a +3 enhancement bonus to function.
My current 10th level "precision striker" doesn't have any weapons
with greater than +1 enhancement. Some have additional abilities, but
a +3 equivalent weapon doesn't count - it has to be +3 enhancement.
His magic wealth is spread out on other things. Instead, he has the
Rogue Alternative Class Ability "Penetrating Strike" from Dungeonscape
to help with undead and constructs (you trade Trap Sense for the
ability to make sneak attack against them at half value - and only
when you flank). This would not help a Ninja.
Harold Groot
<deca...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Mar 3, 6:54=A0pm, ques...@infionline.net (Harold Groot) wrote:
>> On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 12:52:15 -0800 (PST), decalod85
>>
>> <decalo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >So, I was thinking about making me a ninja for an up coming game. =A0Not
>> >sure of the level cap.
>>
>> >Anyway, two questions occurred to me while reading the class
>> >description.
>>
>> >Ghost walk: =A0the text of this ability says "invisible" for one round
>> >as a swift action. =A0Does that mean I can activate ghost walk, attack
>> >someone, move next to another opponent, and wait for them to move and
>> >AOO? =A0It does not say "like the spell invisibility"....
>>
>> Every DM I have ever played with treats this like the spell
>> INVISIBILITY with a duration of 1r. =A0If you attack you become visible.
>> If they had wanted you to stay invisible when attacking they would
>> have referred to IMPROVED INVISIBILITY.
>
>Well, it says "invisible, not invisibility, in the book, and the PHB
>(page 309) definition of invisible does not include anything about
>appearing when attacking. Since there is no such condition as
>"improved invisible", I think this is a misinterpretation. Also, when
>the books want you to refer to a spell, they say "works like the spell
>xxxxxx".
>
>The DMG has a nice long entry on the invisible "condition". It does
>not mention that you appear when you attack, and it does not imply a
>link to the spell.
>
>I checked the errata page, at http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=3Ddnd/er=
>/20040125a.
>It said nothing about this.
>
>It badly nerfs the Ninja class if you do this, and I would not want to
>play it in that game. You have already lost a whole bunch of sneak
>attacks by not being able to hit flanked foes, so it seems like a make
>up for it some. This, I think, makes Combat Reflexes almost a
>requirement for the Ninja. Turn invisible, hit someone, move over by
>someone else, wait for the AOO.
>
>It's not like the bad guys don't know where you are after you hit
>them. They know, and you will be visible next round. It's just not
>that big of an advantage.
OK, I've done some research and it appears our group has been playing
it wrong. Ninjas stay invisible even if they attack.
Mind you, we've been in good company playing it wrong. One of the
Associate Editors of Dragon Magazine chimed in on a discussion on
paizo, stating that ninjas become visible when they attack. But later
in the discussion he said he had been wrong - and that he had
therefore been playing his own ninja wrong when he played it that way.
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/community/gaming/dnd/archives/ninjaAndGhostStep
At the end they reference the 3.5 FAQ page 21 as currently stating
that ninjas stay invisible the full round even if they attack. I have
the MAINFAQv07192006 and it isn't in there. Maybe there's a later
edition I need to download? The post mentioning the FAQ is from Aug.
2007.
So in any case - it appears they stay invisible, and my ninja is not
quite as weak as I played him (and as Mike McArtor played his). So be
prepared for others to be used to it the other way. If it's really in
the latest FAQ (like the post says), have that ready in case someone
has a question about it.
>
>> >Sudden Strike: =A0what are some good ways (feint is one) to deny that
>> >dex bonus to AC so I can roll the big damage?
>>
>> Get a RING OF INVISIBILITY so you can attack invisibly many times per
>> day. =A0(At low levels, potions of INVISIBILITY).
decalod85
>
> The definition of the condition is one thing, the question is "What
> ends the condition?" As I said, every DM I knows (9 in number, in 3
> separate groups) uses the same answer as for the spell - you get to
> make a single attack when invisible, but that ends your invisibility.
I agree with everything else you have said for the most part, but this
part still is sticking out to me.
The Invisibility spell description states that "the spell ends" if you
make an attack. Since the spell created the condition, it goes away.
That makes sense. No where does it say that the invisible condition
is ended through an attack.
What does not make sense is applying the rules for one spell that uses
a condition onto a broadly defined condition used by many spells and
abilities. If the ability said "like the spell Invisibility" I would
have to agree, but it doesn't say that.
I'm not calling you out here, just disagreeing. I feel that the ninja
class as written is a little weak, and might not stand up well against
the core classes. I am looking for ways to beef it up within the
rules, as I enjoy a challenge.
Harold Groot
<deca...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Mar 3, 6:54=A0pm, ques...@infionline.net (Harold Groot) wrote:
>> On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 12:52:15 -0800 (PST), decalod85
>>
>> <decalo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >So, I was thinking about making me a ninja for an up coming game. =A0Not
>> >sure of the level cap.
>>
>> >Anyway, two questions occurred to me while reading the class
>> >description.
>>
>> >Ghost walk: =A0the text of this ability says "invisible" for one round
>> >as a swift action. =A0Does that mean I can activate ghost walk, attack
>> >someone, move next to another opponent, and wait for them to move and
>> >AOO? =A0It does not say "like the spell invisibility"....
>>
OK, there WAS a later FAQ than I had. It's dated 6/30/2008. My
fault, I guess. I think I stopped checking for updates to the 3.5 FAQ
once 4.0 came out. That's the danger when you I ASS-U-ME something.
from page 22:
How does the ghost step ability of the ninja (CAd)
work? Does the invisibility effect end if the ninja attacks,
like with the invisibility spell, or does it continue after an
attack, like with the greater invisibility spell?
The invisibility granted by the ninja’s ghost step class
feature lasts until the start of the ninja’s next turn, regardless of
whether she attacks or not. Thus, it’s more like greater
invisibility than like the normal invisibility spell.
If anyone (such as our OP) wants this latest 3.5 FAQ, download it
from:
http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a
>> Every DM I have ever played with treats this like the spell
>> INVISIBILITY with a duration of 1r. =A0If you attack you become visible.
>> If they had wanted you to stay invisible when attacking they would
>> have referred to IMPROVED INVISIBILITY.
>
>Well, it says "invisible, not invisibility, in the book, and the PHB
>(page 309) definition of invisible does not include anything about
>appearing when attacking. Since there is no such condition as
>"improved invisible", I think this is a misinterpretation. Also, when
>the books want you to refer to a spell, they say "works like the spell
>xxxxxx".
>
>The DMG has a nice long entry on the invisible "condition". It does
>not mention that you appear when you attack, and it does not imply a
>link to the spell.
>
>I checked the errata page, at http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=3Ddnd/er=
>/20040125a.
>It said nothing about this.
>
>It badly nerfs the Ninja class if you do this, and I would not want to
>play it in that game. You have already lost a whole bunch of sneak
>attacks by not being able to hit flanked foes, so it seems like a make
>up for it some. This, I think, makes Combat Reflexes almost a
>requirement for the Ninja. Turn invisible, hit someone, move over by
>someone else, wait for the AOO.
>
>It's not like the bad guys don't know where you are after you hit
>them. They know, and you will be visible next round. It's just not
>that big of an advantage.
>
>> >Sudden Strike: =A0what are some good ways (feint is one) to deny that
>> >dex bonus to AC so I can roll the big damage?
>>
>> Get a RING OF INVISIBILITY so you can attack invisibly many times per
>> day. =A0(At low levels, potions of INVISIBILITY).