Sorry if this is dumb. But I'm being told Rhapsody is better than Knife of the Undermountain King. How?

32 points · 5 comments · view on lemmy.world

5 Comments

cjoll4@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 25d (3 replies)

If you're a spellcaster, sure, just for the stacking bonus to spell save DC and spell attack rolls. But then it's better to compare it against a magic staff, not a shortsword...

For actually stabbing people, I think Knife of the Undermountain King is better.

I dunno, who told you Rhapsody is better and what was their explanation when you asked them how?

Aedaz_@lemmy.zip · 9 pts · 25d (2 replies)

They argued that getting the kills for Rhapsody was easy and the effect lasted until long rest.

My argument was KOTUMK was more consistent.

cjoll4@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 25d

Looks like Rhapsody has an ability I didn't know about which lets you consume your +3 from Scarlet Remittance to either guarantee a crit, heal yourself, or give a target disadvantage on saving throws.

https://bg3.wiki/wiki/Scarlet_Feast

I still think which one is better depends on how many spells you're going to be casting.

tomi000@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 24d

If it really lasts until a long rest thats pretty good. From 2 stacks onward the damage output should be better. +2(3) atk roll and +2(3) dmg vs +5% crit chance and ~+0.67 dmg from Organ rearranger

southsamurai@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 24d

Better, for specific situations.

The attack and spell save DC bump at 3 is really damn solid for casters in specific. Pair it with some acuity, and hello guaranteed control spells.

As a weapon used by a melee fighter? Not at all.