PDA

View Full Version : Optimisers... the things they say.



oxinabox
2009-10-09, 10:36 AM
So talking to someone about the mechanics of swift actions, haw you can only get one a round, and how i think there might be a way around it, when a guy i know, a pretty big optimiser walks in.
me: "Hey, how do you make more than one swift action/round?"
him, "Oh," thinks for a bit, "-Have two heads."
me: "oh ofcourse"
him: "it's an epic level feat though..."

just the whole "... have two heads!", like problem solved - obviose solution.


anyone else ever get anything like this?

Tavar
2009-10-09, 10:39 AM
That....That...just no. I would consider my self something of an optimizer, and that makes zero sense to me. Especially since there are a few ways to get multiple swift actions(Ruby Night Vindicator being one such method). Are you sure he understood the question? And that he's actually an optimizer?

Sinfire Titan
2009-10-09, 10:44 AM
I think he's wrong about the two heads, and even the Epic feat. The Epic feat that lets you cast 2 Swift action spells/round doesn't give you an extra Swift action (it grants you the ability to cast two, but not the actions to do so). RAI, it either gives you an extra Swift action or allows you to cast 2 spells with one Swift action, but RAW it doesn't do a damn thing.



The RKV gets extra swift actions (how many is somewhat questionable). There's also the Stance of Alacrity, but it only allows you to use a Counter and a Swift action without losing actions next round. RAW, its possible that Greater Celerity gives a Swift action too, but that's more questionable than the RKV.

oxinabox
2009-10-09, 10:49 AM
That....That...just no. I would consider my self something of an optimizer, and that makes zero sense to me. Especially since there are a few ways to get multiple swift actions(Ruby Night Vindicator being one such method). Are you sure he understood the question? And that he's actually an optimizer?
He's not good at reading the rules.
He's often wrong about these things and interprets them as benifits him most...

he think's he's an optimiser.

But that's not what this posts is about, (though i;'m not sure what i was posting about...)

Random832
2009-10-09, 10:50 AM
I think he's wrong about the two heads, and even the Epic feat. The Epic feat that lets you cast 2 Swift action spells/round doesn't give you an extra Swift action (it grants you the ability to cast two, but not the actions to do so). RAI, it either gives you an extra Swift action or allows you to cast 2 spells with one Swift action, but RAW it doesn't do a damn thing.

What's the feat? (depending on wording, it could by RAW allow you to cast two - and only two - swift action spells in a round without using any action. Or it could allow you to cast one swift-action spell without using your swift action)

Sinfire Titan
2009-10-09, 10:54 AM
What's the feat? (depending on wording, it could by RAW allow you to cast two - and only two - swift action spells in a round without using any action. Or it could allow you to cast one swift-action spell without using your swift action)

Multispell:


Prerequisites

Quicken Spell, ability to cast 9th-level arcane or divine spells.
Benefit

You may cast one additional quickened spell in a round.
Special

You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects stack.


Says nothing about extra Swift actions or how you use it.

Zincorium
2009-10-09, 11:01 AM
He's not good at reading the rules.
He's often wrong about these things and interprets them as benifits him most...

he think's he's an optimiser.

But that's not what this posts is about, (though i;'m not sure what i was posting about...)

So... you know he's not an optimizer. But you called him that in the thread title and the first post.

Given that anyone who can actually optimize is less likely to say something stupid about RPGs than someone who does not have the ability or willingness to do so, this thread's purpose eludes me.

kamikasei
2009-10-09, 11:03 AM
Multispell:
Says nothing about extra Swift actions or how you use it.

Isn't that simply because it was printed before Quicken Spell was errata'd to use swift actions instead of a special, restricted type of free action?

In any case, it doesn't in any meaningful way grant you "extra swift actions", which to my mind should be usable for anything a swift action can be used for; things which let you do multiple things that normally consume a swift action don't count. It doesn't matter whether this feat is errata'd or houserule-updated to say "you can cast two quickened spells with a single swift action" or "you get a second 'virtual' swift action which can be used only to cast a second quickened spell after already having cast one in the round" - unless casting two quickened spells was your goal to start with, this doesn't, e.g., let you use a boost and counter in the same turn, or let you cast a quickened spell despite having used an immediate action in the preceding turn, or even let you cast a quickened spell and a regular swift-action spell in the same turn.


So... you know he's not an optimizer. But you called him that in the thread title and the first post.

Someone who tries to break the game without knowing the rules and relies on bluffing others as to what the rules actually say in order to do so is a munchkin, not an optimizer.


Given that anyone who can actually optimize is less likely to say something stupid about RPGs than someone who does not have the ability or willingness to do so, this thread's purpose eludes me.

Actually, I think I get what oxinabox was going for, his example was just a poor one. Advice coming from a high-optimization perspective can be hilariously excessive for what the questioner had in mind. For example, I might ask for a build that gets lots of natural attacks, wanting someone with claws who can attack with them very quickly. I might get answered with the King of Smack, and be entirely nonplussed by this fifty-limbed polymorphed monstrosity (note: I may be incorrectly remembering how the King of Smack works, but it's not really my point). In general, an optimizer may assume that certain things are open to fairly exotic options where others might assume they're relatively immutable or will vary only within a small range (for example: "Your houserule to two-weapon fighting makes thri-kreen hilariously overpowered." "What the hell is a thri-kreen?"). And it can be funny to see.

Nerd-o-rama
2009-10-09, 11:05 AM
Says nothing about extra Swift actions or how you use it.It's pretty clear to me. "You can cast one additional quickened spell in a round" means that when you can normally cast one quickened spell, you can choose to cast two. Two quickened spells with one swift action is the logical conclusion. You don't need extra actions - the feat tells you exactly what you can do.

Starbuck_II
2009-10-09, 11:07 AM
So talking to someone about the mechanics of swift actions, haw you can only get one a round, and how i think there might be a way around it, when a guy i know, a pretty big optimiser walks in.
me: "Hey, how do you make more than one swift action/round?"
him, "Oh," thinks for a bit, "-Have two heads."
me: "oh ofcourse"
him: "it's an epic level feat though..."

just the whole "... have two heads!", like problem solved - obviose solution.


anyone else ever get anything like this?

Be a Synad in Complete Psionics. They get an extra Swift action (but can only be used for mental action like a feat that requires swift action. Like Pathfinders Arcane Strike feat).

Glimbur
2009-10-09, 11:09 AM
Alternately, it might allow you to cast the second quickened spell in the round as a free action; after you cast the first as a swift. I can't see a different effect from this reading though.

jiriku
2009-10-09, 11:15 AM
I've played with several "optimizers" who seem to believe that optimization consists of developing one single statistic to its maximum while ignoring all other stats. This has lead to a variety of useles "optimized" characters such as: a berserker samurai with incredible strength who could deal awesome damage per hit, but could not hit anything; a heavily armored knight with an unassailable AC who couldn't effectively damage foes; an archer who could hit targets from a mile away, but dealt mediocre damage and was unable to defend himself effectively when fighting indoors; a wizard with an incredible array of prismatic-themed spells who couldn't effectively deal with creatures that had high spell resistance or strong saving throws.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-10-09, 11:29 AM
That's min/maxing. And obviously heavy on the "min".

kamikasei
2009-10-09, 11:30 AM
That's min/maxing. And obviously heavy on the "min".

It's optimizing in an entirely literal sense... it's just that the constraints they're optimizing within aren't ones that apply usefully to actual table play.

technophile
2009-10-09, 11:47 AM
Alternately, it might allow you to cast the second quickened spell in the round as a free action; after you cast the first as a swift. I can't see a different effect from this reading though.
Your reading allows other actions in between the two castings, while the "cast two quickened spells with one action" does not.

For example, cast quickened haste, step out of cover, cast quickened ray of idiocy is legal under your interpretation, but not under the first one.

hamishspence
2009-10-09, 11:48 AM
Thrall of Demogorgon allows you to take two full round's worth of actions- but not at will- limited number of uses per day.

It's in BoVD, updated version in Dragon 357.

It doesn't grant you two heads, but it does grant you two personas.

Eldariel
2009-10-09, 12:10 PM
Says nothing about extra Swift actions or how you use it.

Yeah, the feat was written back when casting Quickened spell was a free action but limited to 1/round, and never had its wording updated. I think saying "You get an extra swift action you can only use to cast a quickened spell" is what it should say after Quicken Spell's errata.

Fluffles
2009-10-09, 12:15 PM
So... you know he's not an optimizer. But you called him that in the thread title and the first post.

Not mention the grammatical error in the title.

Glimbur
2009-10-09, 12:17 PM
Your reading allows other actions in between the two castings, while the "cast two quickened spells with one action" does not.

For example, cast quickened haste, step out of cover, cast quickened ray of idiocy is legal under your interpretation, but not under the first one.

Good point. So, which of the two readings was intended? Back before Swift actions, the scenario you just described would have been allowed for a character with Multispell. Should we no longer allow that because Swift actions exist?

hamishspence
2009-10-09, 12:19 PM
the 3.5 update to Epic Handbook doesn't mention it.

It updates several feats, but not that one.

My guess is, one bonus swift action, for casting quickened spells only.

Sliver
2009-10-09, 12:27 PM
the 3.5 update to Epic Handbook doesn't mention it.

It updates several feats, but not that one.

My guess is, one bonus swift action, for casting quickened spells only.

But then you can have your swift action and use the extra-swift-action-for-quickened-spells-only for a spell.. The feat allows you to cast 2 quickened spells as a swift action..

hamishspence
2009-10-09, 12:37 PM
it said "an additional quickened spell" so I suppose a clause should be added saying something like:

"When you cast a quickened spell, this feat grants you an extra swift action that can only be used for casting additional quickened spells."

Should this feat be one that can be taken multiple times, granting one more quickened spell each time?

Ravens_cry
2009-10-09, 12:41 PM
That's how I am reading it, hamishspence. In a way, you get another swift action, but what that action can do is rigidly defined as being the casting of a quickened spell, one that can be cast as a swift action.
The first thing we will do is kill all the rules lawyers.

hamishspence
2009-10-09, 12:43 PM
Enforcing the "feat can only activate if you've already cast a quickened spell that round" ruling avoids usage of Tome of Battle effects and the like.

That's a thought- some non-quickened spells cast as a swift action naturally.

Can they/should they be able to, be substituted for the granted extra quickened spell?

Ravens_cry
2009-10-09, 12:48 PM
That's a thought- some non-quickened spells cast as a swift action naturally.

Can they/should they be able to, be substituted for the granted extra quickened spell?
No.
At least that's how I would rule it.

This is like Combat Reflexes. You can do more attacks of opportunity per round. But that doesn't mean you get to do more actions, besides an attack of opportunity, that cost the same as a normal attack of opportunity using Combat Reflexes.

Akal Saris
2009-10-09, 02:02 PM
I think the point of the thread was to ask about whether you've ever had an optimizer friend say something that never would have occurred to you.

For example, (Not a real example)

Me: Damn it, it costs too much and takes too long to scribe new spells into my wizard's spellbook
Optimizer: Well, just cast Secret Page on all your pages, and have the 'fake' spell that it creates be the one that you want to know! BAM!

sonofzeal
2009-10-09, 02:09 PM
I think the point of the thread was to ask about whether you've ever had an optimizer friend say something that never would have occurred to you.

For example, (Not a real example)

Me: Damn it, it costs too much and takes too long to scribe new spells into my wizard's spellbook
Optimizer: Well, just cast Secret Page on all your pages, and have the 'fake' spell that it creates be the one that you want to know! BAM!
Also doesn't work, since the scroll is magical in nature. Secret Page would make it look like the spell, but wouldn't have the necessary magical component to it.

The better solution is Boccob's Blessed Spellbook.

Eldariel
2009-10-09, 02:18 PM
Can they/should they be able to, be substituted for the granted extra quickened spell?

By RAW they can't. RAW for Multispell when 3.5 came out (note that the Epic Level Handbook 3.5 update doesn't have the change because swift actions only came out around Complete Arcane and the update was written when 3.5 first came out; swift actions didn't exist then) is being able to cast a 2nd Quickened Spell in a round; maintaining its functionality would require a wording change that was never issued since nobody cared about epic enough to notice the problem.

Inherently Free Action (modern Swift Action)-spells don't exist in core so that's a non-issue, as are stuff like Arcane Spellsurges printed since. The only way to get swift action spells within Core 3.5 is to use Quicken Spell (which is why the feat is so insane and important). By strict RAW, the spells with inherent casting time of 1 swift action don't work (unless you prepare them Quickened for no reason other than to use 'em with Multispell...), but rationally thinking, it's just stupid hair-splitting to claim that Assay Resistance shouldn't be castable with the extra action while Quickened True Strike is fine.

Sinfire Titan
2009-10-09, 02:24 PM
By RAW they can't. RAW for Multispell when 3.5 came out (note that the Epic Level Handbook 3.5 update doesn't have the change because swift actions only came out around Complete Arcane and the update was written when 3.5 first came out; swift actions didn't exist then) is being able to cast a 2nd Quickened Spell in a round; maintaining its functionality would require a wording change that was never issued since nobody cared about epic enough to notice the problem.

Inherently Free Action (modern Swift Action)-spells don't exist in core so that's a non-issue, as are stuff like Arcane Spellsurges printed since. The only way to get swift action spells within Core 3.5 is to use Quicken Spell (which is why the feat is so insane and important). By strict RAW, the spells with inherent casting time of 1 swift action don't work (unless you prepare them Quickened for no reason other than to use 'em with Multispell...), but rationally thinking, it's just stupid hair-splitting to claim that Assay Resistance shouldn't be castable with the extra action while Quickened True Strike is fine.

I think you forgot Featherfall, seeing as it was originally printed as a Free action spell (then errata'ed to an Immediate action).

Eldariel
2009-10-09, 02:35 PM
I think you forgot Featherfall, seeing as it was originally printed as a Free action spell (then errata'ed to an Immediate action).

Yeah, it's a bit of an odd case; given it never had any kinds of restrictions on when you can cast it (annoyingly, Immediate Action casting actually GIMPS it), I didn't mention it. It doesn't really have a bearing to multispell due to the aforementioned lack of needing an action to cast it.

This also raises an interesting point about Immediate Action-spells; should you, if you have Multispell, be able to use more Immediate Action spells and lose the Multispell actions for it? 'cause it seems identical to the case of casting Swift Action spells on your own turn, but with spells inherently Immediate instead...


Of course, this is really a theoretical discussion more than anything since RAW in no way supports this (but again, we have to remember that RAW Multispell predates immediate actions and limits on free actions you can take on another player's turn).

Akal Saris
2009-10-09, 02:41 PM
Also doesn't work, since the scroll is magical in nature. Secret Page would make it look like the spell, but wouldn't have the necessary magical component to it.

The better solution is Boccob's Blessed Spellbook.

I agree with you here, but believe me, I've argued the case with at least 3 people who were convinced that Secret Page was the silver bullet to infinite spells for free.

Kelpstrand
2009-10-09, 03:34 PM
Also doesn't work, since the scroll is magical in nature. Secret Page would make it look like the spell, but wouldn't have the necessary magical component to it.

The better solution is Boccob's Blessed Spellbook.

Once again. The scroll may be inherently magical. The spellbook page is not. Spellbook pages are not scrolls.

Riffington
2009-10-09, 05:41 PM
I think the RAW (and fun) answer is different than either of the two main positions on Secret Page: You scribe Fireball. You then use secret page to make the contents appear to be something entirely different. Say, Haste. Someone then reads the page, and believes it to be Haste (they may get a Spellcraft or Sense Motive Check since they are spending some time with the material), but it remains Fireball. If they memorize it, they will be very surprised when their Haste is a bit more explosive than usual.

Starbuck_II
2009-10-09, 06:03 PM
I think the RAW (and fun) answer is different than either of the two main positions on Secret Page: You scribe Fireball. You then use secret page to make the contents appear to be something entirely different. Say, Haste. Someone then reads the page, and believes it to be Haste (they may get a Spellcraft or Sense Motive Check since they are spending some time with the material), but it remains Fireball. If they memorize it, they will be very surprised when their Haste is a bit more explosive than usual.

What?
No you do not use the scroll when using Secret Page. You make a copy using Secret Page in the spell book. It has drawback of being dispelled, but is otherwise a free copy.

The scroll is unchanged.

oxinabox
2009-10-09, 08:38 PM
Actually, I think I get what oxinabox was going for, his example was just a poor one. Advice coming from a high-optimization perspective can be hilariously excessive for what the questioner had in mind. For example, I might ask for a build that gets lots of natural attacks, wanting someone with claws who can attack with them very quickly. I might get answered with the King of Smack, and be entirely nonplussed by this fifty-limbed polymorphed monstrosity (note: I may be incorrectly remembering how the King of Smack works, but it's not really my point). In general, an optimizer may assume that certain things are open to fairly exotic options where others might assume they're relatively immutable or will vary only within a small range (for example: "Your houserule to two-weapon fighting makes thri-kreen hilariously overpowered." "What the hell is a thri-kreen?"). And it can be funny to see.

THat was what i was getting at yes.
You can express my thoughts better than I can, thankyou

Riffington
2009-10-10, 01:38 AM
What?
No you do not use the scroll when using Secret Page. You make a copy using Secret Page in the spell book. It has drawback of being dispelled, but is otherwise a free copy.

The scroll is unchanged.

The spell never says it can make a copy of a scroll. It says it can make writing appear to be other writing. In other words, if your spellbook page is Fireball, and it appears to be Haste, it is still Fireball. It just appears to be Haste, but it isn't. Anyway, I know it's controversial - I just think my take happens to describe RAW, and also happens to be the fairest/funnest way.

Sliver
2009-10-10, 03:41 AM
The spell never says it can make a copy of a scroll. It says it can make writing appear to be other writing. In other words, if your spellbook page is Fireball, and it appears to be Haste, it is still Fireball. It just appears to be Haste, but it isn't. Anyway, I know it's controversial - I just think my take happens to describe RAW, and also happens to be the fairest/funnest way.

If you try to cast a false spell from a scroll, it will fail just as trying to cast fireball from a tree that had "fireball" carved into would. You have to identify the spell that is on the scroll before you try to cast it..

You won't just cast a spell and go "woops".

Riffington
2009-10-10, 09:35 AM
If you try to cast a false spell from a scroll, it will fail just as trying to cast fireball from a tree that had "fireball" carved into would. You have to identify the spell that is on the scroll before you try to cast it..

You won't just cast a spell and go "woops".

First off, I'm not sure why you keep talking about scrolls, when I'm talking about spellbooks. A scroll specifically requires you to be able to see the writing on the scroll, which secret page prevents. Preparing a spell from a borrowed spellbook does not require you to be able to see the writing on the page, only to decipher it.

Ravens_cry
2009-10-10, 10:15 AM
First off, I'm not sure why you keep talking about scrolls, when I'm talking about spellbooks. A scroll specifically requires you to be able to see the writing on the scroll, which secret page prevents. Preparing a spell from a borrowed spellbook does not require you to be able to see the writing on the page, only to decipher it.
So what, spellbooks are written in Braille?:smallamused: That may, or may not, be strict, Rule Lawyer Ultra Munchkin Rules-as Written. But to decipher writing, you generally have to see it.

Riffington
2009-10-10, 10:36 AM
So what, spellbooks are written in Braille?:smallamused: That may, or may not, be strict, Rule Lawyer Ultra Munchkin Rules-as Written. But to decipher writing, you generally have to see it.
Well, it depends what you think a spellbook is. You might, for example, think that a spellbook contains written instructions and recipes for a spell. If so, then you have to see it. Also in that case, you can avoid the listed cost of scribing a spell by the simple expedient of purchasing paper and ink.
I believe this to be incorrect. I believe that a spellbook is a piece of the wizard's soul bound into physical form. The markings on each page are not simply instructions (though they may include instructions, notes, history, or cautions) - they actually inscribe the spell into the wizard's soul.
For evidence:
*you don't need to see the writing
*otherwise explain the cost of scribing spells.
*if another wizard copies your spell into her own book, and you take that book, you still have difficulty preparing the spell from it - every time, no matter how many times you've done it.
*wizards hate having others look at their spellbooks
*read magic and spellcraft do not require comprehend languages - you can read a spell in a language or alphabet you do not know (including Braille).
*for a wizard to cast a spell, she must have at some point written it in a book. She can be using someone else's book to prepare it today- but first she has to have personally written it into a book somewhere.

Starbuck_II
2009-10-10, 10:38 AM
*you don't need to see the writing
*otherwise explain the cost of scribing spells.
*if another wizard copies your spell into her own book, and you take that book, you still have difficulty preparing the spell from it - every time, no matter how many times you've done it.

Actually there is a spellcraft check to "own" a spell book.


*for a wizard to cast a spell, she must have at some point written it in a book. She can be using someone else's book to prepare it today- but first she has to have personally written it into a book somewhere.

Again, you just need to do the spellcraft check.

Riffington
2009-10-10, 10:44 AM
Actually there is a spellcraft check to "own" a spell book.

I don't actually see this in the rules, but if so I think it supports my position. Having a difference between owned vs borrowed is something that cannot be understood if a spell is merely a set of instructions.

Starbuck_II
2009-10-10, 10:54 AM
I don't actually see this in the rules, but if so I think it supports my position. Having a difference between owned vs borrowed is something that cannot be understood if a spell is merely a set of instructions.

Complete Arcane has the stuff on it I believe but as I now lack that book I can't tell you the page.

Maerok
2009-10-10, 10:58 AM
Some people just have terrible handwriting and it takes forever to figure out what it means. I wouldn't assume that ends with wizards of all people.

Kylarra
2009-10-10, 11:00 AM
Complete Arcane has the stuff on it I believe but as I now lack that book I can't tell you the page.
p140 CA It's a "difficult" spellcraft check, but it scales poorly (increments by spell level which means 2 ranks of spellcraft vs 1 level).

Riffington
2009-10-10, 11:13 AM
Some people just have terrible handwriting and it takes forever to figure out what it means. I wouldn't assume that ends with wizards of all people.

That's only an issue once for mundane writings. It's also interesting that it's equally easy/hard to prepare a spell from a spellbook with terrible handwriting as with perfect handwriting.

Also, it's interesting that attuning yourself to another's spellbook takes more time than scribing an equal number of spells yourself.

Ravens_cry
2009-10-10, 11:53 AM
That's only an issue once for mundane writings. It's also interesting that it's equally easy/hard to prepare a spell from a spellbook with terrible handwriting as with perfect handwriting.

Also, it's interesting that attuning yourself to another's spellbook takes more time than scribing an equal number of spells yourself.
Magic is Universal. It speaks to those attuned to it in ways the mere form do not affect. Also, Wizards are generally the ones who won their hard won magical knowledge from intense tutelage by another. Penmanship could conceivably be among those skills taught. Besides, there is no rules for good or bad handwriting anyway.
Magic is Unique. Each wizard over the course of his studies develops his own path, his own tricks for getting the magic to work. As long as it all balances out in the end, it doesn't matter, for the wizard in question anyway. Anyone else who reads it, it is like deciphering the equations of someone who has made some changes to how they do notation, but still does them correctly, once you understand the new code. And some wizards, fearing the theft of their spell book, may encrypt them.

Kylarra
2009-10-10, 11:58 AM
Also, it's interesting that attuning yourself to another's spellbook takes more time than scribing an equal number of spells yourself.Well it does save you gold equal to 100g*pages. :smalltongue:

Horatio@Bridge
2009-10-10, 12:45 PM
I think it's funny that in a thread asking about funny things optimizers say, a bunch of optimizers come in and start seriously debating the funny things other optimizers have said. To, you know, address the OP.