PDA

View Full Version : [3.x.x] ToS: Gang Up On Doc Roc



Doc Roc
2010-04-21, 02:49 PM
Sign-Up (http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYdLcxsM7Nx0ZGc2NzhibjNfMjUxaGRiMjJ0ZnA&hl=en)

We'll open up proper character submission on may 8th, and hope to start trials on may 15th.

So, a while ago, I offered to play out a challenge of 4 fighters versus 1 wizard, all ecl 13th. Standard WBL. This is a thread for discussing the minimal rules-set we can use and still have a reasonably fun endeavor.

Some notes:

I will not be GMing.
We should probably have one player per side.
I would like to repeat this three times to simulate the appropriate number of encounters per day.
I cannot start until May 15th.


Some initial guidelines:

Standard WBL.
SRD only.
No more than 15% of net wealth on consumables.
One-shot items cost 5x, as per the rules.
GM's word is not open for debate, out of concern for speed.
NO Simulacrum, Genesis, Candles of Invocation, free wishes, or Time-stop.


OOC Thread:
Participants and Observers; Banter, discussion, planning. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8346560#post8346560)

This Thread:
Anyone. Rules, suggestions, optimization help, spiraling debates.

Banlist Discussion, prevailing opinion:
Here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8346643#post8346643)

Jarian
2010-04-21, 02:51 PM
You should probably limit yourself to core only, and let the fighters have, say... one of the completes or something.

Edit: Or you could ninja-edit that.

Yukitsu
2010-04-21, 02:52 PM
Yeah sure, I'm in for this.

Ernir
2010-04-21, 02:55 PM
As the title indicates - ToS ruleset aside from whatever is decided in here, right?

In any case, you have my sword.

deuxhero
2010-04-21, 02:56 PM
Capital F Fighters (must be single classed) or lower case fighters being any melee character?

Doc Roc
2010-04-21, 02:56 PM
I would be willing to use ToS, but many people think it is too strong for a good demo. I obviously disagree. :))

Single classed fighters.
You do NOT want to let me multiclass.

Volthawk
2010-04-21, 02:57 PM
If we're using those rules, maybe post them here too?

sofawall
2010-04-21, 02:57 PM
No more than 15% of net wealth on consumables.
One-shot items cost 5x, as per the rules.



That leads to an extremely limited supply of consumables.

TheMadLinguist
2010-04-21, 02:58 PM
I would be willing to use ToS, but many people think it is too strong for a good demo. I obviously disagree. :))

Single classed fighters.
You do NOT want to let me multiclass.

What would you be multiclassing to in core?

deuxhero
2010-04-21, 02:59 PM
What would you be multiclassing to in core?

Ranger 3/wolf totem barbarian 2/horizon walker x (AKA Horizon Tripper) is solid, as is Wildshape Ranger 20 if the normal ToS rules aren't (fully) in effect.


edit:If it's core only what is going to top a Wizard 20? Ok you can take loremaster (You get a small boost to saves and HP for combat wise abilites) or Archmage (a little more frightening, but not much)

Doc Roc
2010-04-21, 03:01 PM
That leads to an extremely limited supply of consumables.

Golly, how odd. ;)
That one is open for debate, of course.

I can do some very unpleasant things with archmage.

Tinydwarfman
2010-04-21, 03:02 PM
That leads to an extremely limited supply of consumables.

It's also what the DMG says you should have for consumables.

Mongoose87
2010-04-21, 03:03 PM
I know it would never work, but having two half-giants hurl one human fighter with grapple-focus at the wizard, whilst the other uses a bow and readied actions to disrupt spellcasting would be total lulz.

TheMadLinguist
2010-04-21, 03:08 PM
It's also what the DMG says you should have for consumables.

That's for a non oneshot game.

And you're missing the portion wealth earnede not part of WBL that's assumed to have been spent on consumables.

Ernir
2010-04-21, 03:09 PM
That leads to an extremely limited supply of consumables.

Makes 9th level scroll spam that much harder, too...

That restriction sounds good to me.

Draz74
2010-04-21, 03:10 PM
I can do some very unpleasant things with archmage.

I find that difficult to believe ...


I'm not aware of any Core early-entry tricks
The earliest one can enter Archmage without such tricks is ECL 14
This contest is ECL 13 :smalltongue:

Doc Roc
2010-04-21, 03:14 PM
Oh, I was just responding to him. If I had to do something here, I'm not sure what it'd be, but I am pretty good at this stuff.

Also, there are EE tricks in core. we don't much like to talk about them.

Draz74
2010-04-21, 03:20 PM
but I am pretty good at this stuff.
Oh, I know you are. That's why it was fun to try to catch you slipping up. But I would never dream of putting myself in a pure optimization contest against you.

On the other hand ...


Also, there are EE tricks in core. we don't much like to talk about them.
... if you really can get into Archmage before ECL 14 in Core, then by all means ignore everything I've said here!

The Glyphstone
2010-04-21, 03:23 PM
Probably something convoluted involving negative levels and transforming into barghests...

Mushroom Ninja
2010-04-21, 03:23 PM
Who are running the fighters? If there's an open slot, I'd love to whip up and/or play something.

Radar
2010-04-21, 03:30 PM
Oh, I know you are. That's why it was fun to try to catch you slipping up. But I would never dream of putting myself in a pure optimization contest against you.

On the other hand ...


... if you really can get into Archmage before ECL 14 in Core, then by all means ignore everything I've said here!
I can guess, that the most crud way to do it, is to use bloodlines, since they highten the maximum skillpoints limit and not count toward ECL. They do consume exp, but it might be enough to squeeze into Archmage early (with having the same overal ammount of exp as a streight ECL 14 character) - I would have to look up the exp table and calculate that tough.

Yukitsu
2010-04-21, 03:33 PM
Bloodlines are SRD, but not any more core than dieties and demigods.

Jarian
2010-04-21, 03:37 PM
My guess is that it involves Inspire Greatness, with wights and Restoration.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-21, 03:40 PM
My guess is that it involves Inspire Greatness, with wights and Restoration.

That's one of the big ones.

Yukitsu
2010-04-21, 03:42 PM
Huh, thought it was banned for these.

Claudius Maximus
2010-04-21, 03:44 PM
Unless it's already been decided, I'm willing to DM this.

Doc Roc
2010-04-21, 03:48 PM
It's only banned if we're using ToS rules, which as yet I'm not sure we are. That's one of the things I wanted to talk about. I'd obviously feel more comfortable if we are, but it does drop the wizard's chance of winning very considerably.

Yukitsu
2010-04-21, 03:49 PM
If we're not, we'll all probably just wind up candle spamming. :smalltongue:

term1nally s1ck
2010-04-21, 03:49 PM
I am willing to play or DM this.

Personally, I think taking the ToS banlist, and removing anything that doesn't seem OP without the extra splatbooks would be the most balanced technique.

Also, Bloodlines should definitely NOT be allowed. Just...no.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-21, 03:52 PM
And I'm throwing in my hat for Ref oversight. Many heads make rulings balanced, and all.

Kurald Galain
2010-04-21, 03:55 PM
It's only banned if we're using ToS rules, which as yet I'm not sure we are.

However, I believe fighters are banned by the ToS rules, are they not? :smallbiggrin:

Togo
2010-04-21, 04:04 PM
More than happy to join in if there is space...

I have some ideas about how to counter wizards. I'm not great at building fighters though...

Doc Roc
2010-04-21, 04:04 PM
A rule we have repeatedly made exceptions regarding before. However, if people would like to run 4x war-marked against me as well, I think that would be absolutely bloody fantastic. ;)

Yukitsu
2010-04-21, 04:06 PM
I'd rather not give you the additional supplements thank you very much.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-21, 04:06 PM
A rule we have repeatedly made exceptions regarding before. However, if people would like to run 4x war-marked against me as well, I think that would be absolutely bloody fantastic. ;)

THAT, I would offer to play in.

Flickerdart
2010-04-21, 04:15 PM
I'd rather not give you the additional supplements thank you very much.
Warmarked is the Doc's own homebrew, I believe, so you wouldn't be losing anything.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-21, 04:22 PM
Warmarked is the Doc's own homebrew, I believe, so you wouldn't be losing anything.

More accurately, it's a Penny Dreadfuls homebrew, with input from many ToS'ers. And it boosts Fighters up to the level of sorcerors, nearly.

term1nally s1ck
2010-04-21, 04:58 PM
4x Warmarked? You ARE confident. Wow. I honestly doubt you'd stand a chance in that if the warmarked players are semi-competent. The difference in power levels is HUGE.

Though, without ToB, you lose some of that...still, the warmarked is really good.

Yukitsu
2010-04-21, 04:59 PM
Warmarked is the Doc's own homebrew, I believe, so you wouldn't be losing anything.

One assumes to counter that, you'd need some equivalent wizard things added in.

Mushroom Ninja
2010-04-21, 05:01 PM
However, if people would like to run 4x war-marked against me as well, I think that would be absolutely bloody fantastic. ;)
Surely you don't mean 4 warmarked vs. 1 core-only wizard? :smalleek:

Flickerdart
2010-04-21, 05:10 PM
One assumes to counter that, you'd need some equivalent wizard things added in.
He hadn't specified anything like that so I would assume not. Really, what does a Wizard gain from splats besides Celerity and Craft Contingent Spell?

Mushroom Ninja
2010-04-21, 05:11 PM
He hadn't specified anything like that so I would assume not. Really, what does a Wizard gain from splats besides Celerity and Craft Contingent Spell?

What more does wizard need from splats?

EDIT: Also, they get Eyes of the Oracle

Doc Roc
2010-04-21, 05:12 PM
Hahahaha, I'm crazy like fox. :)

I don't expect to win, mind you. 4x war-marked is a incredibly deadly thang, in our experience. But it'd be hilariously fun to compare the mishaps of 4x fighters to 4x war-marked.

Wizards get a ton from splats, all sorts of Answers, many little feats, a huge number of good-to-great PrCs.... It's bad news. We'll stay SRD-only, thank you muchly.

Yukitsu
2010-04-21, 05:13 PM
He hadn't specified anything like that so I would assume not. Really, what does a Wizard gain from splats besides Celerity and Craft Contingent Spell?

Nerveskitter, hummingbirds and orbs are a nice start, as are all the metamagic reducers. I use spells from the big book o' spells, simply because they are less commonly specifically countered.

Mushroom Ninja
2010-04-21, 05:13 PM
Hahahaha, I'm crazy like fox. :)

I don't expect to win, mind you. 4x war-marked is a incredibly deadly thang, in our experience. But it'd be hilariously fun to compare the mishaps of 4x fighters to 4x war-marked.

Sounds like epic good fun. Both battles should definitely be run! :smallbiggrin:

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-21, 05:14 PM
Hahahaha, I'm crazy like fox. :)

I don't expect to win, mind you. 4x war-marked is a incredibly deadly thang, in our experience. But it'd be hilariously fun to compare the mishaps of 4x fighters to 4x war-marked.

For the warmarked run, I SO want in on this. Even if it's core+warmarked only.

Doc Roc
2010-04-21, 05:15 PM
I've shoved things I valued more into deadlier blenders.

Mushroom Ninja
2010-04-21, 05:16 PM
Someone needs to start a signup sheet for this thing.

Doc Roc
2010-04-21, 05:19 PM
I can arrange that. The hard part of it will be finding sheet checkers, since the ToS infrastructure is a little stressed already.

term1nally s1ck
2010-04-21, 05:22 PM
So, are we doing both now?

Core wizard vs 4x core fighter, and core wizard vs 4x warmarked+core?

Ok, I'm now very interested.

Potential DMs:

Claudius Maximus
term1nally s1ck
PhoenixRivers

Potential Fighters:
Yukitsu
Ernir
Mushroom Ninja
term1nally s1ck

Potential Warmarked:
tem1nally s1ck
PhoenixRivers

I'm more than willing to sheet-check. It'll slow down checking the ToS sheets, but I can deal with that. Plus, X-13 is MUCH easier to check then the average ToS char.

Boci
2010-04-21, 05:26 PM
I can arrange that. The hard part of it will be finding sheet checkers, since the ToS infrastructure is a little stressed already.

As long as the whole responsability isn't mine, I can help sheet checking.

Doc Roc
2010-04-21, 05:34 PM
There's a sign up sheet on the front, if you could just update that, I'd be super-grateful :)

Cordially as ever,
Jake

Zaq
2010-04-21, 08:53 PM
I think one of the biggest factors is prep time, for both sides. How many buff rounds, can the fighters spend WBL on a hired spellcasting of an hours/level buff ahead of time, all that good stuff. I don't have nearly enough ranks in Balance to make a useful suggestion, but I do think that the dialogue should be opened.

Doc Roc
2010-04-21, 08:55 PM
I lean towards 1 round of buffs, tops, and all-days up.

Mushroom Ninja
2010-04-21, 10:54 PM
What sort of arena size/shape are we thinking about using in this test?

Doc Roc
2010-04-22, 01:01 AM
Not sure. That'll be a big point of contention on all sides.

Sindriss
2010-04-22, 01:51 AM
I nominate myself to be observer!

Vulaas
2010-04-22, 02:38 AM
I'm not a great optimizer myself (thought I was decent until I hit the forums), but I'd love to help sheet-check for you gents.

Togo
2010-04-22, 03:30 AM
If I can't be a fighter, I'm happy to DM. If I neither, I guess I'll just observe.

Doc Roc
2010-04-22, 05:20 AM
Use the sign up sheet.

PlzBreakMyCmpAn
2010-04-22, 07:20 PM
What exactly is the purpose of this?

Someone builds 1 wizard and you have 4 fighters?
or you have 1 wizard and we have 4 fighters?

I think this should have waited for the ban and source list first. (dire tortoise anyone?)

Math_Mage
2010-04-22, 08:21 PM
What exactly is the purpose of this?

Someone builds 1 wizard and you have 4 fighters?
or you have 1 wizard and we have 4 fighters?

I think this should have waited for the ban and source list first. (dire tortoise anyone?)

It's the latter.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-22, 08:44 PM
And I propose using the ToS banlist, with the additional caveats:

Core Only Sources
Fighter is allowed

This is not intended to be INCLUSIVE, it's intended to be EXCLUSIVE. That means, no additional sources or bells and whistles will be permitted, but anything not permitted in the ToS is also not permitted here.

This means, among other things:
Polymorph is not allowed. Simulacrum is not allowed. Gate and Time Stop are not allowed.

In other words, the worst excesses of the classes are restricted.

Mushroom Ninja
2010-04-22, 08:51 PM
And I propose using the ToS banlist, with the additional caveats:

Core Only Sources
Fighter is allowed

This is not intended to be INCLUSIVE, it's intended to be EXCLUSIVE. That means, no additional sources or bells and whistles will be permitted, but anything not permitted in the ToS is also not permitted here.

This means, among other things:
Polymorph is not allowed. Simulacrum is not allowed. Gate and Time Stop are not allowed.

In other words, the worst excesses of the classes are restricted.

Sounds reasonable to me.

Beorn080
2010-04-22, 08:52 PM
I've got a halfling fighter idea that I've been toying with. Have to see if it works by RAW though. I could throw that into the mix.

Claudius Maximus
2010-04-22, 08:54 PM
You know, I might as well bust out ol' Pentheus the Warmarked too. I'm very curious as to how you intend to win vs 4 Warmarked without extraordinary cheese.

My participation in the Warmarked trial would restrict my GMing duties to the Fighter trial, of course. Unless this is unacceptable, in which case I'll just stick to GMing.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-22, 08:59 PM
You know, I might as well bust out ol' Pentheus the Warmarked too. I'm very curious as to how you intend to win vs 4 Warmarked without extraordinary cheese.

My participation in the Warmarked trial would restrict my GMing duties to the Fighter trial, of course.

Do bear in mind that the warmarked challenge is also core only +Warmarked.

Claudius Maximus
2010-04-22, 09:04 PM
Do bear in mind that the warmarked challenge is also core only +Warmarked.

I'll have to change some things around then, but I rebuild him every time I use him anyway, so it's no big loss.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-22, 09:05 PM
I'll be custom making a Warmarked for this, likely.

Doc Roc
2010-04-22, 09:15 PM
For reference, I actually expect to lose the War-marked challenge very. very. badly.

I'm not even sure I can offer weak (~50%) win-guarantees for the fighter ones. 4xWBL is just bad news.

term1nally s1ck
2010-04-22, 09:25 PM
I'd personally recommend NOT using the ToS banlist. It's designed to remove the best powers a wizard has, and has almost no impact on the fighter. It'd be a fairer test of the power of each class if more of the abilities it has are available.

Obviously, the more insane stuff does need to be restricted, but some of it should be allowed, to actually see how much of a chance the fighters have.

Doc Roc
2010-04-22, 09:25 PM
The issue is what to do and how far to go?

Probably, the proponents of Fighters As Balanced should be laying out the bans.

term1nally s1ck
2010-04-22, 09:43 PM
Mostly, that all the powers and abilities that are often quoted in these disagreements over how powerful the classes are in comparison, are not allowed. This test, as it stands, has no guarantee of showing anything.

If the fighters win, then all the people who back the wizard will just say that the best spells weren't allowed.

Meanwhile, if the wizard does win, but has to use quite specific tactics to do so, the people who back the fighter will go back to the 'you built this wizard specially to fight in this arena, which isn't how wizards are used in a campaign' argument.

If more things are allowed, you can build a wizard that actually looks like one you'd use in (High-power) campaigns.

Well, taking a quick look at the list of changes, the spell school merger makes specialising in Core only a very bad idea, because you won't have enough spells to pick from.

However, the other main changes are two that are very hard to make fair. Planar Binding and Polymorph+ilk would make the fight almost a non-contest.

The last (The change to gate) should stay exactly where it is. Otherwise, everything breaks.

I'm currently debating with myself over whether polymorph should be allowed.

On the one hand, it's pretty much always the biggest argument that wizards are better than fighters, since with it, they fight better than the fighter.

On the other hand, a clever fighter will probably just be paying a spellcaster to polymorph him into something.

Claudius Maximus
2010-04-22, 10:07 PM
If we're actually trying to "prove" anything by Core RAW, I suggest no bans except for the things that are clearly completely ridiculous, like Simulacrum and Free Wish nonsense.

I would suggest an encounter scenario that represents a typical encounter. No spending half your wealth on 9th level scrolls, no 4-day buff routines that make you invincible on day 4 but crippled for the other 3, no buff rounds, and perhaps even have the encounter begin at a distance depending on terrain and spot checks, as per the DMG.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-22, 10:09 PM
Simulacrum, Free Wishes, and, for good measure:

The con bonus that Shambling mounds receive from electricity exposure is considered a bonus, and as such does not stack with itself.

1 shot items cost is 5x (per RAW), and items with charges have 20% of the charges they'd have in standard play (per RAW).

Planar Binding: Max 1 day per caster level for open-ended commands, and creatures brought by this spell may not be magically compelled to accept terms. Bound creatures may not be affected by another Planar Binding until after the first expires. All binding must take place within the contest arena. If you attempt to bind a creature while another creature is bound, all are freed from such binding.

Doc Roc
2010-04-22, 10:12 PM
Planar Binding?

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-22, 10:16 PM
See my edit above.

Claudius Maximus
2010-04-22, 10:33 PM
Making people bind during the match makes little sense, and makes the spell pretty useless considering it has a 10 minute casting time. And if the fighters can't kill you with 100 rounds of free actions, you never needed Planar Binding in the first place.

Doc Roc
2010-04-22, 10:37 PM
well, one could immediately rope-trick, and just bind in there. That'd be potentially quite devastating, particularly if the fighter is running limited duration buffs of any flavor.

term1nally s1ck
2010-04-22, 10:48 PM
That's probably MORE in-line with the intended use of rope-trick. I'd think it was intended as a way of hiding to prepare for/avoid a fight you saw coming, more than a way to rest without fear forever.

Claudius Maximus
2010-04-22, 10:54 PM
I think people might argue that that's not "in" the arena. At any rate the casting location restriction still feels weird, especially considering the long duration of the spell. You would have at least cast it in the morning with all your other all-day buffs.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-22, 11:02 PM
I think people might argue that that's not "in" the arena. At any rate the casting location restriction still feels weird, especially considering the long duration of the spell. You would have at least cast it in the morning with all your other all-day buffs.

Well, my main issue is that it's a diplomacy adjudicated result.

Perhaps prevent any magical compulsion, and any attack on it frees it, otherwise, let 1 (and 1 only) be active.

EDIT: Out of respect, I'd like to nominate Leadership for inclusion in the ban list.

Doc Roc
2010-04-22, 11:03 PM
No leadership effects, I presume?

Mushroom Ninja
2010-04-22, 11:08 PM
No leadership effects, I presume?

I assume not, otherwise the fight would be 2 wizards vs. 4 fighters + 4 wizards.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-22, 11:11 PM
I assume not, otherwise the fight would be 2 wizards vs. 4 fighters + 4 wizards.

More than that. My Wizard would have leadership, as would his wizard, down to the minimum.

Togo
2010-04-23, 05:05 PM
well, one could immediately rope-trick, and just bind in there. That'd be potentially quite devastating, particularly if the fighter is running limited duration buffs of any flavor.

Rope trick sounds very dangerous to me...

Mushroom Ninja
2010-04-23, 06:21 PM
So, what sort of ability generation are we thinking? 28 PB?

Doc Roc
2010-04-23, 08:10 PM
Rope trick sounds very dangerous to me...

In what way?

Togo
2010-04-24, 07:43 AM
In what way?

The entrance to the rope trick is detectable. Depending on DM ruling, you might get into trouble if the entrance was bricked up, put into a portable hole, blocked by an oak tree, or otherwise blocked or destabalised. What you're essentially doing is putting yourself in a hidey hole, and then assuming that your opponent can't find you, and if he finds you, can't do anything about it. It may be a reasonable gamble if you know your opponent, but you can easily lose the duel if you're wrong.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-24, 08:00 AM
The entrance to the rope trick is detectable. Depending on DM ruling, you might get into trouble if the entrance was bricked up, put into a portable hole, blocked by an oak tree, or otherwise blocked or destabalised. What you're essentially doing is putting yourself in a hidey hole, and then assuming that your opponent can't find you, and if he finds you, can't do anything about it. It may be a reasonable gamble if you know your opponent, but you can easily lose the duel if you're wrong.

Generally, worst case scenario is being forced out at the end of the spell. Spells typically deal with this via shunting and 1d6 damage.

Either that, Ethereal Jaunt, Blink, or any number of other type spells to get through things ok.

Math_Mage
2010-04-24, 11:43 AM
Generally, worst case scenario is being forced out at the end of the spell. Spells typically deal with this via shunting and 1d6 damage.

Either that, Ethereal Jaunt, Blink, or any number of other type spells to get through things ok.

Yeah, it's more problematic when you don't get a chance to prepare--in particular, I remember one of your ToS duels going south when you came out of Time Hop...but Rope Trick gets around that issue.

Togo
2010-04-24, 03:54 PM
Generally, worst case scenario is being forced out at the end of the spell. Spells typically deal with this via shunting and 1d6 damage.

Either that, Ethereal Jaunt, Blink, or any number of other type spells to get through things ok.

No, the worst case scenario is that the entrance is put through a portable hole, and the wizard present within the astral rift as it forms, losing the duel instantly, and quite possibly passing beyond the great wheel entirely, never to be seen again.

Similar thing to what Doc Roc was planning against Sofawall's cube?

Claudius Maximus
2010-04-24, 04:12 PM
No, the worst case scenario is that the entrance is put through a portable hole, and the wizard present within the astral rift as it forms, losing the duel instantly, and quite possibly passing beyond the great wheel entirely, never to be seen again.

Similar thing to what Doc Roc was planning against Sofawall's cube?

There is nothing in the RAW to suggest that would actually happen, other than a vaguely ominous line in Rope Trick. What exactly happens is undefined, and so this is problematic to include in a mostly-RAW challenge like this. I'm pretty sure we even have an explicit statement from WotC that suggests we ignore that line, anyway.

Doc Roc
2010-04-24, 04:16 PM
Err, no, the astral plane is easy to navigate, really, for a caster. Prepared casters have it extra easy, in that respect, since they can just have some contingencies in their spell books.

It's a great example of what makes wizards silly. Besides, it's gonna be pretty rough to actually stuff the opening inside a portable hole. Also, it's not the same as the trick I use to get at the cube. Incidentally, the trick only works for casters or Crazy Prepared non-casters.

TheMadLinguist
2010-04-24, 04:23 PM
There is nothing in the RAW to suggest that would actually happen, other than a vaguely ominous line in Rope Trick. What exactly happens is undefined, and so this is problematic to include in a mostly-RAW challenge like this. I'm pretty sure we even have an explicit statement from WotC that suggests we ignore that line, anyway.

Put the rope trick into a bag of holding instead, then pierce it.


All contents are lost forever.

term1nally s1ck
2010-04-24, 04:25 PM
I know the trick for killing the cube. Amusing, and quite obvious, really, if you know where to find it.

Togo
2010-04-24, 07:29 PM
If the cube is what I think it is, it's fairly easy to bypass....

...which suggests to me I'm missing something.

Togo
2010-04-24, 07:36 PM
Err, no, the astral plane is easy to navigate, really, for a caster.

Still left the arena and thus lost the duel though...


Besides, it's gonna be pretty rough to actually stuff the opening inside a portable hole.

Portable hole, picnic blanket or riding cloak, maybe get a friend to help you drop it over the point at which the rope trick connects.

As with any edge-of-the-rules trick, it relies on DM interpretation.

Math_Mage
2010-04-24, 08:47 PM
If the cube is what I think it is, it's fairly easy to bypass....

...which suggests to me I'm missing something.

This thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=147304) went over some of the possibilities with the Cube's creator, sofawall. Of course, since Doc Roc helped, he could probably at least give a "yes" or "no" to your suggestions vis-a-vis killing it.

The Glyphstone
2010-04-24, 08:51 PM
1) Custom Item of Dimension Lock on self.
2) Bag of Holding
3) Portable Hole
4) Get within 10ft. of target
5) Place 3 inside 2.
6) ???
7) Profit!

term1nally s1ck
2010-04-24, 09:23 PM
Nah, the solution is muuuch easier, and involves actually getting inside the cube.

Here's a hint. The cube is nearly impenetrable in every way in all 3 dimensions.

Math_Mage
2010-04-24, 09:33 PM
Nah, the solution is muuuch easier, and involves actually getting inside the cube.

Here's a hint. The cube is nearly impenetrable in every way in all 3 dimensions.

Er, are we then looking for a way to penetrate it, or a fourth dimension?

term1nally s1ck
2010-04-24, 09:36 PM
It WOULD be a maths person to reply first...:smallbiggrin:

TheMadLinguist
2010-04-24, 09:38 PM
Option A: be in a moving reference frame, time hop
plausibility: depends upon how your DM handles moving reference frames
Option B: ethereal plane shenanigans
plausibility: rather low, since one of the walls blocks ethereal travel, and abjurations extend to the ethereal. Still, it *does* remove a few barriers
Option C: Plane of Shadows trickery
plausibility: most spells I know have a chance of arriving off target. Still, worth a shot
Option D: Cast a maximized, empowered teleport
plausibility: your character has teleported outside of the bounds of the ruleset into some other system. Watch out for vampires..

Koury
2010-04-24, 09:39 PM
Nah, the solution is muuuch easier, and involves actually getting inside the cube.

Here's a hint. The cube is nearly impenetrable in every way in all 3 dimensions.

So... Master Meigakure, master the Cube?

Tinydwarfman
2010-04-24, 09:49 PM
If the cube is what I think it is, it's fairly easy to bypass....

...which suggests to me I'm missing something.

Care to share?

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-24, 09:51 PM
The option would be going to where it was last round, and regressing a round in time.

There's a couple others, I'm sure.

Yukitsu
2010-04-24, 10:47 PM
Easiest and most eloquent solution to it is to pun-pun, use divine blast and be done with that nonsense.

That aside, what's the current cube stats? Last I checked, it could theoretically be taken down by several people.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-24, 11:41 PM
Easiest and most eloquent solution to it is to pun-pun, use divine blast and be done with that nonsense.

That aside, what's the current cube stats? Last I checked, it could theoretically be taken down by several people.

Ah, but brute force is never the most elegant solution. I'd be more impressed if someone found a loophole able to be perpetrated by a level 5 wizard.

Superglucose
2010-04-25, 12:11 AM
No, the worst case scenario is that the entrance is put through a portable hole, and the wizard present within the astral rift as it forms, losing the duel instantly, and quite possibly passing beyond the great wheel entirely, never to be seen again.

Quick! What's the RAW consequence of having a portable hole inside a rope trick?
Answer: you have a portable hole inside a rope trick.

Togo
2010-04-25, 05:12 AM
Care to share?

Sure. The version I saw was probably a very early one, that didn't fly. It was a wizard using time stop to call lots of dragons, cast prismatic sphere, cast wall of stone, stone shape the wall of stone into a dome around the wizard just inisde the prismatic sphere. When the time stop wears off you're looking at a wall of stone inside a prismatic sphere, guarded by dragons. Then you get your first action.

The flaw with this is that prismatic sphere doesn't extend through solid objects, and nor does wall of stone, so he's still standing on the ground. Anything with a burrow speed, or an elemental's earth glide ability, can get in to gank the wizard.

Now that he has it flying, that doesn't work, since even if you somehow crash the cube, the walls of force of the prismatic sphere will stop him touching the ground. How he's managed to make prismatic sphere a mobile effect I don't know, but I'm guessing that's why the stronghold builder's guide is referenced.

(I wonder what happens if you cause an extension to be built onto the cube?
"Lord sofawall didn't consider small buildings a threat, or he would have built a tighter defence. Our analysis shows that small, two-man gazebos could penetrate his defences and form a conservatory-extension at this small exhaust port here. Once accepted as part of the cube, we storm the complex here, here and here. Resistance within the cube is likely to be overwhelming but a small stealthy party may be able sneak on board, and lower the defences.)

Still there is no reason to call in Pun-Pun. One of the three or four Pun-Pun killing methods would work just fine. Nothing is indescrutable, except the DM's plotline.

Doc Roc
2010-04-25, 05:13 AM
Or Neo-terminators.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-25, 05:18 AM
Sure. The version I saw was probably a very early one, that didn't fly. It was a wizard using time stop to call lots of dragons, cast prismatic sphere, cast wall of stone, stone shape the wall of stone into a dome around the wizard just inisde the prismatic sphere. When the time stop wears off you're looking at a wall of stone inside a prismatic sphere, guarded by dragons. Then you get your first action.

The flaw with this is that prismatic sphere doesn't extend through solid objects, and nor does wall of stone, so he's still standing on the ground. Anything with a burrow speed, or an elemental's earth glide ability, can get in to gank the wizard.

Now that he has it flying, that doesn't work, since even if you somehow crash the cube, the walls of force of the prismatic sphere will stop him touching the ground. How he's managed to make prismatic sphere a mobile effect I don't know, but I'm guessing that's why the stronghold builder's guide is referenced.

(I wonder what happens if you cause an extension to be built onto the cube?
"Lord sofawall didn't consider small buildings a threat, or he would have built a tighter defence. Our analysis shows that small, two-man gazebos could penetrate his defences and form a conservatory-extension at this small exhaust port here. Once accepted as part of the cube, we storm the complex here, here and here. Resistance within the cube is likely to be overwhelming but a small stealthy party may be able sneak on board, and lower the defences.)

Still there is no reason to call in Pun-Pun. One of the three or four Pun-Pun killing methods would work just fine. Nothing is indescrutable, except the DM's plotline.

Nah, the early cube versions used the same basic trick. Stronghold Builder's Guide abuse to make a 10x10 mobile fortress with repeat firing traps that was surrounded on all sides by:

Prismatic Wall, outside of Wall of Force, outside of Magically Hardened Obdurium, outside of more super secret stuff, with a dimension lock inside.

The early versions had a commoner inside. Later versions included a level 13 optimized wizard that was buffed with spells for if the cube was broken.

Doc Roc
2010-04-25, 05:20 AM
The version I helped with did obnoxious things with a spell-clock, too.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-25, 05:24 AM
The version I helped with did obnoxious things with a spell-clock, too.

Yeah, those things are broken, even before you factor that they're only supposed to be able to cast 1 spell, once an hour or so.

TheMadLinguist
2010-04-25, 05:59 AM
I'm not entirely convinced that they're even supposed to use the spell themselves, and not just be a fancy time-triggered spellstoring thingie.

term1nally s1ck
2010-04-25, 06:53 AM
They're pretty explicit that they cast the spell regularly. The problem, and why they're broken, is when you have that 'regularly' be 20 times a round.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-25, 07:35 AM
They're pretty explicit that they cast the spell regularly. The problem, and why they're broken, is when you have that 'regularly' be 20 times a round.

The text indicates pretty clearly that it's meant to be hourly. Stating there to be 20 "new beginnings of a new hour" a round is a lot like trying to activate a 1/day power 20 times a round in the same fashion.

term1nally s1ck
2010-04-25, 07:49 AM
"A spell clock might combine with a construct or guardian to create a permanently buffed creature; it casts stoneskin and spider climb every 2 hours, for example, or invisibility once per day."

and

"A steady spell clock can be used as a simple trap, by casting (for example) a wall of stone at a certain time after it is set ticking, thus possibly trapping creatures in a passageway beyond the spell clock. It can be used to buff creatures who know (or are commanded) to visit it on a regular schedule. It is as flexible and powerful as the long-duration spells it casts."

Shows that you can definitely pick times other than every hour, and short times are definitely possible.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-25, 07:58 AM
"A spell clock might combine with a construct or guardian to create a permanently buffed creature; it casts stoneskin and spider climb every 2 hours, for example, or invisibility once per day."

and

"A steady spell clock can be used as a simple trap, by casting (for example) a wall of stone at a certain time after it is set ticking, thus possibly trapping creatures in a passageway beyond the spell clock. It can be used to buff creatures who know (or are commanded) to visit it on a regular schedule. It is as flexible and powerful as the long-duration spells it casts."

Shows that you can definitely pick times other than every hour, and short times are definitely possible.

The shortest span it uses in the above quotes is "2 hours". Arguing that this means that a item that uses a frame of hours in every description of its use is capable of using the spells in a frame of 3-4 times a second, is questionable, considering the following text:

"The spell clock is a fusion of clockwork and magic that works as a timer for stored, long-duration spells on a particular place or creature every hour."

"Its face has either two or three gold or black hands that show the time remaining until the next spell it contains is released."

By this, it would suggest that "hourly" is the minimum, and "two or three" is the total number of spells it can contain.

term1nally s1ck
2010-04-25, 08:21 AM
It would be a strange trap if the adventurers were to walk over the trigger, and the clock would then wait a full hour before creating the wall of stone.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-25, 08:35 AM
It would be a strange trap if the adventurers were to walk over the trigger, and the clock would then wait a full hour before creating the wall of stone.

It would be; fortunately, it wouldn't be the case.

Trigger: Starts Clock ticking.
Delay to next cast: 1 round.
Cooldown until next wall after that: 1 hour.

See? The initial cast starts whenever, but there is a 1 hour minimum cooldown.

Thus, it is maintaining the casting at 1 hour intervals.

term1nally s1ck
2010-04-25, 09:54 AM
Hm. Well, I'm not certain, it's obvious the time between castings can be varied, and there's no text written to show that there's a minimum. The 'every hour' thing is strange, since that the examples given proceed to instantly contradict that.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-25, 09:57 AM
Hm. Well, I'm not certain, it's obvious the time between castings can be varied, and there's no text written to show that there's a minimum. The 'every hour' thing is strange, since that the examples given proceed to instantly contradict that.

Examples < Rules text.

If I had a nickel for every time a WotC published example contradicted rules text... Well, I'd have a buttload of nickels.

tyckspoon
2010-04-25, 10:02 AM
Examples < Rules text.


I agree! Which is why I go through the bit that is the actual rules text for it, to wit, the Powers and Uses section

Use and Powers

Most spell clocks are steady, repeating devices that cast relatively non-violent spells. A few are disposable.

A steady spell clock can be used as a simple trap, by casting (for example) a wall of stone at a certain time after it is set ticking, thus possibly trapping creatures in a passageway beyond the spell clock. It can be used to buff creatures who know (or are commanded) to visit it on a regular schedule. It is as flexible and powerful as the long-duration spells it casts.

Typical spells used in spell clocks include: antimagic field, antiplant shell, antilife shell, daylight, dispel magic, energy conversion, elemental swarm, flame arrow, fog cloud, foresight, heroism, glibness, invisibility, invisibility purge, keen edge, magic circle against evil, protection from spells, repel vermin, resist energy, spider climb, stoneskin, telepathic bond, teleportation circle, tongues, web, and the various wall spells.

Disposable spell clocks typically cast evocations such as fireball or burning hands within a set period of time after a trigger (typically, a door opening or a noise within 5 ft.) sets them off. These are just proximity or time triggers on standard traps and require little more elaboration here. A few cast summoning spells once set in motion; the summoned creatures attack the people nearby.

Stopping a spell clock requires the use of a command word or a successful Use Magic Device check (DC 20 + creator's spellcasting level).

The material components for spells stored within a spell clock are usually included in the construction. The clock cannot contain spells that require the material components to be somewhere besides the caster's hands (for example, animate dead or mark of justice).

Moderate evocation; CL 14th; Craft Construct, Craft Wondrous Item, contingency, imbue with spell ability, permanency; Price 130,000; Cost 65,000 gp + 5,200 XP.

Which.. says exactly nothing about how often it can cast the spell. Well, that's not useful at all, but it doesn't make the intro paragraph rules text.

The Shadowmind
2010-04-25, 10:03 AM
Examples < Rules text.

If I had a nickel for every time a WotC published example contradicted rules text... Well, I'd have a buttload of nickels.

Storing them there might get pain full.
Yeah WotC does have problems with example text, and some odd rues, like spellstiched can only be made by wizards and sorcerers and the rest of the undead makers/casters get left out for some reason.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-25, 10:16 AM
I agree! Which is why I go through the bit that is the actual rules text for it, to wit, the Powers and Uses section


Which.. says exactly nothing about how often it can cast the spell. Well, that's not useful at all, but it doesn't make the intro paragraph rules text.

The intro text, as you refer to it, is this:
"What's that ticking?"

"It's a clock."

"So why is it radiating more magic than a helm of brilliance?"

Tick. Tick. Boom!


The spell clock is a fusion of clockwork and magic that works as a timer for stored, long-duration spells on a particular place or creature every hour. A cheaper version of the spell clock is a single-use item that serves as a fuse for a dangerous spell to create havoc with a slight delay.
This, rather, is a concise summary of the clock's abilities, with clearly delineated timings ("every hour"). Every timing in following text is undefined, and any specific times given are given as examples. Thus, the intro "every hour" is the only listing of the frequency with which this item may be activated. There is no contradiction anywhere later, save examples (which, as we both agree, are trumped by rules), which makes "every hour" the RAW-supported answer.

The other interpretation caters to the Rule of Cool far more than the Rules As Written. You can't disregard valid text because it disagrees with your point, without a clear reason to do so (contradiction priority is one example).

term1nally s1ck
2010-04-25, 10:20 AM
I'm actually leaning towards agreeing with you now...there really is no support in the text for it activating very quickly.

Il_Vec
2010-04-25, 10:28 AM
So, to get back on topic: SRD-only means that UA variants are in?

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-25, 12:02 PM
So, to get back on topic: SRD-only means that UA variants are in?

SRD only does. Core only does not.