PDA

View Full Version : Abusing the spell "Heroics" or: Why the Wizard IS the Fighter



Brock Samson
2009-12-04, 06:08 PM
So, 2nd level spell in spell compendium "Heroics" - 10 min/level, gives you a fighter bonus feat. Pretty neat. Start gaining some higher levels, extending it, casting it multiple times, UMD a Divine Power, and you can have WAY more feats than the fighter. Bada**, no?

Question: a Pearl of Power 2 allows you to reclaim a 2nd level spell slot. So if you buy a bunch of Pearls of Power 2, and a few less Rods of Extend, you really only need to prepare one 2nd level slot with Heroics to give yourself GOBS of fighter feats right? Eternal wands also being nice, but won't last as long as what you can cast yourself.

Practical Practice: Right now I'm a Wizard 3/Druid 3/Mystic Theurge 4/Arcane Heirophant 13. With the Ioun Stone and Create Magic Tattoo and Beads of Karma, I can get my caster level to 29 when I want to. So I could theoretically extend Heroics with less Rods, buy lots of Pearls of Power 2 (cheap), and even more uber myself. That 580 minutes, nearly 10 hours per casting, so 2 a day works for the feat, or about 6000 GP (3000 for one Pearl of Power 2 right?).

Currently I have 200,000 GP to spend. That translates to... too many feats. Oh gods, the feats! And yes, I'm a caster who LOVES to be in Melee. With Shapechange always up in the form of a Solar with persisted Wraithstrike and Greater Mighty Wallop on my chain, I loves me some smackdown.

So now here's the ultimate question:
Is there a compilation of all the Fighter only bonus feats available somewhere?

Anyway, yeah, just thought I'd share something that makes me squee with glee.

Starbuck_II
2009-12-04, 06:13 PM
Can't be affected by more than heroics unless text says you can because of the rule same spell different effects (like Resist energy). You cast resist energy {fire} and {cold} on someone and Cold replaces fire.

Anxe
2009-12-04, 06:24 PM
Crystal keep should help you out if you wanna look at all the fighter feats. Most of the ones in the combat section would fit the bill.

As Starbuck says, by RAW this isn't allowed. You can just not mention that to your DM or get your DM's approval for it though.

http://www.crystalkeep.com/d20/rules/DnD3.5Index-Feats.pdf

Signmaker
2009-12-04, 06:30 PM
You're only affected by one Heroics spell at a time, just like you're affected by only one Energy Immunity spell at a time.

Incidentally, if that wasn't the case, you'd have casters with every fighter feat AND every obtainable ToB maneuver/stance possible.

Doc Roc
2009-12-04, 06:50 PM
I brought you something (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/sb/sb20000901a). You were saying, Sign?

Signmaker
2009-12-04, 06:55 PM
I brought you something (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/sb/sb20000901a). You were saying, Sign?

Yeah, but Mirror Move has the issue that you have to see the feat being used to use it, rather than arbitrarily having it.

Iku Rex
2009-12-04, 06:58 PM
No rule prevents you from benefiting from multiple castings of heroics (or energy immunity).

Tehnar
2009-12-04, 06:59 PM
The spell requires a piece of equipment from a level 15 fighter. Rare enough as that is, continual use of the spell will cause them to go extinct.

Something on par as looking for a Dodo egg in this day and age.

Dixieboy
2009-12-04, 07:02 PM
Someone who is cheesy enough to go for every fighter spell for your wizard is also cheesy enough to capture a 15th level fighter, give him equipment, and then rob it from him immediately afterwards.

Teddy
2009-12-04, 07:04 PM
Can't be affected by more than heroics unless text says you can because of the rule same spell different effects (like Resist energy). You cast resist energy {fire} and {cold} on someone and Cold replaces fire.

It might be true as you say, but I can't find it in the spell description for Resist Energy or in the under the Combining Magical Effects headline in the PHD. Were you perhaps refering to another spell?

Arakune
2009-12-04, 07:05 PM
No rule prevents you from benefiting from multiple castings of heroics (or energy immunity).

Redundancy? I saw that in action. But then, by the reasonings of the previous posters, you have a nearly undispelable ONE fighter feat.

Starbuck_II
2009-12-04, 07:06 PM
No rule prevents you from benefiting from multiple castings of heroics (or energy immunity).

SRD says:
Same Effect with Differing Results
The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.

I'm pretty sure Heroics is the same spell as Heroics.
Even if each has a different result: they are same spell.

Demons_eye
2009-12-04, 07:14 PM
Does this mean you cant cast wish five times in a row to get +5 bonus to a stat?

Doc Roc
2009-12-04, 07:17 PM
Wish is instantaneous, which is a crucial difference but..... That has problems of its own.

Starbuck_II
2009-12-04, 07:17 PM
Does this mean you cant cast wish five times in a row to get +5 bonus to a stat?

Wish lists itself as an exception.
Exceptions are exceptions.

Demons_eye
2009-12-04, 07:18 PM
So can you use wish to copy this spell and use it over and over? Not practical but can you do it?

Iku Rex
2009-12-04, 07:39 PM
SRD says:
Same Effect with Differing Results
The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.

I'm pretty sure Heroics is the same spell as Heroics.
Even if each has a different result: they are same spell.Polymorph is the PHB example of "Same Effect with Differing Results". If you are polymorphed into a mouse and then polymorphed into a lion you are not a mouse-lion. The second spell has made the first irrelevant. That's the kind of situation this rule is meant to cover.

With heroics there is no reason why the "you gain fighter feat I" effect should make the "you gain fighter feat II" effect irrelevant.

Even the rule you quoted says that it only applies some of the time ("usually").

Arakune
2009-12-04, 07:47 PM
Polymorph is the PHB example of "Same Effect with Differing Results". If you are polymorphed into a mouse and then polymorphed into a lion you are not a mouse-lion. The second spell has made the first irrelevant. That's the kind of situation this rule is meant to cover.

With heroics there is no reason why the "you gain fighter feat I" effect should make the "you gain fighter feat II" effect irrelevant.

Even the rule you quoted says that it only applies some of the time ("usually").

Specifics beat general. The general is the rulling (usually) and the specific (outside usually) is the exception.

Uhm... that sounds quite dumb as a sentence :smallsigh:

Curmudgeon
2009-12-04, 07:52 PM
SRD says:
Same Effect with Differing Results
The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.
Check your Player's Handbook on page 172. You'll find they say sustantially different things.

Don't let a bad job (in editing out examples to make the SRD text) confuse you.

Doc Roc
2009-12-04, 07:54 PM
Check your Player's Handbook on page 172. You'll find they say sustantially different things.

Don't let a bad job (in editing out examples to make the SRD text) confuse you.

Even when it produces superior rules?

Dixieboy
2009-12-04, 07:57 PM
Would the SRD count as errata then? :smallredface:

ken-do-nim
2009-12-04, 08:05 PM
You cast resist energy {fire} and {cold} on someone and Cold replaces fire.

Can you point out to me the rule that says this? Boy did we get that one wrong!

Curmudgeon
2009-12-04, 08:07 PM
Would the SRD count as errata then? :smallredface:
Actually, the errata rules do have something to say about this:
Errata Rule: Primary Sources

When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.

Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the Dungeon Master's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The Dungeon Master's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities. So, according to the errata, when you find something that isn't errata and which disagrees with the Player's Handbook about how to play the game, the PH is right. SRD loses.

Iku Rex
2009-12-04, 08:13 PM
Specifics beat general. The general is the rulling (usually) and the specific (outside usually) is the exception.The spell description says "you get X". You need something very specific to counter this clear rule. A general rule on how multiple castings of spells like polymorph are "usually" handled doesn't cut it as far as I am concerned.

With polymorph there is a conflict. You can't be a lion and a mouse at the same time. There is no such conflict with heroics.

Arakune
2009-12-04, 08:16 PM
The spell description says "you get X". You need something very specific to counter this clear rule. A general rule on how multiple castings of spells like polymorph are "usually" handled doesn't cut it as far as I am concerned.

With polymorph there is a conflict. You can't be a lion and a mouse at the same time. There is no such conflict with heroics.

There is. The fact that you are casting it at the second time. The general rule is to not stack, and there are examples of when such rulling is ignored (wish spell, for example). Just because it doesn't have any discenible logical problems, you can't selectively ignore rules.

Curmudgeon
2009-12-04, 10:28 PM
There is. The fact that you are casting it at the second time. The general rule is to not stack, and there are examples of when such rulling is ignored
You've got that backward. Here's the actual general rule:
Spells or magical effects usually work as described, no matter how many other spells or magical effects happen to be operating in the same area or on the same recipient.

Je dit Viola
2009-12-04, 10:31 PM
Spells or magical effects usually work as described, no matter how many other spells or magical effects happen to be operating in the same area or on the same recipient.

The key word being 'other', rather than 'same'...

I think that the same spell's effects don't stack, because there is a more specific rule than this one, saying it wouldn't stack.

KellKheraptis
2009-12-04, 10:35 PM
Mirror move is best used in conjunction with a ki'ira, as it acts as 3.5 TIVO. And it's more than just fighter feats...anything you can watch and observe, you can mimick. As for heroics stacking, my understanding of it is it's commonly house-ruled to not stack, as the vague wording made it prone to abuse. Of course if mirror move is allowed, heroics just doesn't measure up.

PhoenixRivers
2009-12-04, 10:57 PM
Ok:

If a spell provides bonuses, they do not stack.

Heroism provides a feat, which is not a bonus.

Now, in the instance that one spell necessarily makes another useless, then one will overwrite the other.

Example: I cast Aid, and I'm a 3rd level cleric, and get 11 temp HP. My 5th level cleric casts Aid, granting 13 temp HP. The 13 makes the 11 irrelevant. they are the exact same thing, with differing orders of magnitude.

In the instance that the same spell provides differing effects, then those differing effects may not stack, but they don't need to.

Resist Energy (electricity) does not stack with Resist Energy (fire). They apply in different situations.

Heroism (Toughness) and Heroism (Power Attack) do not stack. They provide different things, applicable in different situations.

No, they don't stack. But there's no situation that they'd need to. You cast two different feats.

I mean, the rule is "bonuses from the same source don't stack". If feats applied for this rule, then you would not gain a fighter feat at level 2+. You wouldn't get a general feat at level 3+... Because the source (level gain, or fighter class) is the same.

Grumman
2009-12-05, 02:58 AM
The spell requires a piece of equipment from a level 15 fighter. Rare enough as that is, continual use of the spell will cause them to go extinct.

Something on par as looking for a Dodo egg in this day and age.
Incorrect: the spell requires a piece of a piece of equipment from a level 15 fighter. How many rings do you think there are in a suit of chainmail? A level 15 fighter could buy a suit for 150 gp, use it in a single battle, then sell it for spell components.

Keld Denar
2009-12-05, 03:22 AM
The piece is also a material FOCUS, not a material component. Thusly, its not consumed when used. Since its never consumed, it would never leave the economy unless lost or destroyed. Slaying enemy mages could provide a source of random pieces of chain link. Cause seriously...how many fighters actually take 15 whole levels? Seriously...

I think for your standard, run-of-the-mill wizard, one of the best uses of Heroics is just to grant Improved Init. It stacks with all other forms of Init increases, and coupled with Nerveskitter, an Eager Dagger of Warning, a UMDed scroll of Signs, a discharged Moment of Prescience, and a well placed Marshall/Dread Commando cohort, could result in an Init mod in the mid 40s, and thats without even trying. At high levels, combat often comes down to who goes first. Why not stack the deck in your favor?

Thrice Dead Cat
2009-12-05, 03:25 AM
The piece is also a material FOCUS, not a material component. Thusly, its not consumed when used. Since its never consumed, it would never leave the economy unless lost or destroyed. Slaying enemy mages could provide a source of random pieces of chain link. Cause seriously...how many fighters actually take 15 whole levels? Seriously...

Jack B. Quick? (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19869062/6_hits_to_1_Jack_B_Quick)


I think for your standard, run-of-the-mill wizard, one of the best uses of Heroics is just to grant Improved Init. It stacks with all other forms of Init increases, and coupled with Nerveskitter, an Eager Dagger of Warning, a UMDed scroll of Signs, a discharged Moment of Prescience, and a well placed Marshall/Dread Commando cohort, could result in an Init mod in the mid 40s, and thats without even trying. At high levels, combat often comes down to who goes first. Why not stack the deck in your favor?

I generally trade in Scribe Scroll for Improved Initiative, leaving the wonder that is Heroics to grab me some juicy, juicy maneuvers and/or stances.

Keld Denar
2009-12-05, 03:33 AM
Most casters have a high Concentration modifier, one of the Diamond Mind save replacers would be a good investment as well. Or Shadow Hand teleports for 1/encounter fun.

Thrice Dead Cat
2009-12-05, 03:42 AM
Pretty much, yeah. The main appeal to using Heroics to cover wanted maneuvers is that, in the event that retraining rules are not accessible for some reason, you can just plop down Heroics on either yourself or one of the actual fighters in the group so someone can get a higher level maneuver for a longer amount of time while playing the game than if you had actually taken Martial Study at level X.

Of course, the Concentration in place of saves maneuvers are a great first pick for caster, but when a War Weaver is giving everyone Heroics, not everyone will take those (though, to be fair, most of them really should). That or White Raven Tactics, because everything is better with more turns.

Draz74
2010-02-22, 01:28 PM
Most casters have a high Concentration modifier, one of the Diamond Mind save replacers would be a good investment as well.

Except, instead of wasting a Heroics spell on this, they should really just spend 9000 gp to add knowledge of these save replace maneuvers to their magic Rings' effects. :smalltongue:

Sinfire Titan
2010-02-22, 01:41 PM
The spell requires a piece of equipment from a level 15 fighter. Rare enough as that is, continual use of the spell will cause them to go extinct.

Something on par as looking for a Dodo egg in this day and age.

1: Find a 15th level Fighter.
2: Give him 40gp worth of Arrows.
3: ???
4: Cast Heroics.

The real abuse for this spell is Action Points and the feat that lets you spend Action Points to lower Metamagic slot adjustments. One casting of this spell grants quite a few Action Points thanks to one of the feats that grants AP being a Fighter Bonus feat.

Indon
2010-02-22, 02:05 PM
Incorrect: the spell requires a piece of a piece of equipment from a level 15 fighter. How many rings do you think there are in a suit of chainmail? A level 15 fighter could buy a suit for 150 gp, use it in a single battle, then sell it for spell components.

Somewhere out there there is a level 15 fighter who is ludicrously wealthy as a result of this.

Also, there's the whole base attack bonus thing. Barring Transformation every battle, even if this combo worked precisely as proposed you'd still have 1/2 BAB as a wizard, making you not a Fighter but a Wizard with a bunch of bonus feats.

OracleofWuffing
2010-02-22, 02:08 PM
I brought you something (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/sb/sb20000901a). You were saying, Sign?
*Slams on the breaks*


Material Component: Any reflective surface, including highly polished shields or armor and even surfaces of water, can be used for this spell. Many spellcasters carry small mirrors with them for material components.
So, assuming I can see someone use these feats, I get to copy an amount of them equal to my Int mod, and destroy the entire ocean while we're at it?

Dang, I need to play more Wizards/Sorcerers.

absolmorph
2010-02-22, 02:29 PM
*Slams on the breaks*


So, assuming I can see someone use these feats, I get to copy an amount of them equal to my Int mod, and destroy the entire ocean while we're at it?

Dang, I need to play more Wizards/Sorcerers.
Technically, it only says the SURFACE of the water.
You'd have to cast it a few times to get rid of a visually significant portion.

OracleofWuffing
2010-02-22, 02:59 PM
It doesn't say only the uppermost part of that surface, it says any surface. Arguably, the entire ocean itself is a single surface, depending on one's mode of transportation and plane of existence. Unless this gets defined somewhere in the books, it's up to the DM to decide, and I don't play well with pro-ocean DMs. :smallmad:

:smallbiggrin:

faceroll
2010-02-22, 03:05 PM
Somewhere out there there is a level 15 fighter who is ludicrously wealthy as a result of this.

Also, there's the whole base attack bonus thing. Barring Transformation every battle, even if this combo worked precisely as proposed you'd still have 1/2 BAB as a wizard, making you not a Fighter but a Wizard with a bunch of bonus feats.

Arcane Disciple: War should fix that for you.


It doesn't say only the uppermost part of that surface, it says any surface. Arguably, the entire ocean itself is a single surface, depending on one's mode of transportation and plane of existence. Unless this gets defined somewhere in the books, it's up to the DM to decide, and I don't play well with pro-ocean DMs. :smallmad:

:smallbiggrin:

No, a surface would only be the layer of molecules that touch the air. You'd have to cast it a lot to do anything noticeable.

OracleofWuffing
2010-02-22, 03:13 PM
No, a surface would only be the layer of molecules that touch the air.
In absence of a book and page number, I'm going to point out that by that definition, there is no such thing as a surface of anything within a vacuum. On the other hand, that definition creates a serious problem for your innards.

Let's not forget that by this line of logic, using a mirror as a component won't actually destroy the mirror, as there are (relatively speaking on a close enough scale) many parts of a mirror which are not reflective. Since the text says we can use a mirror for this, and material components do not work that way, we can conclude that I'm just looking much too far into this in comparison to the planning WotC did.

absolmorph
2010-02-22, 03:13 PM
Arcane Disciple: War should fix that for you.



No, a surface would only be the layer of molecules that touch the air. You'd have to cast it a lot to do anything noticeable.
Although, by technicality, you would remove the layer of molecules on the outside of all water connected to whatever body of water you're using. Think about that.

Tyndmyr
2010-02-22, 04:58 PM
Although, by technicality, you would remove the layer of molecules on the outside of all water connected to whatever body of water you're using. Think about that.

Water elementals on the surface may be displeased.

Runestar
2010-02-22, 05:25 PM
The armour from a 15th lv fighter is not listed as having any sort of gp cost. Would a spell component pouch provide all the pieces of armour you need? :smallbiggrin:

Or alternatively, eschew material components?

Toliudar
2010-02-22, 05:36 PM
Yes, but how many people actually stay in fighter to level 15? I suppose there might be one who sees it as a business opportunity - wearing a suit of chainmail for a few days, then dismantling it and selling off the links to wizards who want to be warriors. But it seems like a pretty niche market.

Edit: Keld Denar beat me to this joke, and did it better. I am suitably shamed.

PlzBreakMyCmpAn
2010-02-22, 06:04 PM
The real abuse for this spell is Action PointsEw man. Freaking, ew.:smallyuk:

Tyndmyr
2010-02-22, 06:43 PM
The armour from a 15th lv fighter is not listed as having any sort of gp cost. Would a spell component pouch provide all the pieces of armour you need? :smallbiggrin:

Or alternatively, eschew material components?

I've heard this before, but can't think of any armor than a 15th level fighter could reasonably be wearing that is free.

sofawall
2010-02-22, 06:51 PM
Actually, the errata rules do have something to say about this: So, according to the errata, when you find something that isn't errata and which disagrees with the Player's Handbook about how to play the game, the PH is right. SRD loses.

Just pointing out, that rule is a very very silly rule, and whenever someone brings it up, it seems basically arbitrary in determining what is an exception and what contradicts the primary rule source.

Swooper
2010-02-22, 07:30 PM
I think for your standard, run-of-the-mill wizard, one of the best uses of Heroics is just to grant Improved Init. It stacks with all other forms of Init increases, and coupled with Nerveskitter, an Eager Dagger of Warning, a UMDed scroll of Signs, a discharged Moment of Prescience, and a well placed Marshall/Dread Commando cohort, could result in an Init mod in the mid 40s, and thats without even trying.
This is your "standard, run-of-the-mill wizard"? I'd hate to see you try :smallbiggrin:

FirebirdFlying
2010-02-22, 08:09 PM
The quest for the 15th level fighter. I can see it now…

Grumman
2010-02-23, 03:35 AM
I've heard this before, but can't think of any armor than a 15th level fighter could reasonably be wearing that is free.
It doesn't have to be a fair fight, you don't need the whole thing, and there's nothing stopping the 15th level fighter getting his cleric buddy to cast Magic Vestment on it for safety's sake.

Take a chain shirt, for example. 100 GP divided by 20,000 gives you a price of 1 copper piece for two links. Even if you sell them at a 5,000% mark-up, that's still only 5 silver pieces per casting.

Runestar
2010-02-23, 05:07 AM
I've heard this before, but can't think of any armor than a 15th level fighter could reasonably be wearing that is free.

Apparently, it shouldn't matter. The makers of the spell component pouch will somehow ensure it comes with all the armour parts you will ever need. And for just 5gp too. :smallbiggrin:

faceroll
2010-02-23, 05:10 AM
I've heard this before, but can't think of any armor than a 15th level fighter could reasonably be wearing that is free.

By 15th level, most anything mundane is free, thanks to the wizard that turns a 50 gp wall of iron into a whole mess of fabricated war implements. I'm pretty sure the wizard is more than willing to invest the 50 gp in the fighter for a lifetime supply of focii.

Tyndmyr
2010-02-23, 07:25 AM
The point isn't that the armor is hard to get...it's not.

The point is that, by RAW, no armor is free, and thus, you shouldn't be able to pull a set of armor out of a spell component pouch.

Grumman
2010-02-23, 09:08 AM
The point is that, by RAW, no armor is free, and thus, you shouldn't be able to pull a set of armor out of a spell component pouch.
...I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall.

As I have already pointed out, the material component for the spell is less than half a copper piece. Do you actually feel that this degree of pedantry improves the game?

Cyclocone
2010-02-23, 09:11 AM
The point isn't that the armor is hard to get...it's not.

The point is that, by RAW, no armor is free, and thus, you shouldn't be able to pull a set of armor out of a spell component pouch.

Actually, the point is that by RAW it totally is:


A material component is one or more physical substances or objects that are annihilated by the spell energies in the casting process. Unless a cost is given for a material component, the cost is negligible. Don’t bother to keep track of material components with negligible cost. Assume you have all you need as long as you have your spell component pouch.

Yeah, I try not to think about that too much; I always end up thinking about how artifacts have no given cost...

Tyndmyr
2010-02-23, 09:12 AM
...I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall.

As I have already pointed out, the material component for the spell is less than half a copper piece. Do you actually feel that this degree of pedantry improves the game?

For an arbitrarily small definition of "piece". The usual term for a piece of armor is a component. Yknow, a bracer or the like. A single ring from an entire set of armor being valid is the argument that relies on pedantry.

And no, I don't feel that being able to pull sets of armor, a piece at a time, out of a spell component pouch improves the game.

Tyndmyr
2010-02-23, 09:15 AM
Yeah, I try not to think about that too much; I always end up thinking about how artifacts have no given cost...

Artifacts, sadly...have no given cost. At least under 3.5(I seem to remember older editions having them. Perhaps that explains the oversight.).

Armor, though, does. None of the listed pieces of armor in the DMG....or anywhere else that I know of...are listed as free. Any armor that a level 15 could reasonably be expected to be wearing is very likely far from free indeed.


This doesn't make such armor hard to get...Im sure a lot of dead fighters have worn armor at some point, so there's got to be plenty of chunks around. I only dispute the idea that the armor itself is free, and thus, can be pulled out of spell component pouches. Anything with a listed cost is not free by RAW, even if you come up with an interesting way to make it free under certain circumstances.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-02-23, 12:24 PM
Artifacts, sadly...have no given cost. At least under 3.5(I seem to remember older editions having them. Perhaps that explains the oversight.).

In prior editions, no items had a given cost; you got them when you made them yourself or found them. Then again, there was no such thing as a spell component pouch with every possible component you would ever need, so it didn't matter.

DragoonWraith
2010-02-23, 12:46 PM
The Material line in Heroics does not list a cost, nor does its short description say HeroicsM. It is a trivial material component and therefore comes in every Spell Component Pouch and is obviated entirely by Eschew Materials.

PhoenixRivers
2010-02-23, 01:02 PM
The point isn't that the armor is hard to get...it's not.

The point is that, by RAW, no armor is free, and thus, you shouldn't be able to pull a set of armor out of a spell component pouch.

However:

A piece of armor != armor.

Let's say, I have a set of armor. Let's say, leather armor. 10gp. Let's say, said leather armor, sized for a small creature, weighs 7.5 pounds. Now, let's say we divide that up into 10 pieces. Sounds reasonable, right?

After all, there's armor front and back for the chest, upper and lower legpieces, upper and lower armpieces, that's 10, by itself.

Now we have an item valued at 1gp.

So, it's quite feasible for this to have a cost, even by your standards of a piece, that is trivial.

Pedantry at the game table, in my book, is needlessly complicating things when the game is pretty clear that for items of trivial value (such as 99% of spell components), you gloss over them with a spell component pouch.


Material (M)

A material component is one or more physical substances or objects that are annihilated by the spell energies in the casting process. Unless a cost is given for a material component, the cost is negligible. Don’t bother to keep track of material components with negligible cost. Assume you have all you need as long as you have your spell component pouch.
So now, unless you can find me a cost for "A bit of a weapon or armor that has been used in combat by a fighter of at least 15th level", then we are forced to conclude that the cost is negligible, because the spell doesn't give a cost for the component, as it DOES do for many other spells.

When referring to "a bit" of anything, the general meaning is "a small part of".

So, by my definition, you're getting far to bogged down in the details.

Tyndmyr
2010-02-23, 01:46 PM
In prior editions, no items had a given cost; you got them when you made them yourself or found them. Then again, there was no such thing as a spell component pouch with every possible component you would ever need, so it didn't matter.

I remember it as being something like 7.5mil gold at one point. May have been 3.0, may have been earlier, don't recall. Basically high enough that you could never buy it, and no sane DM would likely let you sell it.

Phoenix:
Relevant rule from SRD:
Material (M)
A material component is one or more physical substances or objects that are annihilated by the spell energies in the casting process. Unless a cost is given for a material component, the cost is negligible. Don’t bother to keep track of material components with negligible cost. Assume you have all you need as long as you have your spell component pouch.

First off, it doesn't specify where a cost must be given. Sure, it usually will be listed in the spell description, but it's reasonable to consider that the designers assumed things listed as expensive/valuable elsewhere were obviously not free/negligible in cost. After all, the only definition we are given for "negligible cost" is stuff without any price at all. Look at the table of equipment in the phb. Prices are listed down to a single copper piece. Items below that in value have no listed price.

So...just because you think 1gp is a negligible price does not mean it is negligible by raw.

Tehnar
2010-02-23, 03:53 PM
I wonder if sellers of spell component pouches have special arenas where they carefully pit fighters against a variety of creatures just strong enough to challenge them, but not strong enough to kill them. A sort of a breeding program to get a fighter to lvl 15 so you can exploit him for spell components.

Tyndmyr
2010-02-23, 04:09 PM
I wonder if sellers of spell component pouches have special arenas where they carefully pit fighters against a variety of creatures just strong enough to challenge them, but not strong enough to kill them. A sort of a breeding program to get a fighter to lvl 15 so you can exploit him for spell components.

There is no possible way that spell component pouch makers can be turning a profit.

Volkov
2010-02-23, 04:15 PM
Use permanence on your heroics for added cheese.

Tyndmyr
2010-02-23, 04:25 PM
Use permanence on your heroics for added cheese.

Why, does the spell allow it?

I was thinking that persisting it would be cheddar enough, but if it allows permanency, why not? Im a big fan of permanencying buffs.

Volkov
2010-02-23, 04:27 PM
Why, does the spell allow it?

I was thinking that persisting it would be cheddar enough, but if it allows permanency, why not? Im a big fan of permanencying buffs.

As a DM I'd allow it. Not sure about other's opinions on permanancying stuff like heroics or fox's cunning.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-02-23, 06:59 PM
As a DM I'd allow it. Not sure about other's opinions on permanancying stuff like heroics or fox's cunning.

I also generally allow any spell to be permanencied as a DM; the list of pre-approved spells is arbitrary and core-only, and as long as you pay the XP to do it there's really no spell too terribly broken to make permanent--once you can make anything last 48 hours with DMM or Incantatrix, permanence isn't that big of a step up.

Regarding heroics specifically, go ahead and make it permanent, as many times as you want; getting arbitrary numbers of fighter feats as a wizard is generally a terribly waste of time and XP, and if you're the kind of gish that would want to do that, you're spending XP either way on fighter levels or permanency. Plus, you could permanency it on your martial buddies as well, so the whole party can join in on the fun.

deuxhero
2010-02-23, 07:05 PM
It doesn't say he had to be a 15th level fighter when he used it. A shread of the rags he wore when he was unable to beat a housecat would work

PhoenixRivers
2010-02-23, 10:54 PM
There is no possible way that spell component pouch makers can be turning a profit.

The rules for that aren't about "turning a profit". They're about "not driving caster players insane keeping track of quantities of material components for each spell they possess".

In other words? To justify the accounting? There needs to be a very good reason. 100gp pearls, I can see. 5000gp gems, I can see.

A gold or less?

This is Dungeons and Dragons, not Auditing and Analysts.

EDIT:
First off, it doesn't specify where a cost must be given. Sure, it usually will be listed in the spell description, but it's reasonable to consider that the designers assumed things listed as expensive/valuable elsewhere were obviously not free/negligible in cost. After all, the only definition we are given for "negligible cost" is stuff without any price at all. Look at the table of equipment in the phb. Prices are listed down to a single copper piece. Items below that in value have no listed price.

So...just because you think 1gp is a negligible price does not mean it is negligible by raw.
Absolutely. Now, since you're on this RAW kick, please point out the cost of the following item, in a book, using no opinion, extrapolation, or personal conjecture. RAW only.

"Material Component: A bit of a weapon or armor that has been used in combat by a fighter of at least 15th level."

Since opinions on the negligible value of a gold coin to a character with 110,000 of them aren't RAW, let's go with what is, and assume that the value of said armor is entirely subjective, so opinions on BOTH sides that are not RAW should be disregarded.

Unless the material component (listed above) has an explicit value printed, the cost is negligible, by RAW. (I'll give you a hint. I've never seen that particular component issued a value, anywhere.)

And thank you for setting that standard. Or, to use your own words?

So...just because you think a nonvalued component has a value that can be extrapolated by subjective opinion, but is not actually listed anywhere at all, does not mean it has a listed value by raw.

DragoonWraith
2010-02-23, 11:07 PM
First off, it doesn't specify where a cost must be given.
Yes, yes it does. You are quoting the description of the spell descriptors found in spell entries. That is the section of the SRD that you are reading. Spells have a line reading Material Component, and the description of that entry is that unless the price is given, it is negligible.

Asbestos
2010-02-24, 07:01 AM
The spell requires a piece of equipment from a level 15 fighter. Rare enough as that is, continual use of the spell will cause them to go extinct.

Something on par as looking for a Dodo egg in this day and age.

Since all taverns are run by high-level fighters (who gave up adventuring due to their ever increasing inadequacy in the field) this requirement can easily be met by taking something from a tavern owner.

Tyndmyr
2010-02-24, 07:28 AM
The rules for that aren't about "turning a profit". They're about "not driving caster players insane keeping track of quantities of material components for each spell they possess".

In other words? To justify the accounting? There needs to be a very good reason. 100gp pearls, I can see. 5000gp gems, I can see.

A gold or less?

This is Dungeons and Dragons, not Auditing and Analysts.

And yes, if you want to ignore the listed copper prices of trivial items, you can do so. They still have those prices, and thus, even if you don't bother to track the cost for a fishhook....it still has a cost. So say, getting a NE number of them for free and fabricating them into expensive items to sell is not RAW legal. Books would also normally fly.


EDIT:
Absolutely. Now, since you're on this RAW kick, please point out the cost of the following item, in a book, using no opinion, extrapolation, or personal conjecture. RAW only.

"Material Component: A bit of a weapon or armor that has been used in combat by a fighter of at least 15th level."

Since opinions on the negligible value of a gold coin to a character with 110,000 of them aren't RAW, let's go with what is, and assume that the value of said armor is entirely subjective, so opinions on BOTH sides that are not RAW should be disregarded.

There is no RAW value on the "used in combat" bit. Apparently, weapons sell for the same price no matter how much they are used. After all, you get half market price for that sword just after you crafted it, or if you use it to smack people around for a few years.

Armors and weapons have costs, though. It doesn't specify which particular one is required, so if padded armor is what you want to go with, go nuts. It has a cost, but a relatively minor one. It poses no obstacle for casters wishing to pick it up, but it does fail the "can pull infinite amounts of it out of this pouch" test.


Unless the material component (listed above) has an explicit value printed, the cost is negligible, by RAW. (I'll give you a hint. I've never seen that particular component issued a value, anywhere.)

So...because item x has a value of 50g, half of item x has a value of nothing?

That's pretty questionable logic. A ball of bat guano is valueless. The size of the ball is irrelevant...nobody is likely to actually pay you for bat guano.

Would you also say that a spell with a component of a copper coin enables you to pull infinite copper coins from your pouch?

Vizzerdrix
2010-02-24, 07:39 AM
. A ball of bat guano is valueless. The size of the ball is irrelevant...nobody is likely to actually pay you for bat guano.


Farmers would. That's some damn fine fertilizer that is.


As for the copper piece thingy, Yes their is such a spell and yes someone did figure out the math on using it to twist the economy. Took far, far too long. It was either on this forum or BG. Can't remember.

Tyndmyr
2010-02-24, 07:41 AM
Farmers would. That's some damn fine fertilizer that is.

In real life, sure. In D&D, apparently not. The prices mostly dont make sense outside of an adventuring context.