PDA

View Full Version : The Test of Spite [3.51]



Pages : 1 2 3 4 [5] 6

Doc Roc
2009-10-17, 02:27 AM
Reposting because of being swallowed by the pages without an apparent answer:



Also...how's things at the chat? It's been a while since I have visited...

As it stands, I don't have the answers to those questions right now.

Doc Roc
2009-10-17, 03:31 AM
Proposed Fix: Effects that would grant effective rounds of time instead grant effective turns of time.

Thoughts?

sofawall
2009-10-17, 07:09 PM
This would interact with the Action Economy Fix in a way that basically makes the AEF do nothing.

PinkysBrain
2009-10-17, 07:34 PM
How did that build get a hold of a 9th level maneuver? The IL requirement is pretty hard to beat, and I know of no means to do so.
Initiator level is not a prerequisite (look on the prerequisite line) ... it's only necessary for learning a manoeuvre with a martial adept class or martial study. This has some interesting side effects with manoeuvre granting items ... which only require you to meet prerequisites.

PS. I know nothing about the build in question, just saying.

lvl 1 sharnian
2009-10-17, 08:50 PM
Is warcaster allowed?
Didn't think so ...Please?

Olo Demonsbane
2009-10-17, 09:03 PM
How did that build get a hold of a 9th level maneuver? The IL requirement is pretty hard to beat, and I know of no means to do so.

It was me...

I bought Master Shadow Hand Gloves after having lots of shadow hand maneuvers for swordsage.


And it was not a one trick pony...it had 6d6+13 sneak attack in addition to that, as well as full-2 initiating.

lvl 1 sharnian
2009-10-18, 01:05 PM
Anyone up for a qualifier against my skillmonkey?

PhoenixRivers
2009-10-18, 11:55 PM
I avoid skillmonkeys. It tends to be very one sided. Either one side can't see the skillmonkey, and he has all day to kill...

Or the skillmonkey is seen, and usually death follows shortly.

PhoenixRivers
2009-10-18, 11:58 PM
Proposed Fix: Effects that would grant effective rounds of time instead grant effective turns of time.

Thoughts?

Please outline the distinction.

Also, some effects don't grant turns, so much as steal them. Anticipatory strike sacrifices your next turn for a turn now.

Also, If you deal with not making them rounds any more, that has implications for durations. Now Time Stop would allow you to cast multiple 1 round effects, and they'd all hit.

Doc Roc
2009-10-19, 12:08 AM
True. Timestop is banned. It's just that, as it currently stands, temporal acceleration is sort of a holy-grail because it represents a hole in the action economy fix.

Arakune
2009-10-19, 12:32 AM
True. Timestop is banned. It's just that, as it currently stands, temporal acceleration is sort of a holy-grail because it represents a hole in the action economy fix.

So far a belt of battle is cheaper and does almost what TA does in the current rules: give 'extra action' to fill your one turn quota.

PhoenixRivers
2009-10-19, 01:16 AM
Temp Accel is really worse than that. You typically only gain a move action, unless you boost it to ML 15 (quite possible) or you schism manifest it. In addition, there are restrictions to what you can do while accelerated. Given a choice on a 1 use effect of either? I'd go with Belt of Battle every time.

I think that this particular problem isn't so major, provided that actions which grant extra turns/rounds still count against action cap.

Honestly, I see effects (especially killing ones) which deny saves are a bit more of an issue, when they require no attack roll. Holy Word, I'm looking at you.

Yes, it's vulnerable to SR, but there are few ways to get a respectable SR, and the builds that use this method work on garnering CL 23, which autopenetrates most item based/template based ways to get it, and almost penetrates spell-based ways to get it, when cast at CL 13. (95% chance there)

The rarity of SR, and the rather tight caps that are placed on it, as compared to, say, Caster level boosts, make it rather less than balanced.

Proposed fixes:
(1) Remove <Death> from the spells, or add the <Death> descriptor to any effect that causes instant death. (allow standard means of protecting from death effects to work)
(2) Allow any effect that requires no attack or save a Will or Fort save to negate. (allow saves)
(3) Cap the caster level for these tests, for all purposes, at CL 20, until the character independently qualifies as epic. (prevent the kill method, least favorite, but not a bad limit regardless. I use this in my games, to prevent non-epic characters from using CL 21.)

Mix and match, as desired.

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-10-19, 01:25 AM
Temp Accel is really worse than that. You typically only gain a move action, unless you boost it to ML 15 (quite possible) or you schism manifest it. In addition, there are restrictions to what you can do while accelerated. Given a choice on a 1 use effect of either? I'd go with Belt of Battle every time.

I think that this particular problem isn't so major, provided that actions which grant extra turns/rounds still count against action cap.

Honestly, I see effects (especially killing ones) which deny saves are a bit more of an issue, when they require no attack roll. Holy Word, I'm looking at you.

Yes, it's vulnerable to SR, but there are few ways to get a respectable SR, and the builds that use this method work on garnering CL 23, which autopenetrates most item based/template based ways to get it, and almost penetrates spell-based ways to get it, when cast at CL 13. (95% chance there)

The rarity of SR, and the rather tight caps that are placed on it, as compared to, say, Caster level boosts, make it rather less than balanced.

Proposed fixes:
(1) Remove <Death> from the spells, or add the <Death> descriptor to any effect that causes instant death. (allow standard means of protecting from death effects to work)
(2) Allow any effect that requires no attack or save a Will or Fort save to negate. (allow saves)
(3) Cap the caster level for these tests, for all purposes, at CL 20, until the character independently qualifies as epic. (prevent the kill method, least favorite, but not a bad limit regardless. I use this in my games, to prevent non-epic characters from using CL 21.)

Mix and match, as desired.

Personally, I like Option 3 the best. In fact, you may wish to limit CL to 15, to minimize certain Psion-based cheese.

PhoenixRivers
2009-10-19, 01:39 AM
Personally, I like Option 3 the best. In fact, you may wish to limit CL to 15, to minimize certain Psion-based cheese.

I've never personally taken my ML past 15, but a stock Wilder can, with no optimization at all. CL 15 would also effectively nerf Karma beads. +2 CL max is probably a bit draconian. I chose 20, because there's a lot of limiters already in place for it. The rule is minimal in implementation, and fits with existing limits. That said, it's far more possible to boost casters than psions, when it comes to caster/manifester level.

I like the 3rd option, myself, and the 1st.

If a spell effect causes instant death, then the Death descriptor should be on it. That way, Death Ward, and the like, can protect.

Doc Roc
2009-10-19, 01:52 AM
I do find that an attractive proposition. It'd allow us to reconsider some hacks and caps here and there. Neat thought, will further examine it.

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-10-19, 01:58 AM
I've never personally taken my ML past 15, but a stock Wilder can, with no optimization at all. CL 15 would also effectively nerf Karma beads. +2 CL max is probably a bit draconian. I chose 20, because there's a lot of limiters already in place for it. The rule is minimal in implementation, and fits with existing limits. That said, it's far more possible to boost casters than psions, when it comes to caster/manifester level.

I like the 3rd option, myself, and the 1st.

If a spell effect causes instant death, then the Death descriptor should be on it. That way, Death Ward, and the like, can protect.

What about a death effect which is not a spell, such as the Fort Save or Die effect from a CDG?

Karma Beads are kinda cheesy anyways, RAI you're supposed to buy the whole necklace, not just one bead. Maybe allow it to have full effect, if it is only used for daily buffs?

PhoenixRivers
2009-10-19, 02:02 AM
What about a death effect which is not a spell, such as the Fort Save or Die effect from a CDG?

Very restrictive. Can only be done on helpless targets.

I'm in the camp of "magical effects which cause instantaneous death" should qualify as magical death effects, for purposes of spells which protect from the same.

And this isn't looking at the fireball versus the 1hd kobold. This is a specific referral to spells that state "death" as an effect.


Karma Beads are kinda cheesy anyways, RAI you're supposed to buy the whole necklace, not just one bead. Maybe allow it to have full effect, if it is only used for daily buffs?
Now we're getting too invasive. We don't want a 200 page rulebook of rules changes. The rule you propose has absolutely no meaning outside of the artificial testing environment here.

Strands of Prayer Beads are like partially charged wands. Selectable if creating characters above level 1, otherwise findable in loot. We are doing the former. This is useful in evaluating the maximum potential of classes at this level under the proposed rules. It also allows partial items. Especially since many of the Prayer Beads are one use only.

And this still doesn't address the fact that a Wilder 13 can say "Wild surge" and boost higher than ML 15 as a class feature. That means the limit of 15 actually limits the RAW/RAI of wilder, which was designed to be able to surge to higher manifester level. That's the whole thing of the class.

Good rules adaptations should be simple, with sweeping applications that affect multiple related issues. In other words, you find the way to fix the most problems with the least alteration.

Aharon
2009-10-19, 08:00 AM
You mentioned the need for sheet reviewers. I might be interested, with the caveats that
a) My rules knowledge isn't as extensive as that of most posters here.
b) I wouldn't be able to do much sheet reviewing. But as there seems to be a lot of build up, I guess anything would help.
c) I don't know what exactly would be my task as a sheet reviewer. Would I just have to look if the proposed character is legal as per the current rules, or should I also point out to Doc Roc/anybody else in charge of the test if there is something overpowered/cheesy involved?

Claudius Maximus
2009-10-19, 10:19 AM
a) Lack of rules knowledge can be offset by taking your time and looking up anything you don't recognize. This may however result in long turnaround times, as it is not unusual for a character to draw from 10 or more different sources.

b) If you do one sheet ever, we're ahead. Any help at all is appreciated.

c) Legality is the first concern of a sheet checker. Checking math and making sure prerequisites are met and so forth, as well as making sure that a character conforms to the rules set forth on the first page. Anybody can propose changes to the rules, and the sheet checkers are no exception, so if you see something you think is crazy, feel free to point it out to us (we'd appreciate PMs or spoilers if it's an important part of a character's build, as some players prefer to keep such things secret).

IthilanorStPete
2009-10-19, 10:20 AM
I'd also like to help with sheet reviews.

sofawall
2009-10-19, 01:08 PM
Proposed rules change:

What is to be changed: "Diplomacy and its ilk"

Changed to: "Anything that disables an opponent* automatically and is set against a fixed DC, where the DC has no relation to either character."

*Ends the fight, effectively.

Example: Diplomacy (No opposed rolls and no way to improve it as a static defense (like AC)).
Example of what would be allowed: Epic Bluff (Bluff check opposed by Sense Motive, so there is a valid defense)

Cieyrin
2009-10-19, 01:39 PM
Proposed rules change:

What is to be changed: "Diplomacy and its ilk"

Changed to: "Anything that disables an opponent* automatically and is set against a fixed DC, where the DC has no relation to either character."

*Ends the fight, effectively.

Example: Diplomacy (No opposed rolls and no way to improve it as a static defense (like AC)).
Example of what would be allowed: Epic Bluff (Bluff check opposed by Sense Motive, so there is a valid defense)

We all know how difficult it is to get Sense Motive and other defensive skills up compared to offensive skills like Bluff, Hide and Move Silently. It's seemingly a defense but in reality it hardly is. Glibness alone makes it nigh impossible to Sense Motive what they're saying.

sofawall
2009-10-19, 01:51 PM
Glibness is debated as to whether is applies to the epic use of bluff to cause a suggestion.

Also, just because they're hard to raise doesn't mean they aren't there. HP is hard to raise compared to damage, but it's still a defense.

PhoenixRivers
2009-10-19, 02:24 PM
The issue is that this thinking promotes rocket tag. If there is a defense, however obscure or difficult to acquire, it's cool.

This leads to it being nearly impossible to build a defensive character, eventually.

Yes, you can boost sense motive, and spot, and listen, and SR, and Saves, and HP, and touch AC, and Death ward, and protect from ability damage, and mind blank, and dispelling, and energy resistance, and DR, and etc etc etc.

But not even half of the total "defenses" can be covered at once. The issue is that it takes 1 type of offense to make a strong offensive character, and 2 to make a great one.

It takes 132 forms of defense to make a defensive one, and the resources in doing that practically preclude a meaningful offense.

Is this good or bad? Well, it encourages proactive characters. It also encourages short fights. It also means that initiative, often as not, decides a fight.

To be honest, by this, Diplomacy can be thwarted by rendering yourself unable to detect the diplomancer. Holy Word can be defended by SR (never mind that the things that make Holy Word viable make it elementary to penetrate SR).

In other words, assuming that something has a defense can often be a trap, if the defense is so obscure that it's not worth optimizing.

sofawall
2009-10-19, 02:40 PM
The best offense is an obscure one.

PhoenixRivers
2009-10-19, 02:54 PM
The best offense is an obscure one.

LOL, most offenses here are obscure ones.

sofawall
2009-10-19, 03:00 PM
And we are the best.

Doc Roc
2009-10-19, 04:36 PM
I do think this is a core problem. I am fine adding more to the ban list at the end of the month. Right now, we're in a freeze period, but I think the Holy Word line is definitely material worth considering for ban\rewrite status.

lvl 1 sharnian
2009-10-19, 07:51 PM
How much does an adamantine wagon cost?

What is the save for spells from magic traps or wands?

IthilanorStPete
2009-10-19, 07:57 PM
Adamantine: see d20srd.org's special materials section.

Saves: assume the primary casting ability is the minimum needed to cast the relevant spell.

Claudius Maximus
2009-10-19, 08:03 PM
How much does an adamantine wagon cost?

What is the save for spells from magic traps or wands?

I don't know about making the whole thing out of adamantine, since no cost for "other items" is given. You could give it adamantine armor plating, though, which would cost 5000 gp per inch per 10-foot section (a wagon has 2 of these). Each inch per section adds 5000 lbs to the wagon's weight. This information comes from the A&EG.

The Save DC of a wand would be 10 + spell level + (spell level/2, rounded down).

lvl 1 sharnian
2009-10-19, 08:07 PM
Would that be the same for traps?

Also, does anyone know of a vehicle/object that a person could pull around like a cart? If an object says it has the same hardness the material it's laying on, does having it rest on a force effect make it nearly invincible?

Claudius Maximus
2009-10-19, 08:08 PM
Force effects don't have harness, but rather immunity to damage.

lvl 1 sharnian
2009-10-19, 08:09 PM
Do force effects count as a material? And if so, does that allow objects that share hardness with the material their laying on that lay on force effects gain immunity to damage?

Edit: Found trap DCs now,

Claudius Maximus
2009-10-19, 08:11 PM
Generally, no, but since I am unaware of anything that does that, I'd like to see the text of the ability (it's ok to post the relevant part, I think).

The problem here is that immunity is not the same as infinite resistance/hardness.

lvl 1 sharnian
2009-10-19, 08:23 PM
Claudius
From spell turrets, I was only afraid of them being banned or something. Do you know of a way to make it portable?, besides dimension doors?


AC7; hardness equal to material turret is mounted on (minimum 5); HP200

Doc Roc
2009-10-19, 09:14 PM
I question if spell turrets are within the spirit of this endeavor.. :S

Milskidasith
2009-10-19, 09:15 PM
Not that I've been here for a while or am great at balance, but I'd say that, just on the basis that the borked trap rules (for example, auto reload and activate as a free action when you do X; snapping your fingers can reasonably be done 15 times a round), and on the basis that they are how the Tippyverse functions, they should be banned.

Claudius Maximus
2009-10-19, 09:19 PM
They can be set of 30 times per round at least, with the current action caps. I'd not be averse to banning/disallowing them.

Doc Roc
2009-10-19, 09:25 PM
Not that I've been here for a while or am great at balance, but I'd say that, just on the basis that the borked trap rules (for example, auto reload and activate as a free action when you do X; snapping your fingers can reasonably be done 15 times a round), and on the basis that they are how the Tippyverse functions, they should be banned.

Your opinion is always welcome, and I am inclined to agree, though I think traps are currently covered by the no-custom-item rules. I will go make it properly explicit.

PinkysBrain
2009-10-19, 09:42 PM
Custom is probably a bad word ... "No items priced according to the guidelines in table 7-33" would be more apt. I personally would not consider a trap priced using the magic device trap rules a custom item any more than I would consider a +1 flaming longbow one.

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-10-19, 09:49 PM
Custom is probably a bad word ... "No items priced according to the guidelines in table 7-33" would be more apt. I personally would not consider a trap priced using the magic device trap rules a custom item any more than I would consider a +1 flaming longbow one.

I would. more words

lvl 1 sharnian
2009-10-19, 09:56 PM
I question if spell turrets are within the spirit of this endeavor.. :S


Well, there are already some sample traps, which, like the "sample" magic items, are already pretty good, and sides, its' definitely in the spirit of the test of spite:

-Just think of it as a spell machinegun
-I think the Borg Cube was pretty out of spirit
-It's pretty expensive investment even if you craft it... (Spell Levels 8+9, unable to be bought without crafting)

Milskidasith
2009-10-19, 10:02 PM
I do think this is a core problem. I am fine adding more to the ban list at the end of the month. Right now, we're in a freeze period, but I think the Holy Word line is definitely material worth considering for ban\rewrite status.

Holy Word doesn't actually work if you have protection from death effects, does it? I mean, it gives blind and deaf with no save (or lesser penalties for other things), and stunning and death (although FoM and Death Ward are very common) but a druid level 2 spell gives blindness with no save (well, that's a RTA at -4, but still.) It's a very powerful spell,m but it's not exactly powerful by killing in an obscure way most people aren't protected from.

Then again, my Holy Word build, while certainly suboptimal (I did not have, unlike now, access to any books besides what were online) was still able to effectively kill Talic's "I don't ever die to anything" build (Granted, I didn't actually do it, but if I had thought for a second I could have just drowned him) and one of Claudius's annoying super sneaky builds (though that was more due to my virtue of carrying around lots of absurdly bright rocks.)

Cieyrin
2009-10-19, 10:08 PM
Do force effects count as a material? And if so, does that allow objects that share hardness with the material their laying on that lay on force effects gain immunity to damage?

Edit: Found trap DCs now,

Why not just make it out of Riverine?

PhoenixRivers
2009-10-19, 10:12 PM
I do think this is a core problem. I am fine adding more to the ban list at the end of the month. Right now, we're in a freeze period, but I think the Holy Word line is definitely material worth considering for ban\rewrite status.

Well, at it's a level 7 spell, it's not easily available at below CL 11.

Implementing either a max CL of 20 would solve all but the most optimized variants (finding a way to get it as a spell known at a character level of 10 or lower would create a brief window where it could be used), as well as prevent the death effect from being used within the ToS.

Alternately, having the will save granted by the spell apply to all effects of the spell would be amenable, and would still keep it powerful. A will save with a -4 penalty on a 7th level spell is nothing to sneeze at. Assuming a +10 total cast modifier, that's an effective DC 31, or up to 33-35, based on spell focuses/etc... Which is a long shot for optimized characters, even ones with good will saves. But it's still effective, and if you're pouring 3-4 feats and a lot of WBL into a single combo, it should be effective.

PinkysBrain
2009-10-19, 10:14 PM
I would.
Okay then, explain it to me ... what essential differences are there between the pricing rules for magic traps and the pricing rules for magic weapons which make items created using the former custom and the latter non custom? Both sets of rules are hard and fast, requiring 0 DM fiat.

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-10-19, 10:22 PM
Okay then, explain it to me ... what essential differences are there between the pricing rules for magic traps and the pricing rules for magic weapons which make items created using the former custom and the latter non custom? Both sets of rules are hard and fast, requiring 0 DM fiat.

Making magical weapons has a static list of effects, at a listed cost. Keen, for example, is a +1 Equivalent. Silent is a flat 3,500.

Magical Traps do not have said static lists, they instead can use any spell you care to use. This leads to blatant abuse.

In other words, magical weapons are limited, trap creation is not.

PinkysBrain
2009-10-19, 10:33 PM
Making magical weapons has a static list of effects, at a listed cost.
That would make spellblades custom too.

Claudius Maximus
2009-10-19, 10:33 PM
Milski, I'm pretty sure Holy word et alii are not [death] effects, which makes them even more powerful.

As the player of a CL-hoarding Blasphemy user, I have to say that I would not be opposed to a CL cap of 20. I'm not so sure about adding a save though.

Milskidasith
2009-10-19, 10:46 PM
They aren't, but the vague wording of Death Ward makes anything explicitly "save or be killed" as blocked, or it means it does nothing.


The subject is immune to all death spells, magical death effects, energy drain, and any negative energy effects.

I know that the first part (immune to all death spells) means spells with the death subtype, but the second is vague and could preclude anything causing death. Then again, you are the mod, so you make the ruling on it (or rather, Doc does.)

Doc Roc
2009-10-19, 11:25 PM
Issue resolved. We now use an allow list for items that can be made as per custom item rules.

PhoenixRivers
2009-10-20, 12:57 AM
As the player of a CL-hoarding Blasphemy user, I have to say that I would not be opposed to a CL cap of 20. I'm not so sure about adding a save though.

From a balance perspective, ask yourself this.

How many spells exist that disallow saving throws?
How many of those spells also hit automatically?
Of those, how many have effect based on a static ability; that is, one that cannot be modified by player to allow defense?

Of the first, there are several.
Add in the second addendum, and the list grows very, very small.
Add in the third, and it's essentially the Holy Word spells.

If it were compared to a dynamic device, such as HP, it would be reasonable. But when you take a dynamic statistic, and attack a static one, it creates "no win" scenarios. Especially since you only need +5 CL (ioun stone and Karma bead, or either of the above two and divine spell power, or several other methods) to achieve paralysis for 10-100 rounds, which is effectively a loss. The only way to make character level dynamic is in the bad direction, with negative levels.

In fairness, that has a defense. Freedom of Movement/form immune to paralysis. The blindness effect, not so much, and that can also be a game ender.

The death effect bypasses any and all methods to protect against. Originally designed as a "god's devout turning the tide against mooks", it became, with a bit of work "instagib the BBEG". It's one of the most commonly banned spells for a reason. Allowing its will at a -4 to apply to all effects wouldn't unbalance the spell. I still defy you to find another 7th level spell with more powerful save or x effects. At worst, it requires casters to actually have a decent save.

T.G. Oskar
2009-10-20, 02:37 AM
Regardless of the decision taken, I'd do a very simple spell swap. Simple in the case of limiting at least the uses per day of the spell.

All Divine Word spells (aka, Holy Word/Blasphemy/Dictum/Word of Chaos) should be removed from the Cleric spell slot, and limited only to the domain spell slots. It's nothing revolutionary, given that it doesn't resolve the main problem (too high CL and you can auto-kill a BBEG), but it patches the problem. Limiting it to domain spell slots means it limits it at least to a single use per day; not exactly limiting in the sense that, battle-wise, you'll only intend to use it once, but it also implies competition with other possible 7th-level domain spells which may hold a challenge. At the very least, it means it can be countered. This will also imply that Domain Spontaneity turns far stronger than usual, but it also implies a stretch of resources that can affect some builds.

Hence, why less of a fix and more of a patch. If the ceiling is limited to CL 20 or the word is allowed a Will save or something, it would neutralize it.

Though, I am particularly partial to add the [truename] descriptor to it. That alone forces potential users to invest in so many resources that it becomes ridiculous. After all, Divine Word spells are in a way divine echoes of the Power Word spells, and the latter are mentioned as forms of lesser truenaming. This would indirectly nerf the spells, as you'd need to consume more of your resources to use the spell at full force (Divine Insight + high Int + full ranks in Truenaming + Silver Tongue aka focused GP expenditure + ridiculous CL boosters for spell just to affect the creatures the way you intend to).

Doc Roc
2009-10-20, 02:09 PM
The issue is that this forces book-diving, and we'd like in theory to put people in a place where they don't need to do quite as much of that.

Cieyrin
2009-10-20, 03:14 PM
...full ranks in Truenaming...

Not to mention Truename Training so you can actually get it as a class skill and have significant ranks in it, considering no one but Truenamers, Factotums and Exemplars have it as such.

Claudius Maximus
2009-10-20, 03:43 PM
What about the fact that these spells have (in theory) a 33% failure chance due to the immunity granted by having the right alignment? I've actually seen a good spread of alignments in the ToS. You can of course cast multiple different versions but then that's more actions and a greater investment of spell slots.

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-10-20, 03:59 PM
What about the fact that these spells have (in theory) a 33% failure chance due to the immunity granted by having the right alignment? I've actually seen a good spread of alignments in the ToS. You can of course cast multiple different versions but then that's more actions and a greater investment of spell slots.

Belt of Battle and Pearl of Power, respectively.

Claudius Maximus
2009-10-20, 04:03 PM
Pearl of power would not help at all. It takes a standard action to activate and only recovers a spell already cast.

But yeah, a Belt of Battle letting you cast both Holy Word and Blasphemy pretty much has you covered, if they don't stop you.

Edit: Except that you'd kill yourself with one or the other if you don't find a way around that.

Doc Roc
2009-10-20, 04:35 PM
Emergency ban: Command Undead.

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-10-20, 04:39 PM
Emergency ban: Command Undead.

Someone had fun with Allips?

IthilanorStPete
2009-10-20, 04:41 PM
*Spock eyebrow raise*

Also, is it just me, or is the chat down?

Doc Roc
2009-10-20, 04:50 PM
Chat's up for me.

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-10-20, 04:51 PM
Chat's up for me.

I always just get this:

Flash Local Storage is required to join 'techin' as a guest.

Please click here and increase the amount of local storage Flash can use. Then reload this page to join the room.

No matter what I do to the local storage, I keep getting the same error message.

EDIT: Finally got in somehow...

Claudius Maximus
2009-10-20, 04:59 PM
I also get that occasionally, but it's happened less often since about the time they fixed the echo issue. I do still get an about:blank every once in a while though. I don't know what causes that.

Cieyrin
2009-10-20, 05:00 PM
I always just get this:

Flash Local Storage is required to join 'techin' as a guest.

Please click here and increase the amount of local storage Flash can use. Then reload this page to join the room.

No matter what I do to the local storage, I keep getting the same error message.

EDIT: Finally got in somehow...

I get that message a lot. You just need to reload it once or twice and it'll get the hint eventually that all is good and kosher to load up.

Milskidasith
2009-10-20, 05:05 PM
Pearl of power would not help at all. It takes a standard action to activate and only recovers a spell already cast.

But yeah, a Belt of Battle letting you cast both Holy Word and Blasphemy pretty much has you covered, if they don't stop you.

Edit: Except that you'd kill yourself with one or the other if you don't find a way around that.

Extraordinary Spell Aim. It's how I did it. Granted, Doc allowed me to have a custom item that may not be in the rules (a simple ring of +10 spellcraft, but still). It's a feat loss, but blech.

Anyway, so what we are suggesting is nerfing Holy Word to being Domain slot only and requiring you to have Truenaming? All that does is make it from something that costs most all of your resources, limits your ability to get anything else because it costs a good bit to get CL +10, disallows any kind of item crafting or LA, and requires you to get at least one feat (Extraordinary Spell Aim), into something that requires all of your resources.

It doesn't solve that the spells super powerful, it just makes an overtly specialized build even more specialized. I'd rather just ban it or leave it alone (or the -4 save thing).

Also, does Death Ward protect against Holy Word? I'm not sure, since "Magical death effects" is either redundant with the wording against death spells, or infuriatingly vague and could be against any spell that has an effect that causes death.

lvl 1 sharnian
2009-10-20, 05:28 PM
So... how 'bout them spell turrets?

Edit: Also, inspired by a recent thread, does Psionic Lion's Charge give permanent Pounce? RAW would seem to indicate so Forgot, Tide changed it in the Rules

Claudius Maximus
2009-10-20, 06:24 PM
Psionic Lion's Charge now has a duration of one round as intended, instead of the ridiculously stupid instantaneous duration it possessed.
So yes, but not in the ToS.

Doc Roc
2009-10-21, 02:09 AM
So... how 'bout them spell turrets?

Edit: Also, inspired by a recent thread, does Psionic Lion's Charge give permanent Pounce? RAW would seem to indicate so Forgot, Tide changed it in the Rules

Still thinking about spell turrets. Can I get a page cite?

T.G. Oskar
2009-10-21, 03:32 AM
Anyway, so what we are suggesting is nerfing Holy Word to being Domain slot only and requiring you to have Truenaming? All that does is make it from something that costs most all of your resources, limits your ability to get anything else because it costs a good bit to get CL +10, disallows any kind of item crafting or LA, and requires you to get at least one feat (Extraordinary Spell Aim), into something that requires all of your resources.

It doesn't solve that the spells super powerful, it just makes an overtly specialized build even more specialized. I'd rather just ban it or leave it alone (or the -4 save thing).

Not we. More like I. The rest of the people either only mention a bit, or outright refuse it out of objective differences.

What I proposed was a radical patch to the Words, since as it stands now it works as a main course of action; you'd use it on almost anything since it works much too well. Patching it so that it consumes all of your resources makes it a last-ditch effort, something you'd love to have but not waste. Currently, last-ditch actions are actually pretty weak, with certain exceptions (think about this: Rage, Smite Evil and 9th level spells were meant to be used only on really tough battles. Rage can be used several times per day as it stands; Smite Evil is actually too weak to be used as a last-ditch effort but you can't spam it either; 9th level spells are a worse offender since it forces a 5-minute workday); this should make a Cleric think twice about shifting its entire build JUST to make Holy Word work. That might cause you to weaken in most aspects, since it implies delving into some MAD, getting more feats than you probably need, and expending more of your resources (the kind of thing that smells cheese to a DM)

Now, this isn't a fix; I mentioned it was more of a patch, as it doesn't really fix the spell. If you add a save (even with a reduction), then you have to notice what else deserves a spell. It means a very serious hit, one that might make the spell worthless; since, if you notice how every single effect seems to work, this screams Fortitude save for any of the effects; just Fortitude partial means Mettle enters the fray, and Fortitude is usually the kind of save most monsters have pretty high. I don't say it's a bad idea (it may actually be the asked fix), but until the entire spell has been decided, it's a pretty minor patch to the spell, to see how to tackle the situation. In either case, Roc has already declined to use it, so it's rather pointless to keep with it.

Besides, if you nerf the Divine Word spells, Power Word spells are also on the fray. They also ignore a save.

Though, you *can* make it mind-affecting just like Power Word spells...that's the easiest fix ever. Considering how Mind Blank has been worked, it turns into a caster level check.

PhoenixRivers
2009-10-21, 05:21 AM
Power words are compared against a dynamic stat. HP.

Increasing Con and feat selection can make you easily immune to a power word at level 13.

I wouldn't be opposed to the spell if it were static vs static... Such as your unmodified caster level, or your level in the class that grants the spell.

I wouldn't be opposed if both were dynamic. Opposed by a saving throw, AC, HP, Opposed attack rolls, whatever.

But static vs dynamic is an unbalanced system.

Aharon
2009-10-21, 06:42 AM
@Holy Word
Wouldn't Silence also protect against it? It says "This spell provides a defense against sonic or language-based attacks. ", and the Words have the [sonic] tag.

@general
When asking about rules, is it ok to defend your position if you get a judgement, or are they open to discussion? I don't want to waste anyone's time, but I don't want to limit my character if I think my position would actually more reasonable.

(@Doc Roc: If no such discussion is allowed/wanted, please ignore this spoiler. Otherwise, it contains a ruling for which I would appreciate to hear your reasoning.

I'm referring to the ruling that Truenaming scrolls, staffs and wands aren't legal. I don't understand the reason for that ban: The potion section establishes that Utterances, spell-like abilities, can be put in spell-completion items. Obviously, they are far closer to spells than i.e. the Eldritch Blast. The rulesbook even explicitly says Truename scrolls, staffs and wands exist, and that they are keyed to one Truename - it just doesn't give detailed descriptions of their creation. Is it such a big step to conclude they follow the same creation rules as normal scrolls, staffs and wands - especially when we already know that this is the case for Utterance Potions? )

also, I think I will be able to spare some time this weekend, so I think I can begin to review a sheet. Could you PM me a link?

PhoenixRivers
2009-10-21, 06:57 AM
While it's certainly ok to defend your position, it's usually better to explain it beforehand.

Silence does offer a measure of defense against it, as does being permanently deafened. That's actually one of the thoughts I had for a character concept.

lvl 1 sharnian
2009-10-21, 06:40 PM
Still thinking about spell turrets. Can I get a page cite?

I believe it's on pg. 44-45 on DMGII. Note that there's a specific formula for pricing it like enhancement bonuses, unlike regular traps (Minimum CL for Spell Level for Class x 1000 x Spell Level)

Doc Roc
2009-10-21, 09:15 PM
@Holy Word
Wouldn't Silence also protect against it? It says "This spell provides a defense against sonic or language-based attacks. ", and the Words have the [sonic] tag.

@general
When asking about rules, is it ok to defend your position if you get a judgement, or are they open to discussion? I don't want to waste anyone's time, but I don't want to limit my character if I think my position would actually more reasonable.

(@Doc Roc: If no such discussion is allowed/wanted, please ignore this spoiler. Otherwise, it contains a ruling for which I would appreciate to hear your reasoning.

I'm referring to the ruling that Truenaming scrolls, staffs and wands aren't legal. I don't understand the reason for that ban: The potion section establishes that Utterances, spell-like abilities, can be put in spell-completion items. Obviously, they are far closer to spells than i.e. the Eldritch Blast. The rulesbook even explicitly says Truename scrolls, staffs and wands exist, and that they are keyed to one Truename - it just doesn't give detailed descriptions of their creation. Is it such a big step to conclude they follow the same creation rules as normal scrolls, staffs and wands - especially when we already know that this is the case for Utterance Potions? )

also, I think I will be able to spare some time this weekend, so I think I can begin to review a sheet. Could you PM me a link?

At the time, it was effectively illegal. A slight change in wording now allows scrolls and wands, but not staffs, as there are no good or satisfactory rules for making staffs. Remember, there is a maximum spell level for wands.

While I am, effectively, something of a dictator regarding the fix\ban list, I do want to hear opinions. Normally, we try to keep the discussions fairly short per issue, unless it's a biggie like Holy Word and Co. But I don't want anyone to be discouraged from asking why.

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-10-21, 09:40 PM
At the time, it was effectively illegal. A slight change in wording now allows scrolls and wands, but not staffs, as there are no good or satisfactory rules for making staffs. Remember, there is a maximum spell level for wands.

While I am, effectively, something of a dictator regarding the fix\ban list, I do want to hear opinions. Normally, we try to keep the discussions fairly short per issue, unless it's a biggie like Holy Word and Co. But I don't want anyone to be discouraged from asking why.

No save, No SR Slow? That's pretty nasty... there's some other utterances that are worthwhile if you don't have to make the Truenaming check, which is the only limitation on Truenaming, really...

how about any Truename completion item must have an associated Truename skill check equal to the DC of the Utterance in question

lvl 1 sharnian
2009-10-21, 09:41 PM
Is there a way to make LoE extend past barriers like walls and such?

Doc Roc
2009-10-21, 10:13 PM
No save, No SR Slow? That's pretty nasty... there's some other utterances that are worthwhile if you don't have to make the Truenaming check, which is the only limitation on Truenaming, really...

how about any Truename completion item must have an associated Truename skill check equal to the DC of the Utterance in question

That is the problem that worries me, is that some of the Utterances are actually quite strong if you can get them off with a truly high degree of reliability and without crippling your character to do so.

Mushroom Ninja
2009-10-21, 10:26 PM
I finally got around to reading the 3.52 monk fix. I'm totally going to go make a monk! (just as soon as I finish the essay I'm supposed to be working on)

Mushroom Ninja
2009-10-21, 11:41 PM
Are "Class Feature Varients" from UA kosher?

PhoenixRivers
2009-10-22, 01:51 AM
The slow utterance doesn't really worry me so much. It's nullified by Freedom of Movement, which should be one of the most common effects out there.

My Warmarked focused around slow effects can't really do jack with it unless he suppresses FoM. Typically, it's easier just to brain the enemy.

T.G. Oskar
2009-10-22, 03:28 AM
Are "Class Feature Varients" from UA kosher?





3.51 Fix and Ban List

Unearthed Arcana :

The following takes the form of an allow list, rather than a ban list.

Flaws and traits.
Variant classes.
Additional Favored Class feat.
Racial paragons.
I may have forgotten things previously allowed. Please ask if you are curious.






I think that should answer your question. If you consider that the PHB Cleric is banned and the only allowed cleric is the Cloistered Cleric (aka, the UA Cleric variant), then it's reasonable to think that variant classes are allowed, no?

The only classes not allowed are Generic classes, since the ToS isn't going through said variant. For the rest, you can go even for the proto-alternative class features for each class. As well, if the variant class retains the same ability as the base class, you're entitled to use other alternative class features, as far as I can recall.

Doc Roc
2009-10-22, 04:45 AM
Prestigious Variant Classes are also not allowed.

Mushroom Ninja
2009-10-22, 07:27 AM
I know the Varriant classes (like cloistered cleric, battle sorcerer, an savage bard) are legal. I'm curious about variant class features (like whilrling frenzy rage and favored environment).

imperialspectre
2009-10-22, 04:47 PM
Whirling Frenzy is definitely allowed, not sure about the others.

Claudius Maximus
2009-10-22, 05:42 PM
I'm fine with them in general, but I think Domain Wizard was explicitly banned. Consider the rest fair game unless another DM says otherwise.

ex cathedra
2009-10-22, 06:41 PM
Additionally, I believe that the Enchanter variant is banned, as well, due to a certain ability. Aside from that, however, most of them seem to be fair game.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-10-23, 01:28 AM
Presenting: Test of Spite: Pharaoh vs Monks! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=129214)

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-10-23, 01:51 AM
Presenting: Test of Spite: Pharaoh vs Monks! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=129214)

Hooo-leeee rusted metal, batman! You had the WORST dice rolls I've ever seen since the time my players got pissed and gave me loaded dice. You couldn't buy a hit in that first round for love nor money. And that nat-1 on the Fort save vs Stunning Fist was just... yea.

First round went to me... out of pure dumb luck. Period. If he had simply NOT rolled a natural 1 any of the times he rolled it, the fight would have been over in his favor right then and there.

The second round is much more balanced and fair, and represents what normally happens without incredible flukes of blind chance, coupled with the D20's inherent flaw of having a flat 5% chance to fail a save no matter what your modifier is.

Doc Roc
2009-10-23, 02:33 AM
Presenting: Test of Spite: Pharaoh vs Monks! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=129214)

Approval... rates... too high! Inventing new adjective!

This. IS. SUPRAVINDIC!

PhoenixRivers
2009-10-23, 03:35 AM
It was a good match... Hm.

sofawall
2009-10-23, 03:53 PM
Presenting: Test of Spite: Pharaoh vs Monks! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=129214)

Man, nat ones love you, don't they Pharaoh?

lvl 1 sharnian
2009-10-25, 02:05 PM
Hmmm... does the coordinate system exist in Ravenloft? If not, two people with 20+ int could create one right?

Doc Roc
2009-10-25, 06:06 PM
Explain to me what and why?

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-10-25, 06:17 PM
Explain to me what and why?

As in Latitude and Longitude, as degrees from the Equator and Prime Meridian.

I shudder to think what this would do for teleportation and divination... to say nothing of making city bombs

Claudius Maximus
2009-10-25, 06:20 PM
Explain to me what and why?

Phoenix and Olo are trying to communicate positions to one another in our qualifier match. They're trying to use a coordinate system to describe exact squares.

PhoenixRivers
2009-10-25, 07:26 PM
It's no big. I gave more easily discerned information. Distance of the opponent from two known locations (the west and south walls).

Tiki Snakes
2009-10-25, 07:33 PM
Given that Ravenloft, as I understand it, is an essentially shifting and morphing demiplane that regularly gains entire new continental structures, I could see a co-ordinate system being...tricky.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-10-25, 11:39 PM
I've now fought against a monk with partially charged wands.

PhoenixRivers
2009-10-26, 12:16 AM
Oh, Partcharging wands is legal for the monk exhibitionists?

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-10-26, 12:22 AM
Yes, they are. Of course, I'd like to hear how you go them...

PhoenixRivers
2009-10-26, 12:25 AM
Yes, they are. Of course, I'd like to hear how you go them...

Why, in battles against all the wizards I've killed, of course!

imperialspectre
2009-10-26, 02:18 AM
And while we're talking about perfectly plausible backstories, I'd like to mention the Bow of the Solar that my 11th-level character won in a duel. :smallamused:

PhoenixRivers
2009-10-26, 02:48 AM
And while we're talking about perfectly plausible backstories, I'd like to mention the Bow of the Solar that my 11th-level character won in a duel. :smallamused:

Well, the partwands would be included in my WBL. The backstory is how you got it. The WBL still needs to account for it.

Doc Roc
2009-10-26, 02:49 AM
Partially charged wands are explicitly banned in the ToS. In this situation, I am waiving the ban, contingent on no whining.

PhoenixRivers
2009-10-26, 04:11 AM
LOL, I don't think I need a banlift. I've got no less than 4 fully charged wands, not a partially charged wand in sight. He's a silly sort.

Levi Johnson, Amish Monk.

imperialspectre
2009-10-26, 02:15 PM
Uh, Phoenix? If there was supposed to be a link in that post for our enlightenment, it's not there.

lvl 1 sharnian
2009-10-26, 08:19 PM
Is Ghostwalk material allowed?

Claudius Maximus
2009-10-26, 08:20 PM
Everything in there that isn't explicitly banned is fine.

lvl 1 sharnian
2009-10-26, 08:38 PM
GMs
Is possesion counted as a Special Ability for purposes of Ability Focus?

Can I have a character that dies at level 1, thus losing 2 Con, who then picks up levels in Eidolon, thus losing no XP? Can't remember if Ghostwalk ghosts have Con scores or not

Anyone up for an exhibition match with my Sorcerer (almost)?

Claudius Maximus
2009-10-26, 09:26 PM
I have a sorcerer who might want to do an exhibition.

Sharnian only:
Possession qualifies for Ability Focus. Ghostwalk Ghosts have constitution scores. As for the level one deal, you don't need to lose any experience or constitution at all if you want to play a GW Ghost. However, your Eidolon/Eidoloncer levels can not equal or exceed your levels in other classes, or you die for real.

The problem with playing GW Ghosts is the fact that they're a LA 0 template that grants incorporeality and a decent number of nice immunities. The Veil of Souls is the reason they're corporeal in Manifest. Otherwise they're incorporeal unless you get yourself certain spell effects or magic items. For these reasons, Ghostwalk Ghosts are not permitted in the Test of Spite unless your opponent is also a Ghostwalk Ghost.

lvl 1 sharnian
2009-10-26, 10:13 PM
Sure, can you set up the thread?

Claudius
Perhaps, remove their incorpereality? Mainly wanted it for a Possession build, do you know another way to get possession as an ability, rather than Magic Jar?

Claudius Maximus
2009-10-26, 10:23 PM
Here you go, and it can be easily added to the first page too:

Test of Spite Exhibition: Claudius Maximus vs. lvl 1 sharnian (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=129637)

Claudius Maximus
2009-10-27, 08:11 PM
Question: Are characters flat-footed until they act in Test of Spite matches? This has ramifications for immediate action abilities and affects the importance of initiative.

PhoenixRivers
2009-10-27, 11:49 PM
Question: Are characters flat-footed until they act in Test of Spite matches? This has ramifications for immediate action abilities and affects the importance of initiative.

I'd say yes. Certain abilities may be used while flatfooted (Nerveskitter, for example)... But otherwise, standard rules are that until your first combat action, you're flatfooted.

Eurus
2009-10-28, 05:12 PM
Question: I've never been very good with durations. If a character creates an effect that has a duration of one round, when exactly does it expire? At the end of the round in which it's created, at the end of the next round, or during the next round on the same initiative count where it was created? If the latter, does it end before or after the effect's creator takes their next turn?

Doc Roc
2009-10-28, 05:12 PM
The issue is that we often roll init at the start. If it takes you more than a round to reach your opponent, he or she is likely not flat-footed.

Claudius Maximus
2009-10-28, 05:36 PM
Question: I've never been very good with durations. If a character creates an effect that has a duration of one round, when exactly does it expire? At the end of the round in which it's created, at the end of the next round, or during the next round on the same initiative count where it was created? If the latter, does it end before or after the effect's creator takes their next turn?

It would expire right before you took your next turn. Or rather, right before the initiative count on which it was created.

An example:
A Monk affects his opponent with Stunning Fist, stunning them for one round. On the enemy's turn, he can not act, as he is stunned. On the monk's next turn, the enemy is no longer stunned, and he does not gain the benefit of attacking a stunned opponent, as the duration ended right before his turn came up.

lvl 1 sharnian
2009-10-28, 07:37 PM
Can we use rituals from Savage Species? Or Monster Classes?

Edit: Who's up for an exhibition against my revised sorcerer

sofawall
2009-10-30, 03:53 PM
I am not up for a match against a Sorcerer, unless you want a joke match that breaks one important rule.

lvl 1 sharnian
2009-10-30, 04:05 PM
Which rule? Are you referring to the Borg-cube?

btw anyone know how to EarlyEntry Swiftblade at level 4 Sorc?

sofawall
2009-10-30, 04:26 PM
Which rule? Are you referring to the Borg-cube?

btw anyone know how to EarlyEntry Swiftblade at level 4 Sorc?

I am indeed referring to the Borg Cube. It's currently my only finished build.

lvl 1 sharnian
2009-10-30, 05:07 PM
Yeah... I'd rather not, I'm not sure I can that out if I remember it clearly from a thought exercise

Doc Roc
2009-10-30, 05:20 PM
I know a couple ways, but they may not be strictly ToS legal. Catch me in chat.

PhoenixRivers
2009-10-30, 08:28 PM
Actions expire immediately before the initiative they were created on. For certain multi round effects, it's a good idea to track that.

For example, on round 1, I cast a spell with a 13 round duration, such as Divine Power. This is on initiative 18.

The fight lasts a while.... on round 8, I ready an action, which triggers on initiative cound 9.

On round 14, just before initiative count 18, it ends. Even though my turn isn't for another several steps.

sofawall
2009-10-30, 08:51 PM
I know a couple ways, but they may not be strictly ToS legal. Catch me in chat.

There are two very obvious ways, but most sneaky ways are blocked. I'm curious as to what you'll come up with.

EDIT: One of the obvious ways you need to be prepared pretty much specifically to fight me, and the other obvious way is slightly less specific, but still not a likely thing to just happen to have on a build.

Olo Demonsbane
2009-10-30, 09:14 PM
Sharnian: I'll fight you with my new warmarked. You want to set up the thread, or should I?

lvl 1 sharnian
2009-10-30, 09:27 PM
You go ahead

Olo Demonsbane
2009-10-30, 09:33 PM
Here. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7223673#post7223673)

FILLER TEXT!

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-10-30, 10:43 PM
I need a Sheet Checker to inspect the latest edition of my Samurai so I can finalize him and maybe run him in a Qualification Round.

Link to character found here (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheetview.php?sheetid=153726)

Doc Roc
2009-11-01, 08:28 PM
I'll do it, if no one else plans to.

brakisaurus
2009-11-02, 09:16 PM
Hey guys, I have two questions for making a character.

1. How does an artificer's craft reserve work? Can I make items "as I level up", or do I only get the craft reserve at my highest level?

2. How does LA buyoff work with a pre-set total XP amount? I know how to do it as you go, but not how to calculate how much less xp you'd have if starting at a higher level.

Cieyrin
2009-11-02, 10:11 PM
Hey guys, I have two questions for making a character.

1. How does an artificer's craft reserve work? Can I make items "as I level up", or do I only get the craft reserve at my highest level?

2. How does LA buyoff work with a pre-set total XP amount? I know how to do it as you go, but not how to calculate how much less xp you'd have if starting at a higher level.

I can't really answer the artificer question but for the second, it would be safe to assume you bought the LA off at the earliest opportunity. LA +1 is elegible to be bought off at ECL 4 for 3,000 XP, meaning your character starts with 75,000 XP, making you 12th level.

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-11-02, 10:24 PM
I'll do it, if no one else plans to.

No one else seems to...

Doc Roc
2009-11-02, 10:41 PM
I can't really answer the artificer question but for the second, it would be safe to assume you bought the LA off at the earliest opportunity. LA +1 is elegible to be bought off at ECL 4 for 3,000 XP, meaning your character starts with 75,000 XP, making you 12th level.

This is correct. Out of an interesting being humane, you need not be overly persnickety with when you spent your craft reserves. The sheetcheckers are human, and do not deserve that sort of pain.

Doc Roc
2009-11-02, 10:56 PM
No one else seems to...

well, e-mail it to the account, and I'll take a whack at it.

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-11-02, 11:19 PM
well, e-mail it to the account, and I'll take a whack at it.

Email it to what account? PM me for details. Can PM you with linky to sheet.

Doc Roc
2009-11-03, 12:33 AM
front page, the big submit link

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-11-03, 05:24 PM
front page, the big submit link

Done. Link included in PM.

sofawall
2009-11-03, 06:51 PM
1. How does an artificer's craft reserve work? Can I make items "as I level up", or do I only get the craft reserve at my highest level?

I've asked Doc Roc that at least half a dozen times, and others have asked/been asked. Nobody seems to quite know what to do (i.e. add it up all and use it at end (not likely). only use highest (not fair to artificer), use it as you level up/have gold to craft (too much work for both checkers and character builders)).

Claudius Maximus
2009-11-03, 07:13 PM
The last option is the right way to do it, though I am less than enthused about it. If you do use that method, I beg that you provide a record that we can look at.

As an aside, leaving notes on your character sheet really speeds the sheet checking process up. Things like marking the prices of your items and noting your starting ability score array are appreciated. This is particularly helpful with skill points, and the levels at which you buy cross-class ranks, especially when you have classes with different skill lists.

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-03, 07:34 PM
The easiest way to do it is in packets. As a level 13 artificer, you would get 13 packets.

Put it like this, and it'll be a cinch to organize. Note, craft doesn't carry over. It's all use it or lose it.

{table=header]Reserve | Items Crafted
20 |
40 |
60 |
80 |
100 |
150 |
200 |
250 |
300 |
400 |
500 |
700 |
900 |[/table]
Copy this table, and by each reserve number, get as close as you can without going over. Write the items beside it, and you can keep track. That way, you don't go over on any one level.

Doc Roc
2009-11-04, 01:31 AM
I am fine with you treating every five levels as a packet. I have done a great deal of damage to artificer as a class, and a great deal of damage to Claudius Maximus as a person. This would be too much.

Doc Roc
2009-11-05, 01:21 PM
We are now moving the Fighter 20 versus Wizard 13 tests under our umbrella of activities. I will be writing up a specific script for the actual allowed list of books, the conditions, and the maps. There'll be some changes, but legacy characters will be provided with a place to compete.

Thoughts, gentlefolk?

IthilanorStPete
2009-11-05, 01:28 PM
*shrug* Might as well be adjucated by our rules, but I don't know how much more's going on. It'll be good to have the fights archived for easy reference, though.

Doc Roc
2009-11-05, 01:46 PM
I suspect this will keep coming up.

Claudius Maximus
2009-11-05, 02:18 PM
So are we still doing the Test of Spite, or is it just going to be the Wizard vs. Fighter tests? Or are we going to just have a new rule that fighters can be level 20 as long as they fight Wizards?

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-05, 03:40 PM
I believe both. I think it's a good idea, pull things together.

ex cathedra
2009-11-05, 04:17 PM
I believe that the people who have trouble believing that fighters are underpowered aren't going to be swayed by anything we do, and that, therefore, FvW is something of a tremendous waste of time.

But I'm bitter about it, I guess.

Doc Roc
2009-11-05, 04:24 PM
I'm a little bitter too, personally. That said, I think that since our friends are involved in it, and I am involved in it, it would be wise to use the incredibly extensive infrastructure we've developed.

So, we will be expanding it. The normal ToS will continue unabated. I will write up rules for the FvW soon.

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-05, 04:42 PM
I may develop a monk later, new monk. We shall see.

Doc Roc
2009-11-05, 05:08 PM
Should I move new monk from provisional to standard?

lvl 1 sharnian
2009-11-05, 05:53 PM
Who wants a qualifier with my skill-monkey?

9mm
2009-11-06, 11:16 AM
Who wants a qualifier with my skill-monkey?

I has two fighters and a war-marked who could go...

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-06, 02:49 PM
If you'd like a qualifier, I'll go with my psion, also. It'll only be a qualifier for you, as he's already officially victorious in a qualifier... But he's enough of a challenge, I think.

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-11-06, 02:53 PM
As soon as I get confirmation, I can bring the new and improved CW Samurai in...

lvl 1 sharnian
2009-11-06, 04:35 PM
I guess I'll go with one of 9mm's fighters, haven't faced a fighter with him yet. You can decide which one to use.

btw does the Scorpion Whip do 1d43 as RAW or is there an errata?

Signmaker
2009-11-06, 04:41 PM
I guess I'll go with one of 9mm's fighters, haven't faced a fighter with him yet. You can decide which one to use.

btw does the Scorpion Whip do 1d43 as RAW or is there an errata?

The 3s are meant to be subscripts indicating nonlethal damage.

9mm
2009-11-06, 04:53 PM
I guess I'll go with one of 9mm's fighters, haven't faced a fighter with him yet. You can decide which one to use.

btw does the Scorpion Whip do 1d43 as RAW or is there an errata?

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7266428#post7266428

Thelas
2009-11-06, 07:08 PM
Anyone up for a pre-approval exhibition with my (awful) wizard?

Claudius Maximus
2009-11-06, 08:32 PM
I have a character I'd like to use in an exhibition.

Starbuck_II
2009-11-06, 08:34 PM
I guess I'll go with one of 9mm's fighters, haven't faced a fighter with him yet. You can decide which one to use.

btw does the Scorpion Whip do 1d43 as RAW or is there an errata?
RAW 1d43, but RAI 1d4 (nonlethal).

Thelas
2009-11-06, 08:40 PM
Okay, if you want to fight (and most likely kill) me... will you make the thread?

Claudius Maximus
2009-11-06, 08:54 PM
Test of Spite Exhibition: Claudius Maximus vs. Thelas. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=130886)

Edit: While I was blowing up the newer columns map for that match, I discovered that it was not symmetrical. One side has to travel an extra 5 feet to get to the center. I have composed two fixes:

Fix 1: Remove the extra space:

{table=head]|A|B|C|D|E|F|G|H|I|J|K|L
1||||||||||||
2|
3|||C|C|||||C|C||
4|||C|C|||||C|C||
5||||||||||||
6|
7|
8||||||||||||
9|||C|C|||||C|C||
10|||C|C|C|C|C|C|C|C||
11||||||||||C
12||||||||||C||
13|
14|||C|
15|||C|||||||||
16|||C|C|C|C|C|C|C|C||
17|||C|C|||||C|C||
18|
19||||||||||||
20|
21||||||||||||
22|||C|C|||||C|C||
23|||C|C|||||C|C||
24|
25|||||||||||[/table]
Fix 2: Put it in the middle:

{table=head]|A|B|C|D|E|F|G|H|I|J|K|L
1||||||||||||
2|
3|||C|C|||||C|C||
4|||C|C|||||C|C||
5||||||||||||
6|
7|
8||||||||||||
9|||C|C|||||C|C||
10|||C|C|C|C|C|C|C|C||
11||||||||||C
12||||||||||C||
13|
14|
15|||C|
16|||C|||||||||
17|||C|C|C|C|C|C|C|C||
18|||C|C|||||C|C||
19|
20||||||||||||
21|
22||||||||||||
23|||C|C|||||C|C||
24|||C|C|||||C|C||
25|
26|||||||||||[/table]
We should use one of these instead of the original, as an asymmetrical arena is undisirable.

imperialspectre
2009-11-06, 11:59 PM
Claudius, your ToS badassery is Colossal-sized. Thanks for all the work you've put into the project.

Doc Roc
2009-11-07, 12:48 AM
Claudius, your ToS badassery is Colossal-sized. Thanks for all the work you've put into the project.

Truly, this is so.

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-07, 12:49 AM
Yea, verily. His service should be honored.

sofawall
2009-11-07, 12:58 AM
:cookie: Who needs more than a cookie, dammit!

lvl 1 sharnian
2009-11-08, 06:35 PM
Anyone up for an exhibition with my new sorcerer?

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-08, 06:38 PM
I've got a warmarked that's approved for exhibitions, if you like.

lvl 1 sharnian
2009-11-08, 09:45 PM
Sure, that'd be great

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-08, 09:45 PM
If you'd like to set up a thread, I'll get my sheet ready to go. :)

lvl 1 sharnian
2009-11-08, 09:47 PM
Here's the Link (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7278628#post7278628)

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-08, 09:51 PM
Arrr, I be there.

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-11-08, 10:31 PM
Does anyone wish a qualification round with my CW Samurai?

Olo Demonsbane
2009-11-08, 11:01 PM
Anyone want a normal fight with my VoP Monk/Paladin that I actually managed to make mostly workable?

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-11-08, 11:08 PM
Anyone want a normal fight with my VoP Monk/Paladin that I actually managed to make mostly workable?

Heh, the one counter to my Samurai... at least if he's got 3 levels of Pally, rather than stopping at 2

Olo Demonsbane
2009-11-08, 11:13 PM
Heh, the one counter to my Samurai... at least if he's got 3 levels of Pally, rather than stopping at 2

6 levels.

I'd fight your samurai, but I doubt you'd want me too.

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-11-08, 11:42 PM
6 levels.

I'd fight your samurai, but I doubt you'd want me too.

Yea, without any way to stop you, I'd be curb-stomped pretty quickly.

lvl 1 sharnian
2009-11-09, 12:08 AM
Anyone else want a shot at my sorcerer, preferably not a warrior type? E.g. skill monkey or caster?

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-09, 12:10 AM
I can use my psion, if you prefer... He's not very nice though.

lvl 1 sharnian
2009-11-09, 12:11 AM
Sure why not,can't be quite as bad, haven't a psionic character in a while,

You create thread

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-09, 12:17 AM
Fair enough (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7279476#post7279476).

:)

lvl 1 sharnian
2009-11-09, 10:01 PM
If I take Arcane Preparation as a sorcerer, does that allow me to scribe spells to my spellbook, in turn allowing me to potentially learn as many spells as I can afford?

And can I use that in conjunction with Ultimate Magus to add them to my spells known?

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-11-09, 10:09 PM
If I take Arcane Preparation as a sorcerer, does that allow me to scribe spells to my spellbook, in turn allowing me to potentially learn as many spells as I can afford?

And can I use that in conjunction with Ultimate Magus to add them to my spells known?

Sorcerers cannot use spellbooks, therefore they cannot learn spells from them. Arcane Preparation allows you to prepare a spell you already know with metamagic so you don't take a full round to cast it.

lvl 1 sharnian
2009-11-10, 12:34 AM
Actually it doesn't say that sorcerers can't use spellbooks, but that they mearly don't have one for spellcasting.


Sorcerers and bards cast arcane spells, but they do not have spellbooks and do not prepare their spells

Although it says only wizards can add spells to a spellbook and learn from them and such, RAW seems to indicate that the expanded knowledge ability from Ultimate Magus would still work for a sorcerer who bought a spellbook containing several spells scribed by a wizard, meaning that although he couldn't use them for casting, he add them to his spells known with the Ultimate Magus class feature.

Doc Roc
2009-11-10, 01:29 AM
You don't get to prepare spells you don't already know, and it's actually not clear that sorcerers can scribe.

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-10, 01:44 AM
A wizard can use a borrowed spellbook to prepare a spell she already knows and has recorded in her own spellbook, but preparation success is not assured. First, the wizard must decipher the writing in the book (see Arcane Magical Writings, above). Once a spell from another spellcasterís book is deciphered, the reader must make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + spellís level) to prepare the spell. If the check succeeds, the wizard can prepare the spell. She must repeat the check to prepare the spell again, no matter how many times she has prepared it before. If the check fails, she cannot try to prepare the spell from the same source again until the next day. (However, as explained above, she does not need to repeat a check to decipher the writing.)
...
Spells Copied from Anotherís Spellbook or a Scroll: A wizard can also add a spell to her book whenever she encounters one on a magic scroll or in another wizardís spellbook. No matter what the spellís source, the wizard must first decipher the magical writing (see Arcane Magical Writings, above). Next, she must spend a day studying the spell. At the end of the day, she must make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + spellís level). A wizard who has specialized in a school of spells gains a +2 bonus on the Spellcraft check if the new spell is from her specialty school. She cannot, however, learn any
spells from her prohibited schools. If the check succeeds, the wizard understands the spell and can copy it into her spellbook (see Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook, below). The process leaves a spellbook that was copied from unharmed, but a spell successfully copied from a magic scroll disappears from the parchment.
If the check fails, the wizard cannot understand or copy the spell. She cannot attempt to learn or copy that spell again until she gains another rank in Spellcraft. A spell that was being copied from a scroll does not vanish from the scroll.
...
Once a wizard understands a new spell, she can record it into her
spellbook
There are RAW methods permitting wizards to scribe into a spellbook, and use one. No such methods exist for sorcerors. Therefore, by RAW, sorcerors have no method for this. Heck, even wizards can't prepare spells from a spellbook that's not theirs, unless the spell's also in their spellbook.

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-11-10, 11:36 AM
There are RAW methods permitting wizards to scribe into a spellbook, and use one. No such methods exist for sorcerors. Therefore, by RAW, sorcerors have no method for this. Heck, even wizards can't prepare spells from a spellbook that's not theirs, unless the spell's also in their spellbook.

Actually, it is more simple than that:


A sorcererís selection of spells is extremely limited. A sorcerer begins play knowing four 0-level spells and two 1st-level spells of your choice. At each new sorcerer level, he gains one or more new spells, as indicated on Table: Sorcerer Spells Known. (Unlike spells per day, the number of spells a sorcerer knows is not affected by his Charisma score; the numbers on Table: Sorcerer Spells Known are fixed.) These new spells can be common spells chosen from the sorcerer/wizard spell list, or they can be unusual spells that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of by study. The sorcerer canít use this method of spell acquisition to learn spells at a faster rate, however.

Boldface for emphasis. Even if a Sorcerer *COULD* learn spells from a spellbook, they cannot use it to learn spells at a faster rate, which is what he was trying to do.

Doc Roc
2009-11-10, 05:25 PM
There are RAW methods permitting wizards to scribe into a spellbook, and use one. No such methods exist for sorcerors. Therefore, by RAW, sorcerors have no method for this. Heck, even wizards can't prepare spells from a spellbook that's not theirs, unless the spell's also in their spellbook.

There are some good RAW ways around that last one, however. Circumventing the former is much more difficult but not remotely impossible.. That said, I believe a number of the best options are things like Rary's, or similar.

lvl 1 sharnian
2009-11-10, 05:26 PM
Actually what I'm trying to do is make use of the Expanded Knowledge class feature from Ultimate Magus which allows me to transfer a spell from a spellbook to my spells known. I'm not saying I'm using spells from a spellbook, but that I'm buying a spellbook with pre-scribed spells in them and add them to my spells known through Ultimate Magus.


Even if a Sorcerer *COULD* learn spells from a spellbook, they cannot use it to learn spells at a faster rate, which is what he was trying to do.

That just killed 1/2 the class features of Ultimate Magus

Doc Roc
2009-11-10, 05:30 PM
Erm, not precisely:

General is trumped by specific. You can't do it freely, but when UM tells you to, you can.

UM, however, cannot double progress. I'm.. gonna go add that formally, even though I find it RAW evident.

lvl 1 sharnian
2009-11-11, 12:02 AM
Does Mystic Fire Knight paladin sub levels' Smite Evil have to actually an evil creature to cause the Concentration checks? Or is just the attack have to succeed regardless of evilness?

lvl 1 sharnian
2009-11-11, 07:38 PM
To clarify something, is Dragon Compendium legal? I see Dragon on the ban list, but somewhat recently Doc Roc said he had to ban the battle dancer, but if Dragon was banned, wouldn't, by extension, Battle Dancer be already banned?

Doc Roc
2009-11-11, 09:33 PM
I believe I said I had to ban the spell-dancer. Dragon Compendium will never be allowed.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-11-11, 09:41 PM
I believe I said I had to ban the spell-dancer. Dragon Compendium will never be allowed.Hatred for Dvati?

lvl 1 sharnian
2009-11-11, 09:50 PM
Sorry misread the name of the class, no wonder battle dancer seemed weak (source of spell dancer?), by the way is there a reason dvati are good? Double costs for items seems kinda heavy penalty (along with no actions while one of the twins casts)

sofawall
2009-11-11, 09:57 PM
Sorry misread the name of the class, no wonder battle dancer seemed weak (source of spell dancer?), by the way is there a reason dvati are good? Double costs for items seems kinda heavy penalty (along with no actions while one of the twins casts)

I seem to recall fun things being done with them, but I forget which, exactly.

Can you flank with each other?

arguskos
2009-11-11, 09:58 PM
Sorry misread the name of the class, no wonder battle dancer seemed weak (source of spell dancer?), by the way is there a reason dvati are good? Double costs for items seems kinda heavy penalty (along with no actions while one of the twins casts)
They aren't, actually. Dvati are implied to only have a single set of actions, thanks to that spellcasting note. They have half life each, and double item costs. They are best setting up flanks (since they can flank with one another), but even then, it's debatable as to how their actions actually FUNCTION.

If it is assumed they have double actions, then they are easily strong, though their defensive issues offset that severely. If it assumed they do not, as implied, then they are terrible, easily not worth using.

Apologies for jumping in, but really, Dvati have some severe mechanical issues which need clarification. Shame, cause I LOOOOVE them greatly.

lvl 1 sharnian
2009-11-11, 10:06 PM
I seem to recall fun things being done with them, but I forget which, exactly.

Can you flank with each other?

Unless I'm mistaken, yes, I was planning on making a ToB sneak attack build/builds.

Nothing says you can't both use Manuevers and since you share manuevers... Adaptive Style and White Raven Tactics ftw! I actually only wanted them to make White Raven Tactics a bit more usable.

arguskos
2009-11-11, 10:17 PM
Actually, let me amend my previous post gentlemen, I did some digging, and according to the 3.5 update author, Mike McArtor over on the Paizo forums sometime ago, posted an official answer to the Dvati Action Economy. They ARE limited to a single full action between them, and supernatural/spell-like abilities invoke the spellcasting clause they have.

Sorry to jump in yet again.

Olo Demonsbane
2009-11-11, 11:13 PM
Eh, if its not in a book, its not on the record, far as I'm concerned :smalltongue: (my group doesn't pay attention to errata :smallsmile:)

Would anyone like to fight my monk/paladin? Solidly Tier 4, though I'm open to fighting most things...if just to see how badly I get my butt kicked.

lvl 1 sharnian
2009-11-12, 12:15 AM
Actually, let me amend my previous post gentlemen, I did some digging, and according to the 3.5 update author, Mike McArtor over on the Paizo forums sometime ago, posted an official answer to the Dvati Action Economy. They ARE limited to a single full action between them, and supernatural/spell-like abilities invoke the spellcasting clause they have.

Sorry to jump in yet again.

So do they move on the same initiative? Does that mean that if only 1 person does anything, the other is basically helpless?

arguskos
2009-11-12, 12:16 AM
So do they move on the same initiative? Does that mean that if only 1 person does anything, the other is basically helpless?
Yes, that's all correct. By the intent of the design, the race is utterly useless. :smallannoyed:

As a note, Sstoopid and I worked on a balancing method earlier this evening. We've had some issues working something out. :smallsigh:

sofawall
2009-11-12, 03:08 PM
Eh, if its not in a book, its not on the record, far as I'm concerned :smalltongue: (my group doesn't pay attention to errata :smallsmile:)

Would anyone like to fight my monk/paladin? Solidly Tier 4, though I'm open to fighting most things...if just to see how badly I get my butt kicked.

Want to fight The Cube?

Olo Demonsbane
2009-11-12, 07:49 PM
Want to fight The Cube?

NO.

Bad sofa, no sending unbeatable builds against monks. Its not very good manners.

sofawall
2009-11-12, 10:19 PM
NO.

Bad sofa, no sending unbeatable builds against monks. Its not very good manners.

It is beatable, we discussed a few ways on how to beat it in live chat.

It is very very hard to beat, however, and if you are not specifically prepared you are likely to fail.

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-11-12, 10:41 PM
It is beatable, we discussed a few ways on how to beat it in live chat.

It is very very hard to beat, however, and if you are not specifically prepared you are likely to fail.

Spamming disintegrates might do it... but a monk surely wouldn't be able to...

sofawall
2009-11-12, 10:56 PM
Spamming disintegrates might do it... but a monk surely wouldn't be able to...

Prismatic Wall says no.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-11-12, 11:58 PM
Spamming disintegrates might do it...
So, just like in Star Trek.

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-11-13, 12:25 AM
Prismatic Wall says no.

MDJ + spamming disintegrates

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-11-13, 12:28 AM
So, just like in Star Trek.

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-11-13, 03:10 PM
So, just like in Star Trek.

Not quite... you don't modify the phase variance, nor do you bounce a graviton particle beam off the main deflector dish...

sofawall
2009-11-13, 03:14 PM
MDJ + spamming disintegrates

Someone has discovered the kill spell! Flee!

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-13, 05:27 PM
Alternately, with good saves, couldn't you just walk through the walls and eat the chewy center?

sofawall
2009-11-13, 06:15 PM
Alternately, with good saves, couldn't you just walk through the walls and eat the chewy center?

Wall of force behind it, wall of magically treated obdurium behind that, contingent teleport behind that.

I think, therefore you lose :P

EDIT: Signmaker tried that, actually. Failed the save against death, but made it with a luck re-roll. Was very confused to run into a wall that a ghost couldn't get through :P

Signmaker
2009-11-13, 07:02 PM
Wall of force behind it, wall of magically treated obdurium behind that, contingent teleport behind that.

I think, therefore you lose :P

EDIT: Signmaker tried that, actually. Failed the save against death, but made it with a luck re-roll. Was very confused to run into a wall that a ghost couldn't get through :P


Baffled, really. Was very weired out when I was told that I basically bounced off of the prismawall.

lvl 1 sharnian
2009-11-13, 11:19 PM
A few questions:

1) Can immediate action spells be used with a standard action?
2) Since Anticipatory Strike gives an extra turn, does that include Immediate/Swift Actions?

sofawall
2009-11-13, 11:31 PM
A few questions:

1) Can immediate action spells be used with a standard action?
2) Since Anticipatory Strike gives an extra turn, does that include Immediate/Swift Actions?

1) No
2) AFB, so I don't know the wording.

IthilanorStPete
2009-11-13, 11:37 PM
Can a Sorceror use Versatile Spellcaster+Heighten Spell to qualify as "casting 2nd level spells" for PrC reqs?

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-11-13, 11:38 PM
Can a Sorceror use Versatile Spellcaster+Heighten Spell to qualify as "casting 2nd level spells" for PrC reqs?RAW and RAI yes. RADRS, maybe.

sofawall
2009-11-13, 11:39 PM
RAW and RAI yes. RADRS, maybe.

RADRS? There's a new'un.

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-13, 11:42 PM
RADRS? There's a new'un.

I'm guessing "Rules As Doc Roc Says".

sofawall
2009-11-13, 11:46 PM
I'm guessing "Rules As Doc Roc Says".

This seems likely. I think early entry is allowed.

Claudius Maximus
2009-11-13, 11:49 PM
I don't remember him saying that it was banned, nor do I see anything in the rules that suggests that. I'd be interested, since such a ruling would hurt one of my characters pretty badly.

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-14, 12:15 AM
I usually use precocious apprentice, myself.

Doc Roc
2009-11-14, 03:31 AM
Yes, that EE method is legit. I try to make it obvious when an integral trick like VS or PA EE is banned.

IthilanorStPete
2009-11-14, 09:45 AM
Right-o, just making sure.

lvl 1 sharnian
2009-11-14, 05:11 PM
Any for an exhibition fight with my probably Tier 4 monk?

sofawall
2009-11-14, 05:12 PM
Any for an exhibition fight with my probably Tier 4 monk?

Want to fight The Cube?

lvl 1 sharnian
2009-11-14, 05:16 PM
Sure, I guess I'll see what it's like

sofawall
2009-11-14, 05:20 PM
...Woah. I thought you'd say no. Ok then, you can make the thread.

lvl 1 sharnian
2009-11-14, 07:25 PM
Thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7316164#post7316164)

I never how hard it would be to actually use my bonus exalted feats

sofawall
2009-11-14, 09:26 PM
Main reason VoP sucks: No magic items.
Second reason:"Wtf am I going to use all these feats on?"

lvl 1 sharnian
2009-11-15, 12:44 AM
There's no way monks can use that many feats... They're too mad for prerequisites

Doc Roc
2009-11-16, 03:41 AM
Godspeed, dude. This may be the worst match up a monk has ever had. :)

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-16, 03:46 AM
Godspeed, dude. This may be the worst match up a monk has ever had. :)

Nah, I saw an "Infinite level 2 monks versus a level 20 wizard" once.

Bakkan
2009-11-16, 04:43 PM
Well, I've just submitted my first character. Let's see how good I am at optimization. Looking forward to getting started with some battles.

hmm... just remembered I completely forgot about any sort of mundane gear at all :smallredface:. Let's just go take care of that then.

IthilanorStPete
2009-11-16, 05:12 PM
Mundane equipment for dungeoncrawling can be purchased after you win the qualifier, with the proceeds from selling your opponent's equipment.

EDIT: To answer the question on your sheet explicitly - yes, once you win a qual, you loot your foe's corpse.
Also, for optimization help, try dropping by the ToS chat. Link's in Doc Roc's sig.

lvl 1 sharnian
2009-11-16, 05:46 PM
Godspeed, dude. This may be the worst match up a monk has ever had. :)

Eh, it's more of a hilarity battle than anything else.

Some questions,

1) Which sounds better fluff wise? My hand disconnects from my arm and punches the cube and flies back? Or "The monk throws himself at the cube and returns back to where he was?

2) Does either of those cause me to be affected by the prismatic wall?

3) If he is hiding in the cube, does he count as having cover or concealment?

sofawall
2009-11-16, 05:54 PM
Eh, it's more of a hilarity battle than anything else.

Some questions,

1) Which sounds better fluff wise? My hand disconnects from my arm and punches the cube and flies back? Or "The monk throws himself at the cube and returns back to where he was?

2) Does either of those cause me to be affected by the prismatic wall?

3) If he is hiding in the cube, does he count as having cover or concealment?

1) If a warforged, the first, if not, the second.

2) You are punching a Prismatic Wall. Of course you're affected.

3) Concealment due to Prismatic Wall.

lvl 1 sharnian
2009-11-16, 09:58 PM
I wonder... using Kensei to give yourself Throwing and Returning as a monk, which can use any part of it's body as part of an unarmed strike, would you start launching parts of your body which then return to you?
As an additional thought, if you attack and hit a Prismatic Wall/Sphere of Annihilation then you lose the part right? Since it's a throwing weapon, you wouldn't be affected by the loss, but I wonder, is there a point where you eventually run out of thing to throw?
I think I've made Buggy the Clown

Olo Demonsbane
2009-11-17, 12:38 AM
I also have a Tier 4 VoP monk. As soon as I fully regain internet, I'd like to face you :)

Cieyrin
2009-11-17, 02:39 PM
I wonder... using Kensei to give yourself Throwing and Returning as a monk, which can use any part of it's body as part of an unarmed strike, would you start launching parts of your body which then return to you?
As an additional thought, if you attack and hit a Prismatic Wall/Sphere of Annihilation then you lose the part right? Since it's a throwing weapon, you wouldn't be affected by the loss, but I wonder, is there a point where you eventually run out of thing to throw?
I think I've made Buggy the Clown

I'm thinking it'd have a similar effect as having Blood Wind cast on yourself, which lets you do natural weapon attacks at range, transmitting the force of the blow rather than sending yourself at them (This isn't Detach (http://realmshelps.dandello.net/cgi-bin/feats.pl?Detach), for crying outloud!).

lvl 1 sharnian
2009-11-17, 05:36 PM
Lol, was that a serious feat?

Doc Roc
2009-11-17, 05:37 PM
Savage Species is approval only for long list of good reasons.

lvl 1 sharnian
2009-11-17, 05:40 PM
Eh... I kinda liked what I said before better. Oh well, now I get to shout

"WAVE FIST!!!" before every attack

Cieyrin
2009-11-18, 03:40 PM
Lol, was that a serious feat?

Indeed it was, along with silly things like Blowhard (http://realmshelps.dandello.net/cgi-bin/feats.pl?Blowhard) and Thunderclap (http://realmshelps.dandello.net/cgi-bin/feats.pl?Thunderclap). :smallbiggrin:

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-18, 04:15 PM
Eh... I kinda liked what I said before better. Oh well, now I get to shout

"WAVE FIST!!!" before every attack

Or, if you wanna go old school....

"Sonic BOOM!"