To beat the Ubercharger

[Little Brother]

I was bored, and have decided to try to beat the 42,221 damage in melee combat that the Ubercharger set.

Original build saved for reference.There are a few errors in ordering with the actions as a result of being finished at 2 AM while caffeine-deprived.
This is assuming Fractional BAB and save progression
So, here goes:

Orc Feat Rogue 1/Lion Spirit Totem Whirling Frenzy Barbarian 1/Ardent 1/StP Disciplined Erudite 3(Yes, really)/Cerebromancer 4/Psychic Warrior 2/Fighter 2/(Mystic)Ranger 4/Frenzied Berserker 1/Cerebromancer 1

9(9)
3(4)
3

Feats 1)Headlong Rush
B)Power Attack
3)Intimidating Rage
6)Quicken Power
9)Leap Attack
B)Improved Bull Rush
B)Shock Trooper
12)Destructive Rage
B)Battle Jump
B)Cleave
15)Quickdraw
B)TWF->PsiRefed to Snap Kick
18)Hurling Charge

Stupid, right?

Equipment: Feathered Wings graft(Flying in AMF is good, yes? Plus, works with Battle Jump)(10k), +6 Belt of "I'm Awesome"(200k), +5 Valorous Greatsword (72k), Book of "I'm Strong" +5(137.5k), Book of +4 "I'm Smart"(110k), Necklace of Battle(Belt reassigned x1.5 to original price)(18k), Fanged Ring(10k), a use-activate one-use item of Divine Power(1800), +1 Sizing Valorous Composite Longbow(13k), Greater Metamagic Rod of Quicken 170k, and some armor, I guess. The Divine Power is nice, but unnecessary. I was 22.7K left to throw at items, probably the armor and bow. Oh, and a Glaive. +1 Power Storing

Stats are: STR 22->38(22+5+5+6), 42 in a rage, 48 when both Raging and Frenzying
Dex 12->18
Con 14->22
Int 12->22(12+4+6)
Wis 8-> 14
Cha 6->12

Wait, Valorous Bow?!?! Yes, actually. I was going through the SpC, and I noticed that Hunter's Mercy only needed it to be an attack with a bow, not shot with an arrow. So, I noticed I can Hunter's Mercy the bow, make it colossal via Sizing, then throw it at someone, critting, and then valorous doubles again. Just some extra damage to the charge. Not much, but some.

So, the trick is abusing the fact that you can stack Temporal Accelerations inside each other. So, without a round to set up(though more are better, obviously)Let's start by using the Rod of Quicken on Rhino's Rush, then let's use the Belt of battle for a full round action, turning it into two swift actions: Hunter's Mercy and 7 Temporal Accelerations, for 77PP. In that one, I start of by manifesting Giant Size, for +16 STR and being huge. Free action, activate the Divine Might item. -13PP. 6th one, I have a standard and move action. Let's go with Schism, for -7. I don't benefit yet, but I will need it. Now, let's drop a Psionic Lion's Charge, -3PP. 5th temporal Acceleration, Expansion-1(Yay, Gargantuan!), for +4 more strength and such, another lion's charge. 4th, Lion's Charge, -3, Quickened Lion's Charge -9, want your sizing bow to be colossal, and now the first BOB, giving me two Gargantuan minions. 3rd gives me another Lion's Charge, then another BOB, for 4 minions. -16. 2nd BOB and Lion's Charge-16. First TA, withdraw from the Power Storing Glaive for 2 Lion's Charges, and Quicken the BOB with the Rod. End of TA.

Then, Bob, let's call him Bob the orc, and 8 minions Rage, Frenzy, then charge, however many with Greatswords, the rest with Glaives: To start with Bob. We're looking at 68 strength here, so first we go with the Valorous Bow: It's Colossal, though the rest's are gargantuan. It is specifically in the column, it does 646+30(+1 bow, and 29 strength modifier), so 21+30. It's a crit, with the x3 crit, doubled from Valorous to 255, plus it again from Headlong Rush, for a total of . The 8 others do 21+29x3, or 200 each, or 1600 each, for a grand total, so far, of 1855.

Now, Bob the orc gets to stab someone. He does a double jump in the air for Battle Jump and Leap Attack he does 6d6+5+29, or 55+60 from leap attack. Now, x2 from Battle Jump, X2 from a Valorous Greatsword x2 from Headlong Rush x2 from Rhino's Rush=575. Three more times means from that pounce, the guy also took 2300. Oh, funny thing? I get 8 more of these through stacked Lion's Charges, for a nice total of 20700 from Bob alone. Now, the first two Bob clones, let's call them Jango, just for kicks and giggles. They do 21+29+60 from PA, for 110, times 4(RR+Battle Jump+Headlong Rush)=440. Each. Oh, yeah, full attack, which means that the Jangos did 1760 each. And they get 4 more, so 7040 each, or 14080. Now let's go to the second pair. Let's call them Mandalors, 'cuz that sounds cool. Same damage, they just get one more full attack each, so a total of 8800 each, or 17600. Now the stronger batch, let's call the the ARCs. They're better, and get an extra attack each, too, so they are looking at 21120 between them. Now the last batch is super-special-awesome. They're cooler than the ARCs, but maybe not as disciplined(even though they're raging barbarians, I'm not seeing discipline, but, whatever), so let's call them Null-ARCs. They get two extra pounces each, so they are looking at 28160.

So, Jango, Bob, uh, the Mandalors, the ARCs, and the Null-ARCS together, did 85885 damage. One character, no set-up, only one one-use item. Could still fight all day, and has enough money, though he didn't need them, nor could I find the prices of, manifester arrows to run all day. And he just chunky-salsa'd about 100 Big Ts. I really do pity da fool.

I am sad that nobody appears to have gotten the puns.

new build up tonight.

[Kamai]

Three more times means from that pounce, the guy also took 2300. Oh, funny thing? I get 8 more of these through stacked Lion's Charges, for a nice total of 20700 from Bob alone.

There's something that bothered me about this build, and not just the improper stacking of size bonuses. Looking at Lion's charge, you get the ability to make a full attack in the same round. There's no indication that multiple castings would let you make multiple full attacks in the same round (instead of replacing each other), nor does it seem that there's anything that lets it bypass the rule that a spell does not stack with itself.

I'm also not sure if you can actually nest the Temporal Accelerations. It has the clause: "Manifesting this power is a swift action, like manifesting a quickened power, and it counts toward the normal limit of one quickened power per round." You have rounds of apparent time, but you are still in the same round, so you (by RAW) cannot use another quickened power or Temporal acceleration.

I'll admit that I'm also not sure what the BOB is that's getting you the minions that are multiplying on the damage.

[Little Brother]

There's something that bothered me about this build, and not just the improper stacking of size bonuses. Looking at Lion's charge, you get the ability to make a full attack in the same round. There's no indication that multiple castings would let you make multiple full attacks in the same round (instead of replacing each other), nor does it seem that there's anything that lets it bypass the rule that a spell does not stack with itself.Duration of instantaneous. It's not the casting, it's the power.
See for yourself. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/psionicLionsCharge.htm) And what do you mean "improper stacking?" As far as I could tell, Giant Size is untyped, where Expansion is a size bonus. and, regardless, even -4 strength would still but me tens of thousands above 42000.

I'm also not sure if you can actually nest the Temporal Accelerations. It has the clause: "Manifesting this power is a swift action, like manifesting a quickened power, and it counts toward the normal limit of one quickened power per round." You have rounds of apparent time, but you are still in the same round, so you (by RAW) cannot use another quickened power or Temporal acceleration. It is stated that you get one full round. A full round includes quickened and swift actions. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/temporalAcceleration.htm)

I'll admit that I'm also not sure what the BOB is that's getting you the minions that are multiplying on the damage.Headlong Rush, Leap Attack, Rhino's Rush, and Hunter's Mercy.

That help?

[georgie_leech]

Duration of instantaneous. It's not the casting, it's the power.
See for yourself. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/psionicLionsCharge.htm)
That help?

There's still no indication there of multiple manifestations allowing multiple full attacks. It just says "When you charge, you can make a full attack in the same round." Meaning it's an enhancement to the charge; the power augments your charge by letting you bypass the rule of no movement before a full attack, not a bonus full attack.

[Little Brother]

There's still no indication there of multiple manifestations allowing multiple full attacks. It just says "When you charge, you can make a full attack in the same round." Meaning it's an enhancement to the charge; the power augments your charge by letting you bypass the rule of no movement before a full attack, not a bonus full attack.Each one lets you make a full attack on the charge. If it didn't, it'd be the same as multiple Synchronicities not stacking because it lets you ready an action, so there's no reason to believe it stacks, 'cuz they're from the same source, right?

[georgie_leech]

Each one lets you make a full attack on the charge. If it didn't, it'd be the same as multiple Synchronicities not stacking because it lets you ready an action, so there's no reason to believe it stacks, 'cuz they're from the same source, right?

Just a quick check to the SRD...
http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Manifester_Level#Same_Effect_More_than_Once_in _Different_Strengths
"Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths
In cases when two or more similar or identical effects are operating in the same area or on the same target, but at different strengths, only the best one applies. If one power or spell is dispelled or its duration runs out, the other power or spell remains in effect (assuming its duration has not yet expired). "
Meaning, your multiple Lion's Charges don't stack, only the best one applies.

[tyckspoon]

Expansion doesn't stack with any other size-increasing effects; it's a blanket statement in the power itself:

Other psionic or magical properties are not affected by this power. Any affected item that leaves your possession (including a projectile or thrown weapon) instantly returns to its normal size. This means that thrown weapons deal their normal damage (projectiles deal damage based on the size of the weapon that fired them). Multiple effects that increase size do not stack, which means (among other things) that you can’t use a second manifestation of this power to further expand yourself.

Your action economy is probably screwed up, but I don't have the patience to try and sort out exactly where right now; I do know this is wrong

then let's use the Belt of battle for a full round action, turning it into two swift actions
You cannot convert down to swift actions. You get 1/turn (which is actually the language on the Swift action rule, so this may break because Temporal Acceleration isn't giving you a new turn to refresh your Swift/Immediate action, it's just giving you extended rounds.)

And like Kamai I don't see where you're getting competent minions from to charge alongside you; you don't have Leadership or any cohort/minion using classes.

[Little Brother]

Just a quick check to the SRD...
http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Manifester_Level#Same_Effect_More_than_Once_in _Different_Strengths
"Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths
In cases when two or more similar or identical effects are operating in the same area or on the same target, but at different strengths, only the best one applies. If one power or spell is dispelled or its duration runs out, the other power or spell remains in effect (assuming its duration has not yet expired). "
Meaning, your multiple Lion's Charges don't stack, only the best one applies.That page specifically states that to apply for continuing effects. This is instantaneous. The second you activate it, it's done, you have the pounce. Next one,


Expansion doesn't stack with any other size-increasing effects; it's a blanket statement in the power itself:Ah, but it doesn't increase your size, it makes you huge. Very important distinction. If you were colossal when you cast it, you'd still be huge. It is not an increase, it is a change. So, it stacks with


Your action economy is probably screwed up, but I don't have the patience to try and sort out exactly where right now; I do know this is wrong. Please explain. I am curious, I would like to fix this build.

You cannot convert down to swift actions. You get 1/turn (which is actually the language on the Swift action rule, so this may break because Temporal Acceleration isn't giving you a new turn to refresh your Swift/Immediate action, it's just giving you extended rounds.) 1) Can you not reduce actions, as with a double move? If not, some sort of polymorph will have to be introduced, which I dislike, but whatever.

2) Temporal Acceleration specifically says it gives you a whole new round, thus more swift actions.

And like Kamai I don't see where you're getting competent minions from to charge alongside you; you don't have Leadership or any cohort/minion using classes.Body outside Body.

[Hirax]

These are incredibly sketchy interpretations of rules, even for TO.

[Noblesse]

Psionic Lion's Charge won't stack like that.

You can manifest this power with an instant thought, quickly enough to gain the benefit of the power as you charge.
Emphasis mine.

Therefore you can only use it once per charge action. Now, if you can somehow charge multiple times in the same round and have an extra swift action; you may use more than one in the same round.

[Little Brother]

Hirax, since when has there been a really stupid build that didn't use some stupid RAW abuse?


Psionic Lion's Charge won't stack like that.

Emphasis mine.

Therefore you can only use it once per charge action. Now, if you can somehow charge multiple times in the same round and have an extra swift action; you may use more than one in the same round.Explain. You benefit from it as you charge. Okay, I do it multiple times, as I charge. I Manifest it, then benefit from it as I charge. Instantaneous duration. That's the key.

[Flickerdart]

The power reads: "When you charge, you can make a full attack in the same round." Not "an additional full attack". Just a full attack. So you can have 50 different castings of Psionic Lion's Charge on you, and they all grant you the ability to make a full attack on a charge, but still only the one you'd normally be entitled to.

[Siosilvar]

That page specifically states that to apply for continuing effects. This is instantaneous. The second you activate it, it's done, you have the pounce. Next one,

Psionic Lion's Charge says that, "When you charge, you can make a full attack in the same round."

Multiple instances of this do not stack, the same way multiple instances of Improved Evasion don't stack to give 1/4, 1/8, or less damage on a failed Reflex save.

If you want to argue RAW, you may say that the instantaneous duration on psionic lion's charge gives you full attack on every charge you make after manifesting it (due to quirks with Instantaneous duration), but having the same ability multiple times doesn't generally mean you get to use it multiple times unless so stated.

[tyckspoon]

Please explain. I am curious, I would like to fix this build.
1) Can you not reduce actions, as with a double move? If not, some sort of polymorph will have to be introduced, which I dislike, but whatever.

2) Temporal Acceleration specifically says it gives you a whole new round, thus more swift actions.
Body outside Body.

No, you can't. Your round consists of : a Move or Move-equivalent+Standard or a Full-Round action. You may specifically exchange the Standard action for an additional Move or Move-Equivalent; there is no general rule here to extrapolate to any other action substitutions.

On the round/turn thing: it's a fine distinction that usually doesn't matter, because your turn usually only involves one round. But you're using a Time Stop-like power, so it comes into play. A Round is the period of time in which you can use a Full-Round action or a move+Standard; Temporal Acceleration clearly gives you those. Your turn, on the other hand, is your spot in the initiative count, and you only get 1 Swift or Immediate action per turn. All of your Temporal Acceleration rounds? They all happen in the same turn. Your Swift action doesn't refresh until you allow the initiative count to cycle again.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

The Ubercharger record has been broken several times to my knowledge, all without infinite loops or other such tricks.

Unfortunately, the WotC board update removed the old threads, but there were two big builds that broke the record you have listed.

The UberERCharger, by Tempest Stormwind, broke something like 650,000 damage in a single round.

Outcharging the UberERCHARGER, by yours truly (back when I used Gideon_Gideonson as a forum handle on WotC), dealt something like 4.63 x 10^26 damage in a single round.

I wish I could remember the exact build I used, but I remember it involved Shapechange shenanigans, a cohort, and about an hour of buffing time, as well as improvised weapons. Importantly, the cohort dealt no damage: a cohort dealing damage doesn't really change the UberCharger's damage output, so it doesn't count for the exercise.

[Little Brother]

The power reads: "When you charge, you can make a full attack in the same round." Not "an additional full attack". Just a full attack. So you can have 50 different castings of Psionic Lion's Charge on you, and they all grant you the ability to make a full attack on a charge, but still only the one you'd normally be entitled to.Yeah. Each one grants you the ability to make a full attack. I charge, get a pounce, then I am entitled to a full attack from PLC. I cannot normally, at this point, so I am allowed again, from the second effect.


Psionic Lion's Charge says that, "When you charge, you can make a full attack in the same round."

Multiple instances of this do not stack, the same way multiple instances of Improved Evasion don't stack to give 1/4, 1/8, or less damage on a failed Reflex save.No, because they are both coming from a continuous effect. If you have a class with that, it continues to grant it to you, but if you lose that level, you lose the benefit. That is covered under the benefits from the same source.


If you want to argue RAW, you may say that the instantaneous duration on psionic lion's charge gives you full attack on every charge you make after manifesting it (due to quirks with Instantaneous duration), but having the same ability multiple times doesn't generally mean you get to use it multiple times unless so stated.Yeah, I know it does that, but that is set up. If I had the same time, I could probably top the melee damage with something else. Like, say, the Arcane Swordsage pulling Mailman tricks.

No, you can't. Your round consists of : a Move or Move-equivalent+Standard or a Full-Round action. You may specifically exchange the Standard action for an additional Move or Move-Equivalent; there is no general rule here to extrapolate to any other action substitutions. Eh, regardless, it can be solved with an item of one of the powers as a command word. Have sufficient GP for it

On the round/turn thing: it's a fine distinction that usually doesn't matter, because your turn usually only involves one round. But you're using a Time Stop-like power, so it comes into play. A Round is the period of time in which you can use a Full-Round action or a move+Standard; Temporal Acceleration clearly gives you those. Your turn, on the other hand, is your spot in the initiative count, and you only get 1 Swift or Immediate action per turn. All of your Temporal Acceleration rounds? They all happen in the same turn. Your Swift action doesn't refresh until you allow the initiative count to cycle again.Explain. You get one round and all actions in the round. A turn is a subset of a round. There is a round, and you get a turn in a round, correct? Thus, you get the swift action.

[Little Brother]

The Ubercharger record has been broken several times to my knowledge, all without infinite loops or other such tricks.

Unfortunately, the WotC board update removed the old threads, but there were two big builds that broke the record you have listed.Ah, sorry. The original one was the only one my google-fu could get me a number on


The UberERCharger, by Tempest Stormwind, broke something like 650,000 damage in a single round.I need to see this.


Outcharging the UberERCHARGER, by yours truly (back when I used Gideon_Gideonson as a forum handle on WotC), dealt something like 4.63 x 10^26 damage in a single round.

I wish I could remember the exact build I used, but I remember it involved Shapechange shenanigans, a cohort, and about an hour of buffing time, as well as improvised weapons. Importantly, the cohort dealt no damage: a cohort dealing damage doesn't really change the UberCharger's damage output, so it doesn't count for the exercise.I wanted to do it without any setup. But 4.63x10^26? :smalleek:

I've got to put some more work into it.:smallfrown:

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Yeah. Each one grants you the ability to make a full attack. I charge, get a pounce, then I am entitled to a full attack from PLC. I cannot normally, at this point, so I am allowed again, from the second effect.

I don't think so, due to the first line of Psionic Lion's Charge: You gain the powerful charging ability of a lion. It doesn't specifically say Pounce, but, since the charging ability of a lion IS pounce, I don't think you actually get two full-round attacks.

If you do, you can double the number of both Tempest's build and my own. :smalltongue:

However, CharOp pretty much determined that it doesn't work this way RAW, or otherwise this would be showing up everywhere, which it's not.


Explain. You get one round and all actions in the round. A turn is a subset of a round. There is a round, and you get a turn in a round, correct? Thus, you get the swift action.

From the Tome of Battle, the most recent source to mention Swift Actions in 3.5: You can perform only a single swift action per turn, regardless of what other actions you take.

So, RAW, you get as many actions as you want on your turn...but only one Swift action, period, full stop.

[Siosilvar]

I need to see this.

Sadly, I think WotC has switched forums once or twice since then, so it's been lost to time. The Way Back Machine only gives me the 18,174 version. (http://web.archive.org/web/20080416115410/http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=401662)

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Sadly, I think WotC has switched forums once or twice since then, so it's been lost to time. The Way Back Machine only gives me the 18,174 version. (http://web.archive.org/web/20080416115410/http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=401662)

Hm. Looks like the damage was lower than I had thought. I might have my ordering wrong (in retrospect, it looks like Otto's UberCharger was broken by Tempests, whose was in turn broken by the one you cited). My mistake.

I also still can't find mine, which is strange.

[Little Brother]

I don't think so, due to the first line of Psionic Lion's Charge: You gain the powerful charging ability of a lion. It doesn't specifically say Pounce, but, since the charging ability of a lion IS pounce, I don't think you actually get two full-round attacks.By RI, I completely agree. By RAW, I disagree. If I was DMing and this came up, it would have duration: 1 round: you gain pounce, but whatever, this is RAW.


If you do, you can double the number of both Tempest's build and my own. :smalltongue:If I had an hour of prep, I could vastly increase this. I'd spend a good 200k on Manifester Arrows and get about 6250 PP for blowing on stuff, and just spam the above for an hour, then, in 9 rounds, just go BoB, and thne charge with 18 minions and hundreds of full attacks attacks, each.


However, CharOp pretty much determined that it doesn't work this way RAW, or otherwise this would be showing up everywhere, which it's not.Except I see no reason it wouldn't work.


From the Tome of Battle, the most recent source to mention Swift Actions in 3.5: You can perform only a single swift action per turn, regardless of what other actions you take.

So, RAW, you get as many actions as you want on your turn...but only one Swift action, period, full stop.However 1 round gives you one turn, thus you get one in there. And I just realize I got the order wrong when putting it together up there, it was, like, 2 AM when I finished. I'm pretty busy, should correct it tonight.

And the big gimmick I was going for with this one is no set up.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

If I had an hour of prep, I could vastly increase this. I'd spend a good 200k on Manifester Arrows and get about 6250 PP for blowing on stuff, and just spam the above for an hour, then, in 9 rounds, just go BoB, and thne charge with 18 minions and hundreds of full attacks attacks, each.

Yeah, minion builds can do that. But that's an army, not a single UberCharger. I don't know HOW high I could get numbers with an army, but I bet it would be astronomical.

Oh, my mistake...it's splitting the character. Interesting idea there, actually. I like it.


Except I see no reason it wouldn't work.

There is a reason, and it has to do with how abilities work in D&D. If Psionic Lion's Charge said something like "when you next charge, you may make a full attack as a free action" you'd be entirely correct. Instead, it says When you charge, you can make a full attack in the same round. Almost word-for-word what Pounce says.

Thus, a character has TWO instances of When you charge, you can make a full attack in the same round. But, like Damage Reduction and other abilities like Evasion, you only gain such an ability once. Both say you can make a full attack, but they do NOT trigger separately unless ones wording was vastly different (For example: When you charge, you may make a Full Attack as a free action instead of making a single attack roll). Your CHARACTER has that ability, and it triggers from the character, not from separate instances of the ability. You can't Rage while Raging, for example, even if both Rages come from different classes (Rage Monk variant and Barbarian, for example), nor can you have Double Improved Evasion.

In short, no matter how many times your character has the ability, you may only make a single full attack. One. Uno.

[tyckspoon]

However 1 round gives you one turn, thus you get one in there.

No, actually. They're only *usually* the same thing. 1 round is six seconds to do your actions. 1 turn is your initiative count. They aren't necessarily attached to each other; your Temporal Acceleration gives you extra rounds, but they're all subsumed under the same initiative count, and hence on the same turn.

[Siosilvar]

Hm. Looks like the damage was lower than I had thought. I might have my ordering wrong (in retrospect, it looks like Otto's UberCharger was broken by Tempests, whose was in turn broken by the one you cited). My mistake.

I also still can't find mine, which is strange.

That is Tempest's. At least, his first version - I do think he got it up to 650000 give or take an order of magnitude eventually. IIRC, anyway. That does look like one too many zeros.

[Keld Denar]

Giant Size and Expansion don't stack.


Multiple effects that increase size do not stack, which means (among other things) that you can’t use a second manifestation of this power to further expand yourself.

Saying that Giant Size doesn't increase your size is wrong. Giant Size is a spell. That spell creates and effect. The result of that effect is that your size changes. That size change is larger than your origional size. Thus, its an effect that changes your size, that doesn't stack with Expansion, or ANY other effect that changes your size, including Polymorph.

That, and I agree with the above people. Having Pounce from multiple sources is redundant. You get one pounce per charge. If you wanted to be REALLY fancy, you'd find ways to get multiple charges/round. The Hood build does this.

[Little Brother]

No, actually. They're only *usually* the same thing. 1 round is six seconds to do your actions. 1 turn is your initiative count. They aren't necessarily attached to each other; your Temporal Acceleration gives you extra rounds, but they're all subsumed under the same initiative count, and hence on the same turn.Huh. I guess I'm gonna be needing set-up. Dang. Oh, well, will try to fix today, bunch of stuff came up.


Giant Size and Expansion don't stack.



Saying that Giant Size doesn't increase your size is wrong. Giant Size is a spell. That spell creates and effect. The result of that effect is that your size changes. That size change is larger than your origional size. Thus, its an effect that changes your size, that doesn't stack with Expansion, or ANY other effect that changes your size, including Polymorph.No. It makes you a flat huge/gargantuan/whatever. That's the thing. It isn't an effect to increase your size, it is an effect that changes your size, which has the effect of increasing your size as a byproduct. Very important distinction.


That, and I agree with the above people. Having Pounce from multiple sources is redundant. You get one pounce per charge. If you wanted to be REALLY fancy, you'd find ways to get multiple charges/round. The Hood build does this.You guys are missing something. PLC is not pounce. It is a full attack at the end of a charge. Quite different.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

You guys are missing something. PLC is not pounce. It is a full attack at the end of a charge. Quite different.

But both give the ability "can make a full attack at the end of a charge." That triggers once per character, not multiple times per ability. It's the way D&D abilities work.

...Actually, I lie. The wording on Psionic Lion's Pounce DOES allow you an extra full attack at any point during your turn.

However, because of how it's worded, the extra full attack is not directly associated with the charge, meaning that your additional charge damage will not proc off of the attacks generated by Psionic Lion's Pounce. Strictly RAW, you get your normal charge attack (and/or attacks through the standard Pounce ability), and then a second, completely disassociated full attack at any point during your turn (this second full-attack has no relation to the initial Charge in any way, RAW).

So there you go. It's stupid, but it's RAW.

[Little Brother]

But both give the ability "can make a full attack at the end of a charge." That triggers once per character, not multiple times per ability. It's the way D&D abilities work.

...Actually, I lie. The wording on Psionic Lion's Pounce DOES allow you an extra full attack at any point during your turn.

However, because of how it's worded, the extra full attack is not directly associated with the charge, meaning that your additional charge damage will not proc off of the attacks generated by Psionic Lion's Pounce. Strictly RAW, you get your normal charge attack (and/or attacks through the standard Pounce ability), and then a second, completely disassociated full attack at any point during your turn (this second full-attack has no relation to the initial Charge in any way, RAW).

So there you go. It's stupid, but it's RAW.*Rereads*

Hmm. You are correct. Gonna have to incorporate that into me new build.

EDIT: DERP. I apparently can't read.

[Keld Denar]

That's the thing. It isn't an effect to increase your size, it is an effect that changes your size

Reread this part. It doesn't change your size, but it changes your size. You do realize that your logic here is fuzzy to say the least? Its an effect. The result of that effect is a change in size. Thus, its an effect that changes your size. If your Giant Size self is bigger than your non-Giant Size self, you're size has increased. Thus, its an effect that increased your size.

D&D doesn't care how you get there, just that you get there. Giant Size changes your size, most often to a size larger than before.

I have yet to see any proof that Giant Size isn't a size increase. Preferably with rules examples.

[Little Brother]

Reread this part. It doesn't change your size, but it changes your size. You do realize that your logic here is fuzzy to say the least? Its an effect. The result of that effect is a change in size. Thus, its an effect that changes your size. If your Giant Size self is bigger than your non-Giant Size self, you're size has increased. Thus, its an effect that increased your size.

D&D doesn't care how you get there, just that you get there. Giant Size changes your size, most often to a size larger than before.

I have yet to see any proof that Giant Size isn't a size increase. Preferably with rules examples.Okay, I expand to huge, then use Giant Size to huge. No change in size. No increase in size. Therefore, it is not a size increase effect.

If needed, I can go that way, which does the exact same thing.

[prufock]

No. It makes you a flat huge/gargantuan/whatever.
If you are a size that is other than huge and you use an effect that makes you huge, that is a change. No stack.


You guys are missing something. PLC is not pounce. It is a full attack at the end of a charge. Quite different.

"You can have an apple" means you can have one apple.
"You can have an apple, you can have an apple" does not mean you can have two apples. You still get AN apple. Similarly, you still get A full attack in the same round that you charge, regardless of how many times you manifest it.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

If you are a size that is other than huge and you use an effect that makes you huge, that is a change. No stack.

This is another interesting one. Assuming that the line "You grow to X size" isn't a flavor line (and RAW normally assumes that any line included and not in italics is, in fact, part of the rules), if you don't grow the spell can't have an effect. For example: a Colossal dragon couldn't use this spell to shrink, because it specifies "grow." As such, no growth = no effect.

Assuming, however, that you can cut flavor lines with RAW (and I don't think you can), Little Brother is right in saying that the abilities works as used in the opening post.

Because both are RAW and the former is closer to RAI, I'd use that for optimization purposes. Otherwise you'll get people poking holes in your build til kingdom come, and not actually seeing the parts of it which DO work the way you intended.


"You can have an apple" means you can have one apple.
"You can have an apple, you can have an apple" does not mean you can have two apples. You still get AN apple. Similarly, you still get A full attack in the same round that you charge, regardless of how many times you manifest it.

Actually, s/he's (Little Brother is the username, but you have female in your profile's gender...which is appropriate?) right on this one by one variation of RAW. I would argue that the line "You gain the powerful charging ability of a lion" gives you the equivalent of Pounce (as the Lion's ability), and thus it wouldn't stack. As 99% of DMs would agree with this, I'd recommend using this interpretation for optimization challenges.

Another reading (equally RAW) is that the line " When you charge, you can make a full attack in the same round" gives you the ability to make a full-attack at any point in the same round, although this attack isn't associated with the charge in any way, shape, or form (and can, in fact, happen during the charge or at any point before then start of your next turn). Note that this is not exactly the same as Pounce: if it WERE the same wording, your apple metaphor would be correct.

However, the first has both an equal amount of RAW and a lot more RAI behind it, so I'd use that for optimization challenges.

[Little Brother]

If you are a size that is other than huge and you use an effect that makes you huge, that is a change. No stack.It says it doesn't stack with another effect that increases your size. If you're already huge, a flat "You're Huge" mean's there's no change, thus nothing is there to stack.


"You can have an apple" means you can have one apple.
"You can have an apple, you can have an apple" does not mean you can have two apples. You still get AN apple. Similarly, you still get A full attack in the same round that you charge, regardless of how many times you manifest it.It's more like "Here, have an apple," then "Okay, here, have an apple." You get an apple, and then you get an apple. 1 apple + 1 apple=2 apples.

This is another interesting one. Assuming that the line "You grow to X size" isn't a flavor line (and RAW normally assumes that any line included and not in italics is, in fact, part of the rules), if you don't grow the spell can't have an effect. For example: a Colossal dragon couldn't use this spell to shrink, because it specifies "grow." As such, no growth = no effect.Decay=Negative growth, at least according to every math book I've seen. Maybe a math major can correct me on this, but until then, I'm gonna side with 3 college textbooks, 2 school textbooks, and the official IB math book.

Assuming, however, that you can cut flavor lines with RAW (and I don't think you can), Little Brother is right in saying that the abilities works as used in the opening post.It isn't cutting it. And you can cut flavor lines, 'cuz they're flavor. It's like "you gain the charging ability of a lion, blah blah blah," doesn't give you pounce, it gives you an effect almost identical to pounce.


Actually, s/he's (Little Brother is the username, but you're female in your gender...which is appropriate?)
It's a joke based on a nickname I've had. She is correct.
right on this one by one variation of RAW. I would argue that the line "You gain the powerful charging ability of a lion" gives you the equivalent of Pounce (as the Lion's ability), and thus it wouldn't stack. As 99% of DMs would agree with this, I'd recommend using this interpretation for optimization challenges.But it clearly defines the effect as something other than pounce. As a DM, I'd say it is pounce, but as a rules lawyer I'd say it isn't. This is RAW abuse, so I'm saying it isn't.


Another reading (equally RAW) is that the line " When you charge, you can make a full attack in the same round" gives you the ability to make a full-attack at any point in the same round, although this attack isn't associated with the charge in any way, shape, or form (and can, in fact, happen during the charge or at any point before then start of your next turn). Note that this is not exactly the same as Pounce: if it WERE the same wording, your apple metaphor would be correct.This is worth mentioning again.

However, the first has both an equal amount of RAW and a lot more RAI behind it, so I'd use that for optimization challenges.It is specifically not pounce, as it clearly describes the ability as something other than pounce.

Oh, hey, I just realized it is still part of a charge action, if not necessarily the charge attack. I see some fun coming, gonna need to work on it.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

And you can cut flavor lines, 'cuz they're flavor. It's like "you gain the charging ability of a lion, blah blah blah," doesn't give you pounce, it gives you an effect almost identical to pounce.

Untrue, actually. RAW takes EVERYTHING into account, including text that doesn't have any direct rules connotations. That's why casters can't have invisible Fireballs or Magic Missiles that looks like full-size Great Wyrm Red Dragons instead of missiles. And, in this case, "you gain the charging ability of a lion" is important, because the lion HAS a charging ability, and is mentioned specifically by name.

That ability is Pounce. A valid RAW interpretation is to look at the lion, and give you the charging ability of a lion: Pounce. Hence why I recommend using the one the DM is most liable to take, since both are RAW and optimizers in general tend to side with the DM during RAW disputes (not RAI disputes, of course, but this is a RAW vs. RAW issue). So most people WILL call you on this one.



It is specifically not pounce, as it clearly describes the ability as something other than pounce.

Yet equally clearly says it IS pounce (the Pounce ability that lion's have), if you don't disregard a line of the spell. Ergo, RAW conflicting with itself.


Oh, hey, I just realized it is still part of a charge action, if not necessarily the charge attack. I see some fun coming, gonna need to work on it.

It's not, actually. A charge is the movement + the attack, and that's it. This is distinctly separate, as it's basically a free-standing full-round attack with no action attached or related.


It says it doesn't stack with another effect that increases your size. If you're already huge, a flat "You're Huge" mean's there's no change, thus nothing is there to stack.

But the spell triggers on growth, as I mentioned. You can't ignore lines of text and call it RAW.


It's more like "Here, have an apple," then "Okay, here, have an apple." You get an apple, and then you get an apple. 1 apple + 1 apple=2 apples.

Actually, with how D&D ability stacking works, prufrock is right. Double pounce doesn't exist, nor does double evasion. Unless you can get different wording in an ironclad proof, you can't double-pounce.


Decay=Negative growth, at least according to every math book I've seen. Maybe a math major can correct me on this, but until then, I'm gonna side with 3 college textbooks, 2 school textbooks, and the official IB math book.

Every math book you've seen isn't D&D. A negative modifier =/= a negative positive modifier. Shrinking in size =/= growing in negative size. D&D doesn't follow your standard math rules for stuff like this.

Incidently, don't take this as a personal attack. I'm a pretty experienced CharOp guy from back in the day, and I'm just running you through the ringer that other CharOp guys will put you through. I'm open to being proven wrong, but you'll have to make the argument really solid to sway most CharOp people.

[Little Brother]

*Stuff that I really don't want to go through the headache of arguing with*

That ability is Pounce. A valid RAW interpretation is to look at the lion, and give you the charging ability of a lion: Pounce. Hence why I recommend using the one the DM is most liable to take, since both are RAW and optimizers in general tend to side with the DM during RAW disputes (not RAI disputes, of course, but this is a RAW vs. RAW issue). So most people WILL call you on this one.



Yet equally clearly says it IS pounce (the Pounce ability that lion's have), if you don't disregard a line of the spell. Ergo, RAW conflicting with itself.If the fluff line in every spell counts, the Warlock kills himself every time he tries to use Baleful Utterance, Freezing Fog freezes all water in the area, Flensing makes the target skinless, and therefor basically dead.If mighty is an enhancement for magic items, your fist is magical with Fist of Stone, and your eyes burn out with Fiery Eyes. Fire Breath burns your lungs/throat out, etc. That line is a throwaway descriptor.

It's not, actually. A charge is the movement + the attack, and that's it. This is distinctly seperate.Which is made during the charge action, and so is a part of it, as it happens during and is dependent. You make a full attack, it never says that's a separate action, just as pounce is part of a charge.


I need to reread the charge multipliers and see which ones apply.

[Little Brother]

But the spell triggers on growth, as I mentioned. You can't ignore lines of text and call it RAW. As I said, that's a throw away line. You basically have to ignore it.


Actually, with how D&D ability stacking works, prufrock is right. Double pounce doesn't exist, nor does double evasion. Unless you can get different wording in an ironclad proof, you can't double-pounce.Definite proof? It isn't pouncing because the crunchy, direct statement proves otherwise. Otherwise I also get claws when I charge, or even better, get to use their whole statblock. And they're not the same apple. That's why it's have two apples, not "Okay, you can have one apple today." "Okay, here's one apple for today." Those are both clearly referencing the same apple. It's like a granny smith, a Fuji, a Read Disgusting, and apple sauce.


Every math book you've seen isn't D&D. A negative modifier =/= a negative positive modifier. Shrinking in size =/= growing in negative size. D&D doesn't follow your standard math rules for stuff like this.A negative modifier is a negative positive modifier through the very definition of negative. Otherwise, we might as well go around saying e=phi in D&D. It's just how math works


Incidently, don't take this as a personal attack. I'm a pretty experienced CharOp guy from back in the day, and I'm just running you through the ringer that other CharOp guys will put you through. I'm open to being proven wrong, but you'll have to make the argument really solid to sway most CharOp people.Why would I take it as a personal attack? I find arguments amusing and invigorating, really. They're what make life fun. And trying to pick away at the build allows me to work and improve it. :smallsmile:

[Keld Denar]

As I said, try to work out a way to get multiple charges in a round. Hood uses Battle Jump. That way you just have to fall on someone, and it counts as a charge, and you get a full attack. If you can find multiple ways to fall on someone (swift and/or move action teleports from Shadow Hand?), you could multiply your damage very quickly.

Thats a legitimate CharOp tactic. Misreading the rules for size stacking is not.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

If the fluff line in every spell counts, the Warlock kills himself every time he tries to use Baleful Utterance, Freezing Fog freezes all water in the area, Flensing makes the target skinless, and therefor basically dead.If mighty is an enhancement for magic items, your fist is magical with Fist of Stone, and your eyes burn out with Fiery Eyes. Fire Breath burns your lungs/throat out, etc. That line is a throwaway descriptor.

Baleful Utterance has no flavor line aside from "you speak a single syllable of Dark Speech." Freezing Fog would freeze all water in the area if it mentions that it does. Flensing does rip the skin off the target...just maybe not all of it. That's what flensing means. Your fist IS magical with Fist of Stone...it's a magical weapon enhancement. Fiery Eyes causes "your eyes to glow with an unnatural fire." That's GLOW, not "burst into consuming flames." It's magic, so the effect doesn't have to be harmful. But you can't cast that spell WITHOUT your eyes glowing. And I don't have the rules for Fire Breath on me, but I bet it only gives you the ability to breath out fire, and mentions NOTHING about throat damage.

RAW in descriptive things works.



Even if you have extra attacks, such as from having a high enough base attack bonus or from using multiple weapons, you only get to make one attack during a charge.

So the extra full-round attack either comes after the charge (like Pounce, which specifics at the end of a charge), or cannot be part of the charging action, which only allows a single attack. The extra charge from Psionic Lion's Pounce, if you interpret it your way, doesn't specify at the end of a charge, and is thus unassociated and cannot be taken as part of the charge action.

[Little Brother]

Baleful Utterance has no flavor line aside from "you speak a single syllable of Dark Speech." Read the Dark Speech feat in BoVD. It says the feat is training in Dark Speech, and using it untrained kills you. Thus, Baleful Utterance kills you.
Freezing Fog would freeze all water in the area.[/quoteFlensing [i]does rip the skin off the target...just maybe not all of it. That's what flensing means.It says "The skin." One's skin is a single organ. So if "the skin" means part of one's skin, then removing the liver is removing part of the liver. IT doesn't work that way.
Your fist IS magical with Fist of Stone...it's a magical weapon enhancement. Fiery Eyes causes "your eyes to glow with an unnatural fire." That's GLOW, not "burst into consuming flames." It's magic, so the effect doesn't have to be harmful. But you can't cast that spell WITHOUT your eyes glowing.So your fist is a +1 Mighty Fist during Fist of Stone?

And it glows WITH FIRE. Fire burns. To glow with fire it has to be on fire. Therefore, your eyes, or something reflecting off your eyes, is on fire. It is unnatural, but it doesn't say it is unnatural in a way that doesn't burn[/quote]
And I don't have the rules for Fire Breath on me, but I bet it only gives you the ability to breath out fire, and mentions NOTHING about throat damage. How hot is fire? How hot does mucus membrane have to get to be effectively dead/unusable? How much internal burning can a body take. You breath it, it comes from your lungs. Therefore, there was fire in your lungs, coming out your mouth or nose. Fire would burn the hell out of your lungs and throat, your lungs would be worthless, and you'd die.


RAW in descriptive things works.So a lot of spells effectively kill you?

Flaming Shuriken. You throw it. Therefore you hold it, so you take 1d6 fire damage?


So the extra full-round attack either comes after the charge (like Pounce, which specifics at the end of a charge), or cannot be part of the charging action, which only allows a single attack. The extra charge from Psionic Lion's Pounce, if you interpret it your way, doesn't specify at the end of a charge, and is thus unassociated and cannot be taken as part of the charge action.However it must be part of the charge action. You are taking an action that happens during the charge during the charge. That's like saying the movement during the charge has nothing to do with the charge. It's, frankly, kinda ridiculous.

And, Keld, the size stack A) is not being misread, and B) even if it were, that is really only icing on the cake here.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Read the Dark Speech feat in BoVD. It says the feat is training in Dark Speech, and using it untrained kills you. Thus, Baleful Utterance kills you.

By RAW, apparently so. See, RAW is often stupid like that.


How hot is fire? How hot does mucus membrane have to get to be effectively dead/unusable? How much internal burning can a body take. You breath it, it comes from your lungs. Therefore, there was fire in your lungs, coming out your mouth or nose. Fire would burn the hell out of your lungs and throat, your lungs would be worthless, and you'd die.

Show me where in RAW you breathe from your lungs, or where breathing fire deals you damage. I'll wait.

See, you won't find it. Things don't follow logically in RAW every time. I can prove via RAW that I can play a dead Psion, if we're talking RAW-legal nonsense. Plus, a lot of this is explained away by "it's MAGIC!" The magic-using classes do things that don't make sense ALL THE TIME.

Your interpreting RAW through common sense in these examples, but not in your own. RAW does need SOME tempering with common sense, 'cause when RAW conflicts with other RAW, you have to figure out which one is the most applicable. For example...by RAW I can end the sun with Iron Heart Surge and, also by RAW, I can't. No optimizer will use the former interpretation in a build, although it does make for interesting discussion.


Flaming Shuriken. You throw it. Therefore you hold it, so you take 1d6 fire damage?

I can't find Flaming Shuriken, but Fire Shuriken, as spell from the Spell Compendium, says "they do not burn your hands." The flaming weapon enhancement likewise says "The fire does not harm the wielder." Go check if you don't believe me.


However it must be part of the charge action. You are taking an action that happens during the charge during the charge. That's like saying the movement during the charge has nothing to do with the charge. It's, frankly, kinda ridiculous.

Movement is specifically in the charge rules, which also state that you get ONE attack during the charge action. One and only one. Also, why, via RAW, must it be part of the Charge action? I can take a free action DURING a full-round attack, but nobody would tell me that free action is PART of my attack routine. It's a separate action that merely shares a timeframe.

[Little Brother]

By RAW, apparently so. See, RAW is often stupid like that.Because that line doesn't mean anything. That is the simplest explanation.


Show me where in RAW you breathe from your lungs, or where breathing fire deals you damage. I'll wait.By the definition of breathing...


See, you won't find it. Things don't follow logically in RAW every time. I can prove via RAW that I can play a dead Psion, if we're talking RAW-legal nonsense.I'm curious. Explain.


Your interpreting RAW through common sense in these examples, but not in your own.I am interpreting RAW in a way that make sense, function-wise. Saying that affects the spell is like saying the flavor text changes the effects of MTG cards, or you can use the Yugimanz anime to decide how cards work.


I can't find Flaming Shuriken, but Fire Shuriken, as spell from the Spell Compendium, says "they do not burn your hands." The flaming weapon enhancement likewise says "The fire does not harm the wielder." Go check if you don't believe me.Complete Arcane.


Movement is specifically in the charge rules, which also state that you get ONE attack during the charge action. One and only one. Also, why, via RAW, must it be part of the Charge action? I can take a free action DURING a full-round attack, but nobody would tell me that free action is PART of my attack routine. It's a separate action that merely shares a timeframe.The charge rules say you get one attack. Pounce says you get a full attack, which is generally more than one attack, considering Whirling Frenzy and Frenzy, which I realize I forgot to add into my damage. Lion's Charge is a full attack as part of a charge. It's not at the conclusion, so it MIGHT not get the charge bonuses, I need to reread the rules, but it most certainly is part of the charge just as much as pounce attacks are.

[drakir_nosslin]

Decay=Negative growth, at least according to every math book I've seen. Maybe a math major can correct me on this, but until then, I'm gonna side with 3 college textbooks, 2 school textbooks, and the official IB math book.

Yes, but the word 'growth' is inherently positive, it implies increase unless you state that is is negative (decay). Take that as you wish, but it's written by someone with a bachelor in math.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Because that line doesn't mean anything. That is the simplest explanation.

You will never actually be able to argue that point against CharOp people. Any text not in italics is part of the ability: that's what RAW means.


I'm curious. Explain.

Condition summary for Dead:


By the definition of breathing...

And where is the definition of breathing in RAW, pray tell? :smalltongue:



The character’s hit points are reduced to -10, his Constitution drops to 0, or he is killed outright by a spell or effect. The character’s soul leaves his body. Dead characters cannot benefit from normal or magical healing, but they can be restored to life via magic. A dead body decays normally unless magically preserved, but magic that restores a dead character to life also restores the body either to full health or to its condition at the time of death (depending on the spell or device). Either way, resurrected characters need not worry about rigor mortis, decomposition, and other conditions that affect dead bodies.

I am paralyzed from the Constitution loss, and my soul is gone...but the latter part has no mechanical effect. As a Psion, my abilities require nto physical action to use. As per the rules for Paralysis, a paralyzed character can take purely mental actions. Ergo, as a Psion, I can use my abilities normally although I'm a decomposing corpse. Fully rules-legal.


I am interpreting RAW in a way that make sense, function-wise. Saying that affects the spell is like saying the flavor text changes the effects of MTG cards, or you can use the Yugimanz anime to decide how cards work.

And function-wise you can't gain power from a size-increasing spell if you don't increase in size. Your point?

That first line is definitely RAW, as it tells you what the spell DOES. Without it, any spell could do anything. My fireball? It's actually a giant meteor from space crashing down on the point of impact. My Lightning Bolt summons an Ancient Blue Dragon to breath lightning. I could cast Wings of Fire, which transforms my arms into wings, even if I don't HAVE arms.

Can you see how cutting that line has huge ramifications for the game?


Complete Arcane.

By RAW (which specifically mentions you not taking damage, actually: about halfway down the spell description), you take damage while holding them, but not while throwing them.


The charge rules say you get one attack. Pounce says you get a full attack, which is generally more than one attack, considering Whirling Frenzy and Frenzy, which I realize I forgot to add into my damage. Lion's Charge is a full attack as part of a charge. It's not at the conclusion, so it MIGHT not get the charge bonuses, I need to reread the rules, but it most certainly is part of the charge just as much as pounce attacks are.

Actually, I just read up on Pounce. By RAW, you get your normal charge + one attack, and then another full-round attack after the charge: "When a creature with this special attack makes a charge, it can follow with a full attack—including rake attacks if the creature also has the rake ability." So, RAW, the extra attacks from Pounce don't trigger charge-multiplying abilities either, as it's not PART of the charge...merely after it. :smallbiggrin:

[drakir_nosslin]

Actually, I just read up on Pounce. By RAW, you get your normal charge + one attack, and then another full-round attack after the charge: "When a creature with this special attack makes a charge, it can follow with a full attack—including rake attacks if the creature also has the rake ability." So, RAW, the extra attacks from Pounce don't trigger charge-multiplying abilities either, as it's not PART of the charge...merely after it. :smallbiggrin:

Wow, there goes a lot of damage for the melee types in D&D...

[Little Brother]

You will never actually be able to argue that point against CharOp people. Any text not in italics is part of the ability: that's what RAW means.Flavor text has nothing to do with rules. The issue is figuring out where it is, but if text is flavor and no crunch, it doesn't have any value of any standing


Condition summary for Dead:You're at -10 or lower HP. You're conscious. Therefore, you cannot act.




And where is the definition of breathing in RAW, pray tell? :smalltongue:What's the definition of damage? Why doesn't it add? Oh, what's the definition of "Subtract" in RAW? It isn't. You have to apply some real-world source, like science, math, the definition of words, etc, to the game. Otherwise it's a series of letters.


And function-wise you can't gain power from a size-increasing spell if you don't increase in size. Your point?And I am saying Giant Size is not a size-increasing effect. It is an effect to make you Huge+ just as Polymorph is an effect to turn you into something else, turning into a Large Dragon is a shapechange effect, not a size changing effect.


That first line is definitely RAW, as it tells you what the spell DOES. Without it, any spell could do anything. My fireball? It's actually a giant meteor from space crashing down on the point of impact. My Lightning Bolt summons an Ancient Blue Dragon to breath lightning. I could cast Wings of Fire, which transforms my arms into wings, even if I don't HAVE arms.Exactly, which is why it doesn't matter. It's a description, not an effect.


Can you see how cutting that line has huge ramifications for the game?No, because it's not part of the game. It tells you what it probably looks like, not the effect.


By RAW (which specifically mentions you not taking damage, actually: about halfway down the spell description), you take damage while holding them, but not while throwing them.So it does, missed that


Actually, I just read up on Pounce. By RAW, you get your normal charge + one attack, and then another full-round attack after the charge: "When a creature with this special attack makes a charge, it can follow with a full attack—including rake attacks if the creature also has the rake ability." So, RAW, the extra attacks from Pounce don't trigger charge-multiplying abilities either, as it's not PART of the charge...merely after it. :smallbiggrin:

This is your problem. You are assuming everything that is not that one attack isn't part of a charge, despite being very clearly part of the charge, which is why you get all the nifty charge bonuses on the PLCs.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Flavor text has nothing to do with rules. The issue is figuring out where it is, but if text is flavor and no crunch, it doesn't have any value of any standing

But it's not flavor text. It's in the body of the rules, and therefore rules text. It deals with non-numerical rules, but it's still rules text. That's how D&D works. If you claim that it's flavor text, then you have to use your judgement to determine what is flavor text and what isn't...which means you're using something other than RAW. Logical fallacy there: you can't choose what to ignore and treat the rest as ironclad truth and claim to be playing by the game as written.


You're at -10 or lower HP. You're conscious. Therefore, you cannot act.


Knocked out and helpless. Unconsciousness can result from having current hit points between -1 and -9, or from nonlethal damage in excess of current hit points.

Nothing about being unable to act.


What's the definition of damage? Why doesn't it add? Oh, what's the definition of "Subtract" in RAW? It isn't. You have to apply some real-world source, like science, math, the definition of words, etc, to the game. Otherwise it's a series of letters.

No, actually. Math is a given for using numerical mechanics, but breathing technically isn't a rules-related issue: it's assumed, but that doesn't mean that something like fire breath necessarily interacts with it. You're choosing to apply logic to the game world, which is a valid choice, but, by the hardest possible RAW, you shouldn't be. It's an over exaggeration of course, but still.



This is your problem. You are assuming everything that is not that one attack isn't part of a charge, despite being very clearly part of the charge, which is why you get all the nifty charge bonuses on the PLCs.

Nope. It's pretty clear.


Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action

Attacking on a Charge
After moving, you may make a single melee attack. You get a +2 bonus on the attack roll and take a -2 penalty to your AC until the start of your next turn.

Even if you have extra attacks, such as from having a high enough base attack bonus or from using multiple weapons, you only get to make one attack during a charge.

Anything after that attack isn't attack ON a charge, by RAW (which allows a single attack). It's attacking AFTER a charge.

[Little Brother]

But it's not flavor text. It's in the body of the rules, and therefore rules text. It deals with non-numerical rules, but it's still rules text. That's how D&D works. If you claim that it's flavor text, then you have to use your judgement to determine what is flavor text and what isn't...which means you're using something other than RAW. Logical fallacy there: you can't choose what to ignore and treat the rest as ironclad truth and claim to be playing by the game as written.IF you're saying it has the charging abilities of a lion, which is vague and contradicted more specifically later, then I should also get 2 rake attacks, as that is included as the lion's charge.

And that is most certainly flavor text. It gives no data. It's English major zone, not math. The only parts that matter are the mathy parts, so no, irrelevant. It is very specific on what it gives, and that is not pounce.


Nothing about being unable to act.Helpless.


No, actually. Math is a given for using numerical mechanics, but breathing technically isn't a rules-related issue: it's assumed, but that doesn't mean that something like fire breath necessarily interacts with it. You're choosing to apply logic to the game world, which is a valid choice, but, by the hardest possible RAW, you shouldn't be. It's an over exaggeration of course, but still.Almost all the really tricky stuff for damage use real-world physics. Breathing fire does fire damage to your lungs. That's the only possible way to be. It must do fire damage to you if you're directly exposed to it. You do not. Therefore, that little tidbit is irrelevant. It gives no math, no direct instruction, and therefore doesn't matter.


Nope. It's pretty clear.Nope. Pounce is pretty clear


Pounce (Ex)
If a lion charges a foe, it can make a full attack, including two rake attacksIf it charges, it can make a full attack. Charging is a full-round action, therefore the full attack is part of that action. Therefore, it is part of the charge. Therefore, you gain the benefits of the charge on all attacks of that. Also, the PLC grants full attacks as part of the charge, therefore I get the benefits on each one.


Anything after that attack isn't attack ON a charge, by RAW (which allows a single attack). It's attacking AFTER a charge.It's attacking as part of the charge. It has to. Charging is a full round action. It doesn't give you extra actions, or reduce it, therefore it must be part of the charge.

[Keld Denar]

And I am saying Giant Size is not a size-increasing effect. It is an effect to make you Huge+ just as Polymorph is an effect to turn you into something else, turning into a Large Dragon is a shapechange effect, not a size changing effect.

And if it "makes" you a size that is larger than your origional size, then its an effect that increases your size. Simply put. There is no "setting" your size at something. If you assume a form that is bigger than the form you normally are, then you have increased in size. I don't know how to explain it in any simpler terms. You are making up rules about "setting" size to a certain value, when no rules exist. The rules state that multiple effects that increase your size don't stack, and you have yet to cite any sort of proof that Polymorph or Giant Size or Shapechange or any other ability contain an exception to this language.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

IF you're saying it has the charging abilities of a lion, which is vague and contradicted more specifically later, then I should also get 2 rake attacks, as that is included as the lion's charge.

Nope. A Lion gains rake attacks because it HAS rake attacks, and has, as its charging ability, Pounce, which specifically allows rake attacks if the Pouncing creature has them.


And that is most certainly flavor text. It gives no data. It's English major zone, not math. The only parts that matter are the mathy parts, so no, irrelevant. It is very specific on what it gives, and that is not pounce.

It sure as heck gives data! Fireball tells me it's an explosion of fire. Flensing tells me it flays off the target's skin. Without that "flavor," it's just a bunch of numbers, and D&D is more than a bunch of numbers. Flavor CAN equal rules, 'cause you can't always tell me what I should and shouldn't ignore via RAW.


Helpless.

Don't quote things without actually looking them up, please.


A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent’s mercy. A helpless target is treated as having a Dexterity of 0 (-5 modifier). Melee attacks against a helpless target get a +4 bonus (equivalent to attacking a prone target). Ranged attacks gets no special bonus against helpless targets. Rogues can sneak attack helpless targets.

As a full-round action, an enemy can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace to a helpless foe. An enemy can also use a bow or crossbow, provided he is adjacent to the target. The attacker automatically hits and scores a critical hit. (A rogue also gets her sneak attack damage bonus against a helpless foe when delivering a coup de grace.) If the defender survives, he must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + damage dealt) or die.

Delivering a coup de grace provokes attacks of opportunity.

Creatures that are immune to critical hits do not take critical damage, nor do they need to make Fortitude saves to avoid being killed by a coup de grace.

Nothing about being unable to act.


Almost all the really tricky stuff for damage use real-world physics. Breathing fire does fire damage to your lungs. That's the only possible way to be. It must do fire damage to you if you're directly exposed to it. You do not. Therefore, that little tidbit is irrelevant. It gives no math, no direct instruction, and therefore doesn't matter.

Magic? That could be a solution to the problem. INHALING fire would damage your lungs LOGICALLY, but it doesn't SPECIFICALLY deal damage to your lungs, nor does exhaling magical fire mean that it doesn't start in your mouth or something weird like that. And most of the tricky stuff that uses real-world physics isn't actually RAW. It's TO rather than CharOp: Theoretical Optimization, that uses things that may not actually be RAW, but are fun to think about.


It's attacking as part of the charge. It has to. Charging is a full round action. It doesn't give you extra actions, or reduce it, therefore it must be part of the charge.

But it can't be, 'cause what a Charge is has been very clearly laid out. It's a full-round action that gives you a move and a single attack. It says in the rules that it doesn't allow for MORE than a single attack. Thus, you've got (and HAVE to have, via RAW) an extra full attack which is OUTSIDE the normal action sequence. RAW won't allow you to have less without directly contradicting itself.

Of Note
This is why CharOp tends to use commonly accepted rules for this sort of thing. You're bordering on Theoretical Optimization, which always devolves into discussions like this, where we're both "right" for a given value of "right." Theoretical Optimization is great for showcasing fun tricks with the system, but you can't use Theoretical Optimization in something like a damage optimization attempt, where the goal is to legitimately beat a damage value set by someone else. It doesn't get you taken seriously (in that light...I'm taking your DISCUSSION very seriously) when you don't comply with commonly accepted rules for optimization. Both your Giant Size tricks and the double-pouncing trick are either very close to TO or definitely TO, and that puts holes in your build to insert endless theoretical discussion on what exactly RAW means.

[Little Brother]

And if it "makes" you a size that is larger than your origional size, then its an effect that increases your size. Simply put. There is no "setting" your size at something. If you assume a form that is bigger than the form you normally are, then you have increased in size. I don't know how to explain it in any simpler terms. You are making up rules about "setting" size to a certain value, when no rules exist. The rules state that multiple effects that increase your size don't stack, and you have yet to cite any sort of proof that Polymorph or Giant Size or Shapechange or any other ability contain an exception to this language.The effect doesn't necessarily increase your size. Therefore, it cannot be an effect that increases your size, because it quite often won't. If I'm a colossal Red Dragon and cast Giant Size as a level 13 Wu Jen, I shrink to huge. It isn't growth per se, and so it would stack Regardless, the entire thing was to get more strength, the size was just a side benefit.


Nope. A Lion gains rake attacks because it HAS rake attacks, and has, as its charging ability, Pounce, which specifically allows rake attacks if the Pouncing creature has them.But it specifically says that it gets rake attacks on the charge. Therefore, if you gain all of its abilities on the charge, as you are saying, you also gain that. You don't though. You gain the clearly outlined effects.


It sure as heck gives data! Fireball tells me it's an explosion of fire. Flensing tells me it flays off the target's skin. Without that "flavor," it's just a bunch of numbers, and D&D is more than a bunch of numbers. Flavor CAN equal rules, 'cause you can't always tell me what I should and shouldn't ignore via RAW.Flavor only affects rules if we're dealing with a DM. There is no DM in this discussion, just numbers, which is what I've been saying from the beginning. It was no direct explanation of rules, so that sentence doesn't matter. Simple as that.


Don't quote things without actually looking them up, please.Completely at an opponent's mercy. If you could still conjure fireballs, you're not at my mercy. To be at someone's mercy, you'd need to be unable to act.

Nothing about being unable to act.Yes there is, see above.


Magic? That could be a solution to the problem. INHALING fire would damage your lungs LOGICALLY, but it doesn't SPECIFICALLY deal damage to your lungs, nor does exhaling magical fire mean that it doesn't start in your mouth or something weird like that. And most of the tricky stuff that uses real-world physics isn't actually RAW. It's TO rather than CharOp: Theoretical Optimization, that uses things that may not actually be RAW, but are fun to think about.What do you think this is? Theoretical Optimization, or something you would never even think about doing because of the absurdity, but is done to stretch the brain, or in this case, aliviate boredom from insomnia.


But it can't be, 'cause what a Charge is has been very clearly laid out. It's a full-round action that gives you a move and a single attack. It says in the rules that it doesn't allow for MORE than a single attack. Thus, you've got (and HAVE to have, via RAW) an extra full attack which is OUTSIDE the normal action sequence. RAW won't allow you to have less without directly contradicting itself.It has to be part of the charge, or otherwise it doesn't have an action. Also, specific trumps unspecific. This is quite specific, you're quoting a general rule to beat it.

Of Note
This is why CharOp tends to use commonly accepted rules for this sort of thing. You're bordering on Theoretical Optimization, which always devolves into discussions like this, where we're both "right" for a given value of "right." Theoretical Optimization is great for showcasing fun tricks with the system, but you can't use Theoretical Optimization in something like a damage optimization attempt, where the goal is to legitimately beat a damage value set by someone else. It doesn't get you taken seriously (in that light...I'm taking your DISCUSSION very seriously) when you don't comply with commonly accepted rules for optimization. Both your Giant Size tricks and the double-pouncing trick are either very close to TO or definitely TO, and that puts holes in your build to insert endless theoretical discussion on what exactly RAW means.Explain "endless" theoretical discussion. And, for reference, it is closer to anywhere from 1 to 4.2x10^9 pounces. NI if I go necropolitan, but at that point, I might as well go Cancer Mage with Festering Anger. And the current goal is to just see how high I can go. That was the first benchmark I saw.

[drakir_nosslin]

It's attacking as part of the charge. It has to. Charging is a full round action. It doesn't give you extra actions, or reduce it, therefore it must be part of the charge.


You gain the powerful charging ability of a lion. When you charge, you can make a full attack in the same round.


Nowhere does it say that you make it at the end of the charge. So it doesn't happen then, as Djinn has explained. What happens is that you are given the ability to do a full attack, which happens to be a full round action. So, in a sense you're given an extra full round action, but it's locked to a single purpose: attacking. You don't gain the 5-foot step since you've already moved this round.

EDIT:


The effect doesn't necessarily increase your size. Therefore, it cannot be an effect that increases your size, because it quite often won't. If I'm a colossal Red Dragon and cast Giant Size as a level 13 Wu Jen, I shrink to huge. It isn't growth per se, and so it would stack Regardless, the entire thing was to get more strength, the size was just a side benefit.

But you're not a colossal Red Dragon and you do increase in size. In fact, if we're using your definition of growth, you'd have to be huge, otherwise you'd 'grow' when using Giant Size (negative or positive).



But it specifically says that it gets rake attacks on the charge. Therefore, if you gain all of its abilities on the charge, as you are saying, you also gain that. You don't though. You gain the clearly outlined effects.

I'd say that you can use your rake attacks, but you don't have any so you can't use them.

[Keld Denar]

The effect doesn't necessarily increase your size.

Then what DOES it do? Your size can do one of 3 things. It can increase. It can decrease. It can stay the same. Thats it. There is no 4th option.

I cast Polymorph on myself. Did my size change? If so, did it increase or decrease. If it increased, its an effect that changes your size.

Don't get me wrong, I'm understanding what you are arguing. You are arguing that since the spell sets your size to a specific size, its not (newSize = oldSize +1). I'm saying that that doesn't matter. If the new size is an increase from the old size, its a size increase. Period. And size increases don't stack. Ever. Period. Its right there in the rules.


Multiple magical effects that increase size do not stack.


Multiple magical effects that increase size do not stack,.


Multiple effects that increase size do not stack, which means (among other things) that you can’t use a second manifestation of this power to further expand yourself.

Unless you have rules text that over-rules these clauses, you are without RAW to stand on.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Flavor only affects rules if we're dealing with a DM. There is no DM in this discussion, just numbers, which is what I've been saying from the beginning. It was no direct explanation of rules, so that sentence doesn't matter. Simple as that.

This is patently false though. D&D is not just a system of numbers. Fireball is a fireball. Flensing strips of a target's skin. Flavor is part of the rules. It's technically rule 0 to have a fireball that doesn't look like that described in the first sentence. Open up the Player's Handbook 2 for an example: let's take the spell Crown of Clarity.

It has a description in italics: that bit is flavor -- A crown of magical energy appears upon your head. For a moment, your vision blurs and a slight buzz fills your ears. These distractions pass, leaving you with sharpened senses.

Then the spell beging: "You create an arcane crown that grants..." Bright Worms, another spell from the same books, begins "You create a knot of living light with wormlike tendrils extending out from the mass..." Note that there is a flavor section before the rules text, and that line is not part of it. Ergo, it's rules, not flavor. There are numerous other examples from several sources, including the Tome of Battle. Spells just didn't have non-rules flavor until later in 3.5's lifespan.

Spells have specific effects, both numerical and flavor. Both are part of the rules, and I think that's been proven here.


Completely at an opponent's mercy. If you could still conjure fireballs, you're not at my mercy. To be at someone's mercy, you'd need to be unable to act.

So by your definition, you couldn't coup de grace a Psion who is tied up, or a Wizard who is tied up and has fireball prepared? Even then, you're apply non-RAW logic to the situation: per RAW, there is nothing about me being unable to take actions. Nothing at all.


What do you think this is? Theoretical Optimization, or something you would never even think about doing because of the absurdity, but is done to stretch the brain, or in this case, aliviate boredom from insomnia.

Not exactly. This is extended CharOp: proving system mastery by producing the biggest and best numbers. Theoretical Optimization is closer to pondering how something would work with a given interpretation...Pun-Pun, for example. It would never work 'cause nobody would let the rules work that way, but it technically could be valid. This experiment here blurs the lines between the two by assuming theoretical optimization practices work, and then applying them to a build. Not a BAD thing, but it makes it hard to figure out which part of it you want us to discuss.


It has to be part of the charge, or otherwise it doesn't have an action. Also, specific trumps unspecific. This is quite specific, you're quoting a general rule to beat it.

I'm quoting the specific rule for Charging...that's about as specific as you can get when talking about charging. Also, nothing means the two can't co-exist, as I've demonstrated...meaning neither trumps the other.

As for not having an action, there's nothing saying that can't be the case. It's a full-attack that occupies no action space...that's fine in D&D. You can add extra things all day if you have abilities that give them to you, and you don't need the actions to back them up if it doesn't say that it takes an action.


Explain "endless" theoretical discussion.

I mean that we can argue RAW all day long but, because RAW is poorly written and self-contradictory (and also because it creates situations that it can't then resolve), we'll end up locked up in a "You're wrong because X, I'm right because Y" debate forever, with no one able to prove to the other's satisfaction that things work the way we think they do. In short, your defenses of your assumptions and your denial that rules have any flavor at all is as tenuous as my position that the opposite is true.

Again, this is why largely accepted tricks are used for CharOp, and neither of the tricks that are being debated here (Psionic Pounce tricks and the Giant Size trick) have been demonstrated as commonly accepted, nor is any argument either in or against them a clear winner.

[Anarchy_Kanya]

The (full) attack is part of the charge. That's pretty clear to me.

[drakir_nosslin]

The (full) attack is part of the charge. That's pretty clear to me.

It would be nice to know why you think so, more voices in the discussion are fun, but this post doesn't really add anything.

[Nohwl]

there's actually a feat called spell thematics that lets you change some spells flavor effects to any theme you want, in addition to giving a few other benefits.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

there's actually a feat called spell thematics that lets you change some spells flavor effects to any theme you want, in addition to giving a few other benefits.

Which is another example that the base effects are, in fact, part of the rules.


The (full) attack is part of the charge. That's pretty clear to me.

"Pretty clear" =/= RAW. I would have said as much as well, but, upon reading the rules in more detail, I have to admit I can't say that I think that's the case by RAW.

[Anarchy_Kanya]

What is a charge? Simply a move and an attack. So the attack is part of the charge.
Pounce says that you can make a full attack after a charge. It replaces the single attack and is part of the charge.
As I said, pretty clear to me.

[drakir_nosslin]

What is a charge? Simply a move and an attack. So the attack is part of the charge.
Pounce says that you can make a full attack after a charge. It replaces the single attack and is part of the charge.
As I said, pretty clear to me.

Ah, but it doesn't say that:


You gain the powerful charging ability of a lion. When you charge, you can make a full attack in the same round.

The one attack you normally gain during a charge is part of the charge action, here you gain an extra full attack, but as written it is not part of a charge, it's only executed in the same round.

[JaronK]

What is a charge? Simply a move and an attack. So the attack is part of the charge.
Pounce says that you can make a full attack after a charge. It replaces the single attack and is part of the charge.
As I said, pretty clear to me.

Annoyingly, Pounce is actually written in different ways in different entries. Sometimes it lets you full attack after you do the charge attack, and sometimes it replaces the charge attack with a full attack.

Check around a bit for various sources of the ability... it's completely inconsistent. But most people play that you just get the one full attack.

JaronK

[Little Brother]

Nowhere does it say that you make it at the end of the charge. So it doesn't happen then, as Djinn has explained. What happens is that you are given the ability to do a full attack, which happens to be a full round action. So, in a sense you're given an extra full round action, but it's locked to a single purpose: attacking. You don't gain the 5-foot step since you've already moved this round.Your charge is a fullround action Full round actions take the entirety of your turn(except for actions that don't take time). Therefore, the full attack must be part of the charge, because it requires an action.


But you're not a colossal Red Dragon and you do increase in size. In fact, if we're using your definition of growth, you'd have to be huge, otherwise you'd 'grow' when using Giant Size (negative or positive).It would GROW in size, not increase. Increase is positive growth, decay is negative growth.


I'd say that you can use your rake attacks, but you don't have any so you can't use them.But if you gain the abilities of a charging lion, as Djinn said, you would gain the Pounce of a lion, including the rake.


Then what DOES it do? Your size can do one of 3 things. It can increase. It can decrease. It can stay the same. Thats it. There is no 4th option.

I cast Polymorph on myself. Did my size change? If so, did it increase or decrease. If it increased, its an effect that changes your size.

Don't get me wrong, I'm understanding what you are arguing. You are arguing that since the spell sets your size to a specific size, its not (newSize = oldSize +1). I'm saying that that doesn't matter. If the new size is an increase from the old size, its a size increase. Period. And size increases don't stack. Ever. Period. Its right there in the rules.

So, you're saying that if I expanded to Huge, Giant Sized, then Expanded again, I'd be larger, because I was, at that point, not under the affect of a size growth, since Giant Size kept me at the same size?

[quote]Unless you have rules text that over-rules these clauses, you are without RAW to stand on.See above.


This is patently false though. D&D is not just a system of numbers. Fireball is a fireball. Flensing strips of a target's skin. Flavor is part of the rules. It's technically rule 0 to have a fireball that doesn't look like that described in the first sentence. Open up the Player's Handbook 2 for an example: let's take the spell Crown of Clarity.

It has a description in italics: that bit is flavor -- A crown of magical energy appears upon your head. For a moment, your vision blurs and a slight buzz fills your ears. These distractions pass, leaving you with sharpened senses.

Then the spell beging: "You create an arcane crown that grants..." Bright Worms, another spell from the same books, begins "You create a knot of living light with wormlike tendrils extending out from the mass..." Note that there is a flavor section before the rules text, and that line is not part of it. Ergo, it's rules, not flavor. There are numerous other examples from several sources, including the Tome of Battle. Spells just didn't have non-rules flavor until later in 3.5's lifespan.Okay, so I'll gain the charging ability of a Paragon Draconic Pseudonatural(ELH one)*Insert 50 million other good templates* Lion, because I gain its charging abilities, I get to attack with that absurd strength I made. Okay, sounds fine.

That line has NO SPECIFIC RULES. It contains nothing but a brief semi-description that gives no rules. Therefore, it doesn't matter. Otherwise, you're saying that the little sentence that is vague and has no real meaning or crunch in it trumps the multi-sentence description? Or are you saying I get both the lion's pounce and the special full attack?

Spells have specific effects, both numerical and flavor. Both are part of the rules, and I think that's been proven here.No, it hasn't. A pink and purple polka-dotted magic missile is no different from one that looks like a giant dragon. NUMBERS. NUMBERS and SPECIFIC RULES are what matter. Not what some hack got when he decided to paint all the spells purple.

So by your definition, you couldn't coup de grace a Psion who is tied up, or a Wizard who is tied up and has fireball prepared? Even then, you're apply non-RAW logic to the situation: per RAW, there is nothing about me being unable to take actions. Nothing at all.If the Wizard has is hands tied, you could. If the Psion can fight back in some way, he is not helpless.


Not exactly. This is extended CharOp: proving system mastery by producing the biggest and best numbers. Theoretical Optimization is closer to pondering how something would work with a given interpretation...Pun-Pun, for example. It would never work 'cause nobody would let the rules work that way, but it technically could be valid. This experiment here blurs the lines between the two by assuming theoretical optimization practices work, and then applying them to a build. Not a BAD thing, but it makes it hard to figure out which part of it you want us to discuss.Why not both?


I'm quoting the specific rule for Charging...that's about as specific as you can get when talking about charging. Also, nothing means the two can't co-exist, as I've demonstrated...meaning neither trumps the other.A specific case trumps a general rule. If the core says you can't do something, then a spell or class feature says you can, you can. This is the same.


As for not having an action, there's nothing saying that can't be the case. It's a full-attack that occupies no action space...that's fine in D&D. You can add extra things all day if you have abilities that give them to you, and you don't need the actions to back them up if it doesn't say that it takes an action.EVERYTHING takes an action. EVERYTHING. It may be a free action, but that one isn't. It's a full-round action, and so would be part of the previous full-round action 'cuz it has nowhere else to be.


I mean that we can argue RAW all day long but, because RAW is poorly written and self-contradictory (and also because it creates situations that it can't then resolve), we'll end up locked up in a "You're wrong because X, I'm right because Y" debate forever, with no one able to prove to the other's satisfaction that things work the way we think they do. In short, your defenses of your assumptions and your denial that rules have any flavor at all is as tenuous as my position that the opposite is true.But you're effectively making up the main source of contradiction here. The speciific trumps the general, so even if the "you gain the charging abilities of a lion" mattered, they'd be trumped by the specifics.

Again, this is why largely accepted tricks are used for CharOp, and neither of the tricks that are being debated here (Psionic Pounce tricks and the Giant Size trick) have been demonstrated as commonly accepted, nor is any argument either in or against them a clear winner.


The (full) attack is part of the charge. That's pretty clear to me.


Ah, but it doesn't say that:



The one attack you normally gain during a charge is part of the charge action, here you gain an extra full attack, but as written it is not part of a charge, it's only executed in the same round.But it has to be an action, so it must be part of the Charge 'cuz it has nowhere else to be.


Annoyingly, Pounce is actually written in different ways in different entries. Sometimes it lets you full attack after you do the charge attack, and sometimes it replaces the charge attack with a full attack.

Check around a bit for various sources of the ability... it's completely inconsistent. But most people play that you just get the one full attack.

JaronKUh, the Lion Totem specifically references P 313 of the MM, I believe. It says
A creature with this special attack makes a charge, it can follow up with a full attack - including rake attacks if it has the rake ability.So, either the FA follows up the movement as the charge, or it follows up the attack from the charge with a full attack, which is still part of the charge at this point, so the point is moot.

[nedz]

MM2 and FF are silent on Pounce
MM3 and MM4 agree with MM word for word

[Keld Denar]

So, you're saying that if I expanded to Huge, Giant Sized, then Expanded again, I'd be larger, because I was, at that point, not under the affect of a size growth, since Giant Size kept me at the same size?

Nope. You'd be under the effects of 3 simultaneous effects which increase your size. You'd be under the effects of whichever one has the greatest effect (in this case, Giant Size) until its duration ran out, at which point you'd be under the effects of one of the Expansions, assuming they still have duration remaining.

Think of it like this. I cast Bull Str on myself. It increases my Str by +4. I then cast Divine Power. It increases my Str by +6, but its also an enhancement bonus. Then I cast Bull Str on myself again. I would have a total of +6 to my Str, since Divine Power has the greatest magnitude, and the others would overlap. Once Divine Power wore off, I would have a +4 to my Str, since the two Bull Strengths overlap, just the same as the two Expansion in your example would. They would continue on until both durations end, and even though I am affected by both, I'd only ever recieve the benefit of one.

You are trying to read too much into it. Its not complicated. I still haven't seen a rules citation that makes exception to the rules I cited. Until then, your build is invalid.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

But if you gain the abilities of a charging lion, as Djinn said, you would gain the Pounce of a lion, including the rake.

...

Okay, so I'll gain the charging ability of a Paragon Draconic Pseudonatural(ELH one)*Insert 50 million other good templates* Lion, because I gain its charging abilities, I get to attack with that absurd strength I made. Okay, sounds fine.

No. You don't gain his abilities that aren't the charging one. You gain only the one that deals with charging. That's Pounce. The others are things he has that MODIFY Pounce.


No, it hasn't. A pink and purple polka-dotted magic missile is no different from one that looks like a giant dragon. NUMBERS. NUMBERS and SPECIFIC RULES are what matter. Not what some hack got when he decided to paint all the spells purple.

There's a huge difference. A giant dragon spell has a multitude of uses that one that fires purple missiles doesn't: intimidation purposes being first and foremost. A fireball that is just a fireball is very different from one that drops a meteor on people, both in flavor an in mechanics (does the meteor vanish? Can it be used inside? And so forth...) And, as another poster mentioned, why would there be a specific feat that lets you change how your spells appear if the rules didn't already tell you?

D&D is NOT all about numbers. They're important, yes, but there are rules for things that aren't simply numerical rules.

Or do you have a more compelling explanation of why that "flavor" sentence is in the rules text, rather than the specific section devoted to flavor? 'cause I'm all ears.


If the Wizard has is hands tied, you could.

Silent spell. Still spell. Spells without somatic components.


If the Psion can fight back in some way, he is not helpless.

Incorrect, both in game and by RAW. Someone who is suitably tied up qualifies as helpless, even if they can still cast spells. You can't stop someone from taking actions: even someone paralyzed can take purely mental actions, but they ARE helpless. It says so in black in white: there's no way you could possibly argue otherwise RAW. "A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious..." "A paralyzed character is frozen in place and unable to move or act. A paralyzed character has effective Dexterity and Strength scores of 0 and is helpless, but can take purely mental actions."


EVERYTHING takes an action. EVERYTHING. It may be a free action, but that one isn't. It's a full-round action, and so would be part of the previous full-round action 'cuz it has nowhere else to be.


Time Stop doesn't give you extra actions...those actions you get occupy no actual time. The extra attack granted by Improved Trip doesn't take up an action slot. Deflecting an arrow with Deflect Arrow specifically says "doesn't count as an action."

Examples of active non-actions abound.

[georgie_leech]

Nope. You'd be under the effects of 3 simultaneous effects which increase your size. You'd be under the effects of whichever one has the greatest effect (in this case, Giant Size) until its duration ran out, at which point you'd be under the effects of one of the Expansions, assuming they still have duration remaining.

Think of it like this. I cast Bull Str on myself. It increases my Str by +4. I then cast Divine Power. It increases my Str by +6, but its also an enhancement bonus. Then I cast Bull Str on myself again. I would have a total of +6 to my Str, since Divine Power has the greatest magnitude, and the others would overlap. Once Divine Power wore off, I would have a +4 to my Str, since the two Bull Strengths overlap, just the same as the two Expansion in your example would. They would continue on until both durations end, and even though I am affected by both, I'd only ever recieve the benefit of one.

You are trying to read too much into it. Its not complicated. I still haven't seen a rules citation that makes exception to the rules I cited. Until then, your build is invalid.

His argument is that Giant Size doesn't add a modifier, but sets it to a given size. Like if there was a hypothetical spell that set your strength to 20, you could conceivably enhance it with Bull's Strength.

That said, I'm with your logic on this one.

[Keld Denar]

Yea, I understand her logic. I'm just saying that it isn't supported by the rules.

[Little Brother]

Look, Djinn, you appear to be talking about how it interacts in a game. For this, I do not care. The only thing that matters to this is numbers. Therefore, there is no difference between a pink kitty magic missile and a dragon magic missile, and there is no difference between "Gaining the powers of a lion" and "Growing bunny ears and large incisors." Both have no mechanical effect on the power, so it doesn't matter.

Being dead or not has nothing to do with this. I really don't feel like continuing on that front.


Yea, I understand her logic. I'm just saying that it isn't supported by the rules.It is. If I expand to huge, then I cast Giant Size I become huge. My size has not increased. Therefore, I can dismiss the Expansion and do it again, or just do it again, as the better one will apply, anyways. RAW: At that point, Giant Size did not increase my size in any way.

[Hirax]

Or common sense, in particular giant size shrinking a colossal red dragon, because that then makes it a spell that decreases size, which would counter and dispel or be countered and dispelled by size increasing spells of a higher level.

Giant size is by no means useless as pointed out though, even though it doesn't increase your size, it still does increase your strength. The best option for hulking yourself out is still polymorphing into a sun giant for 37 strength, then casting giant size not just to be colossal (woot overlap) if you can get the CL, but the +32 strength, for a 'base' strength of 69.

[Ozymandias]

Look, Djinn, you appear to be talking about how it interacts in a game. For this, I do not care. The only thing that matters to this is numbers. Therefore, there is no difference between a pink kitty magic missile and a dragon magic missile, and there is no difference between "Gaining the powers of a lion" and "Growing bunny ears and large incisors." Both have no mechanical effect on the power, so it doesn't matter.

That's a false dichotomy. The "flavor" elements (which are RAW) can have numerical consequences (and vice-versa). In this case, they directly affect the bottom line because they determine the legality of repeatedly pouncing. It's nonsensical to reject certain rules because they "don't matter," especially since you are doing other things (for example, using feats to qualify for PrCs) that aren't "numerical."

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Look, Djinn, you appear to be talking about how it interacts in a game. For this, I do not care. The only thing that matters to this is numbers. Therefore, there is no difference between a pink kitty magic missile and a dragon magic missile, and there is no difference between "Gaining the powers of a lion" and "Growing bunny ears and large incisors." Both have no mechanical effect on the power, so it doesn't matter.


But for the purposes of this debate, it does matter. The Lion has a charging ability: Pounce. So it's imminently important whether you gain that ability (and the rest of the spell explains what it does) or whether you gain a different ability.

Further, since new printing take precedence, I've found one ability that grants what we want for the second part of the discussion: proof one way or another on how the full attack interacts with a charge.

From the Tome of Battle maneuver Pouncing Charge: "Instead of making a single attack at the end of your charge, you can make a full attack." This substitution is incredibly specific on what it replaces, and this means one of two things: either retcon all other pounce abilities to say that, or abilities that don't specifically mention replacing the attack instead grant other attacks that are not directly related to the charge.

It's a pretty clear either-or situation.


Being dead or not has nothing to do with this. I really don't feel like continuing on that front.

Fully agreed. That said, it is an interesting trick. :smalltongue:

[JaronK]

Further, since new printing take precedence,

Sadly, this isn't true. D&D priority says that MM1 or PHB would take precedence. They are the primary sources. There is no "new printing takes precedence" rule, even if perhaps there should be.


From the Tome of Battle maneuver Pouncing Charge: "Instead of making a single attack at the end of your charge, you can make a full attack." This substitution is incredibly specific on what it replaces, and this means one of two things: either retcon all other pounce abilities to say that, or abilities that don't specifically mention replacing the attack instead grant other attacks that are not directly related to the charge.

It's a pretty clear either-or situation.

But that's just one ability, and it's not pounce. It's Pouncing Charge, which doesn't say it counts as Pounce, so it's rather useless here. You'll need to look at the rules for Pounce, and they are different in various places (in some it's clearly 1 normal charge attack, then a full attack, while in others you replace your charge attack with a full attack). It seems there was no designer consensus on what Pounce was actually supposed to do.

But you're still charging through the end of the round, because the -2 to AC still applies.

JaronK

[Keld Denar]

It is. If I expand to huge, then I cast Giant Size I become huge. My size has not increased. Therefore, I can dismiss the Expansion and do it again, or just do it again, as the better one will apply, anyways. RAW: At that point, Giant Size did not increase my size in any way.

Just because Giant Size didn't increase your size when you cast it, doesn't mean it stops being a magical effect that increases your size. It would overlap with Expansion while both are running. If you dismissed Expansion, you would still be huge, because you are under the effects of another effect that increases your size. If you remanifest Expansion, you'll again be subject to two affects that increase your size, and only the one with the highest magnitude would have any effect. The 2nd manifestation of Expansion would overlap with the Giant Size, just as the first did.

Basically, its all about your base size. Contrast your change in size due to an effect. If that size is larger than your base size, you are under the effects of an ability that changes your size. It has bearing on other effects that you may be under.

Consider casting Bull Str on a person, and then having that person put on a Belt of Giant Str +4. They overlap. Then take he belt off. Then put it back on. Then take it off. Then put it back on. Then cast Bull Str again. Then take the belt off. Then put it back on. It doesn't matter. Order doesn't matter. Your Str will only be +4 from your base Str (barring other modifiers). Thats because Enhancement bonuses don't stack. Size increases don't stack either, because of the rules I cited. You still haven't cited anything to prove otherwise.

[Little Brother]

Just because Giant Size didn't increase your size when you cast it, doesn't mean it stops being a magical effect that increases your size. It would overlap with Expansion while both are running. If you dismissed Expansion, you would still be huge, because you are under the effects of another effect that increases your size. If you remanifest Expansion, you'll again be subject to two affects that increase your size, and only the one with the highest magnitude would have any effect. The 2nd manifestation of Expansion would overlap with the Giant Size, just as the first did.But the Giant Size never affected your size, so there was no increase, so no effect increasing it, therefore there's nothing to not stack with.

Either way, the main purpose was for the STR boost, anyways.

Basically, its all about your base size. Contrast your change in size due to an effect. If that size is larger than your base size, you are under the effects of an ability that changes your size. It has bearing on other effects that you may be under.See above. It says it doesn't stack with an effect that increased your size. This one never did, so there's no reason to not stack.

Consider casting Bull Str on a person, and then having that person put on a Belt of Giant Str +4. They overlap. Then take he belt off. Then put it back on. Then take it off. Then put it back on. Then cast Bull Str again. Then take the belt off. Then put it back on. It doesn't matter. Order doesn't matter. Your Str will only be +4 from your base Str (barring other modifiers). Thats because Enhancement bonuses don't stack. Size increases don't stack either, because of the rules I cited. You still haven't cited anything to prove otherwise.But that's an enhancement bonus. This is more like getting a +skill competence bonus ring and a luck ring, them not stacking.

[Flickerdart]

See above. It says it doesn't stack with an effect that increased your size.
Despite not increasing your size, it is still an effect that increases size, and doesn't stack with other such effects.

[prufock]

It says it doesn't stack with another effect that increases your size. If you're already huge, a flat "You're Huge" mean's there's no change, thus nothing is there to stack.
"When you cast this spell, you grow to Huge, Gargantuan, or Colossal size."
How do you "grow to Huge" if you are already huge?

[Little Brother]

Despite not increasing your size, it is still an effect that increases size, and doesn't stack with other such effectsFor values of increasing approaching decreasing if you're gargantuan/colossal? It doesn't increase, it sets it. Important difference. I'd make an analogy with Nomi and semi-nomi monsters, but nobody here would get i, I think

"When you cast this spell, you grow to Huge, Gargantuan, or Colossal size."
How do you "grow to Huge" if you are already huge?You don't. Which is why I am saying it cannot be a growth effect.

[No brains]

Doesn't the WarHulking Hurler deal damage that needs to be measured in scientific notation? Thrown weapons can be used in melee. Just splat that mountain range on someone next to you.

[Anarchy_Kanya]

You don't. Which is why I am saying it cannot be a growth effect.
Er... you do realize that if you don't actually grow in size then the spell does nothing, right? You have to grow in size to get it's benefit.

[drakir_nosslin]

Your charge is a fullround action Full round actions take the entirety of your turn(except for actions that don't take time). Therefore, the full attack must be part of the charge, because it requires an action.

No, read the description again:
You gain the powerful charging ability of a lion. When you charge, you can make a full attack in the same round.

Notice the "can make a full attack". It specifically says that you can make another full attack, but it doesn't say that you do it during the charge, only in the same round. So yes, you do get more attacks. No, they don't happen when you charge. You could do them before or after, but not during.



It would GROW in size, not increase. Increase is positive growth, decay is negative growth.

No, just as with growth increase can be both positive and negative if you want to use math language (They are two different things). If you don't want to use math language grow is positive and synonymous with increase. While D&D normally not uses math language, in this case it doesn't matter, casting Giant Growth causes your size to increase either positive or negative. And now that I think about it you can have a 0 increase or growth as well in math, so it wouldn't matter what size you were, it would still count as an increase.



But if you gain the abilities of a charging lion, as Djinn said, you would gain the Pounce of a lion, including the rake.


You get the possibility to make a rake attack, yes, but you don't have any. Notice how the lion got a separate entry for its rake attacks? That's because nowhere in the charge does it say that the charge gives you the rakes, only that you can make two rake attacks. Important distinction.

[Tael]

I may have missed something during my skimming, but the wording of PLC says:

You gain the powerful charging ability of a lion
Nice bit of flavor text here, but confers nothing but the intent of the designer. Has no standing in a RAW debate since it does not deal with any defined game mechanics.


When you charge, you can make a full attack in the same round

It does not give you extra actions in which to make a Full Attack, it removes restrictions that would prevent you from Full-Attacking.

Since a Full Attack is it's own separate action that requires the user to use a full-round action, by RAW it seems like the spell does absolutely nothing.

Also, I am confused about the Giant Size issue. She isn't trying to become more than huge, is she trying to gain the strength increases more than once? Because that clear falls under the Same Effect rule, regardless of your size.

[prufock]

For values of increasing approaching decreasing if you're gargantuan/colossal? It doesn't increase, it sets it. Important difference. I'd make an analogy with Nomi and semi-nomi monsters, but nobody here would get i, I think
You don't. Which is why I am saying it cannot be a growth effect.

Then I'm missing the point of casting it at all.