Why the Omnificer doesn't actually work. [Archive]

Tyndmyr

2012-05-30, 12:42 PM

Firstly, a link to it (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19868070/LoPs_Omniscificer&post_num=4). Variant builds have been made.

1. First, it requires DM permission custom magic item creation. This is questionable at best, and may not be permitted, especially in such an abusable form. This is stretching RAW at best.

2. You say, fine, Tyndmyr...we'll add some levels, ignore the silly mitigation, and the same thing works, yes? Well, his plan relies on convincing four people of some notable level(whom he also forgot to pay) to cooperate, and take infinite amounts of damage for him. Also, they kind of have to be willing for share pain. Some serious bluff or diplomacy might be in order.

3. You all say fine, and pay the skill points, and add some more levels/skill op. What now, you say? Well, the infinite damage combo DOES work. You all do take infinite damage. Fun times. The problem is after that. Yes, Delay Death does prevent death. However, delay death does NOT prevent unconsciousness, nor does it ever actually prevent damage. So, your HP value goes to -infinity. The part of the combo relied upon to keep you moving? Beastland Ferocity (http://therafimrpg.wikidot.com/beastland-ferocity). Look at the bit where it says "while disabled or dying". Disabled is 0. Dying is -1 to -9. Note that -infinity is not in that range. The Omnificer lies face down in the dirt until spells start expiring. Then he explodes.

4. There is no DC for omniscience. You can make any listed DC, true(if you weren't already dead), but there is no guarantee that anything is possible. For instance, there may not be a knowledge check for "how to make 2+2=purple", because that may literally not be possible. Well, outside of the far realms, anyway.

5. Knowledge is not power. I can know that god whatshisface is vulnerable to a cleverly timed sequence of gate spells ten minutes from now, but if I'm face down at the bottom of a cliff as a level 4 elf, I probably can't do jack about that.

6. Also, the "Perform(God-attracting haiku)" is quite obviously not a real skill. In fact, attracting gods with a skill check is not something listed for any skill. The 100% certain item of communication with the gods sounds awesome, but I don't actually know of any item that can guarantee that on anything like a reasonable wealth budget. Of course, being unconscious, bleeding into the muck is also a problem for performing skill checks.

7. Drown healing doesn't actually work. This isn't a core-only rules trick, so you don't get to ignore non-core rules. Stormwrack is the primary source on water rules, and has rather complete rules for drowning. The crappy DMG rules are not relevant once you allow splatbooks into the picture. Even if he were awake, the Omnificer has no way to ever recover from his infinite damage. Hence the explosion once delay death runs out.

So, the Omnificer is just another mad elf with delusions of grandeur who got himself and his hirelings killed. The moral of this story is...don't be a hireling. The End.

Spuddles

2012-05-30, 12:50 PM

Look up the DCs for perform checks in the PHB.

Demons_eye

2012-05-30, 12:52 PM

4. There is no DC for omniscience. You can make any listed DC, true(if you weren't already dead), but there is no guarantee that anything is possible. For instance, there may not be a knowledge check for "how to make 2+2=purple", because that may literally not be possible. Well, outside of the far realms, anyway.

There is a DC for every monster and person. For every +5 you beat the DC you know more about them. So you know everything about everyone.

5. Knowledge is not power. I can know that god whatshisface is vulnerable to a cleverly timed sequence of gate spells ten minutes from now, but if I'm face down at the bottom of a cliff as a level 4 elf, I probably can't do jack about that.

True but you also know where every godslaying weapon is or, because you know what every spell does, the best way to level to the point where you can kill anything. But why would you want to kill gods anyway?

6. Also, the "Perform(God-attracting haiku)" is quite obviously not a real skill. In fact, attracting gods with a skill check is not something listed for any skill. The 100% certain item of communication with the gods sounds awesome, but I don't actually know of any item that can guarantee that on anything like a reasonable wealth budget. Of course, being unconscious, bleeding into the muck is also a problem for performing skill checks.

IIRC its in the jester class preform DC's lit. DC 40 is attracting gods I think.

Fable Wright

2012-05-30, 01:02 PM

While drowning doesn't work, there are some spells that bring your hit points to set numbers. Crisis of Breath at caster level 5 will only bring you to -5, but sets your HP to 0 after 1 failed save. From there, you can explicitely be healed normally. So, just one more magic item to add on.

Also, the relevant Beastlands Ferocity text is "Can fight without penalty while disabled or dying." As in, while at -infinity hit points. You won't get bonus Strength, though.

Morph Bark

2012-05-30, 01:27 PM

Also, the relevant Beastlands Ferocity text is "Can fight without penalty while disabled or dying." As in, while at -infinity hit points. You won't get bonus Strength, though.

The point here is that Tyndmyr argues that -10 or lower (further into the negatives) hit points is no longer "disabled". However, under that argument, if someone drops to -11 hit points, they aren't dead, since death requires -10 hit points.

Tyndmyr

2012-05-30, 01:33 PM

There is a DC for every monster and person. For every +5 you beat the DC you know more about them. So you know everything about everyone.

Technically, you know an infinite number of things about each person you make a check on. There may, technically, be an infinite number of "useful bits of information", depending on campaign worlds(infinite history, for instance), and not all infinities are equal.

That said, you do know rather a lot about anything you make a check on. However, while "in most cases a knowledge check doesn't take an action" is very different from no actions. Infinite knowledge checks would take an infinite amount of time. Unfortunately, your buffs are finite.

And there's still the problem of not being conscious for any of this.

True but you also know where every godslaying weapon is or, because you know what every spell does, the best way to level to the point where you can kill anything. But why would you want to kill gods anyway?

Don't know, but it points out the distinction between unlimited knowledge and unlimited power. Knowledge is great, yeah, but not always enough. The god thing is an example, and the original also relied heavily on gods for examples of it's strengths.

IIRC its in the jester class preform DC's lit. DC 40 is attracting gods I think.

Where's that from? I'm fairly confident that isn't in any first party official books.

While drowning doesn't work, there are some spells that bring your hit points to set numbers. Crisis of Breath at caster level 5 will only bring you to -5, but sets your HP to 0 after 1 failed save. From there, you can explicitely be healed normally. So, just one more magic item to add on.

Contingent rez will also fix things, or would the amulet of second chances...but unless you're actually down infinite hit points, you don't get the +infinity to heal checks. Also, added items means a higher level to combo even if you fix the broken parts.

Also, the relevant Beastlands Ferocity text is "Can fight without penalty while disabled or dying." As in, while at -infinity hit points. You won't get bonus Strength, though.

Look at the SRD Condition Summary (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm):

Disabled

A character with 0 hit points, or one who has negative hit points but has become stable and conscious, is disabled. A disabled character may take a single move action or standard action each round (but not both, nor can she take full-round actions). She moves at half speed. Taking move actions doesn’t risk further injury, but performing any standard action (or any other action the game master deems strenuous, including some free actions such as casting a quickened spell) deals 1 point of damage after the completion of the act. Unless the action increased the disabled character’s hit points, she is now in negative hit points and dying.

A disabled character with negative hit points recovers hit points naturally if she is being helped. Otherwise, each day she has a 10% chance to start recovering hit points naturally (starting with that day); otherwise, she loses 1 hit point. Once an unaided character starts recovering hit points naturally, she is no longer in danger of losing hit points (even if her current hit points are negative).

Dying

A dying character is unconscious and near death. She has -1 to -9 current hit points. A dying character can take no actions and is unconscious. At the end of each round (starting with the round in which the character dropped below 0 hit points), the character rolls d% to see whether she becomes stable. She has a 10% chance to become stable. If she does not, she loses 1 hit point. If a dying character reaches -10 hit points, she is dead.

It's quite clear that someone who leaps off a cliff and takes -infinity hp is in neither of those states....(or rather, passes through those states very quickly). You won't actually die from this until the buff expires, but it's rather less useful.

Fable Wright

2012-05-30, 01:33 PM

The point here is that Tyndmyr argues that -10 or lower (further into the negatives) hit points is no longer "disabled". However, under that argument, if someone drops to -11 hit points, they aren't dead, since death requires -10 hit points.

...If they aren't disabled, though, they'd act without penalty... RAW abuse! Have someone hit you to -11 HP, then laugh as you becomes immune to damage! :smalltongue:

Morph Bark

2012-05-30, 01:35 PM

...If they aren't disabled, though, they'd act without penalty... RAW abuse! Have someone hit you to -11 HP, then laugh as you becomes immune to damage!

You'd have to become immune to nonlethal damage though. And you BETTER not have regeneration or fast healing!

Tyndmyr

2012-05-30, 01:39 PM

...If they aren't disabled, though, they'd act without penalty... RAW abuse! Have someone hit you to -11 HP, then laugh as you becomes immune to damage!

Being "immune to damage" is not actually a property of being at a state of low hp. It's the result of the Delay Death being active. You can laugh all you want, till that gets dispelled.

Note that statuses last exactly as long as they say they do. True, if you take a hit that drops you from healthy to -a bunch, you are no longer in say, the disabled state. You may have briefly flashed through it on your way through, but it's no longer relevant. You would normally be in the "dead" state, save for delay death.

However, you don't actually lose effects unless it's fairly explicit. So, unconscious, or dazed, or whatever, last until they are fixed by some other effect, since their conditions do not have an explicit end point.

VGLordR2

2012-05-30, 01:41 PM

That said, you do know rather a lot about anything you make a check on. However, while "in most cases a knowledge check doesn't take an action" is very different from no actions. Infinite knowledge checks would take an infinite amount of time. Unfortunately, your buffs are finite.

Action

Usually none. In most cases, making a Knowledge check doesn’t take an action—you simply know the answer or you don’t.
Knowledge checks are made to see if you know something or not. They are not for recalling the information. For example, does it take you any action or thought to know that you have a nose?

BlueEyes

2012-05-30, 01:43 PM

If a dying character reaches -10 hit points, she is dead.
It says "reaches", not "is". If a character is -10, he's dead. If he's -11, he's still dead, he reached (and surpassed) -10.

Fable Wright

2012-05-30, 01:49 PM

Uh, Tyndmyr, Disabled requires two conditions: Conscious and at or below 0 HP. Delay Death means you are conscious, -infinite HP is below 0. You are disabled, according to RAW. Your DM might rule otherwise, but if you bring DMs into this, this exercise becomes pointless. Negative infinite HP is disabled, because there are no rules stating what happens at less than -10.

Tyndmyr

2012-05-30, 02:01 PM

Knowledge checks are made to see if you know something or not. They are not for recalling the information. For example, does it take you any action or thought to know that you have a nose?

Look at what you quoted. It says "in most cases", not "in all cases". There is a significant difference there, especially when you're dealing in infinities.

An infinite number of checks, some of which take a period of time, will take an infinite amount of time.

It says "reaches", not "is". If a character is -10, he's dead. If he's -11, he's still dead, he reached (and surpassed) -10.

Correct. That's the difference. The others have distinct ranges, while death does not. -a billion is still dead.

Uh, Tyndmyr, Disabled requires two conditions: Conscious and at or below 0 HP. Delay Death means you are conscious, -infinite HP is below 0. You are disabled, according to RAW. Your DM might rule otherwise, but if you bring DMs into this, this exercise becomes pointless. Negative infinite HP is disabled, because there are no rules stating what happens at less than -10.

Negative. Read Delay Death (http://dndtools.eu/spells/races-of-destiny--81/delay-death--3048/) carefully. It does not provide consciousness. Therefore, you will not qualify for disabled, save for while at 0 hp for an infinitely short length of time.

Note that leaping off the cliff and dealing infinite damage to yourself is also the sort of thing that might trigger the "damage to creatures body still results in death" clause. That's not a clearly defined area, but you're really, really pushing the limits of what even the most fair and accepting GM is willing to consider as causing extensive damage to the body. I would argue that if anything would damage your body, infinite damage would. If this triggers, you just die instantly, and the unconscious bit ceases to be a concern.

VGLordR2

2012-05-30, 02:14 PM

Look at what you quoted. It says "in most cases", not "in all cases". There is a significant difference there, especially when you're dealing in infinities.

No information is given on the alternative to "no action". If it's not "no action" then what is it? And when would this "not no action" be applied? Looking at the information we have, every Knowledge check will default to "no action", as no alternative is given.

Also, by the definition of "most", the amount need only be greater than any alternative. Imagine an election. The person to receive the most votes wins. But what if that person is voted for unanimously? By your logic, he would not have "most" of the votes, because "most" is not "all of the votes". Therefore, the election would end in a tie. Most refers to the greatest single group, regardless of whether or not an alternative exists.

Tyndmyr

2012-05-30, 02:55 PM

No information is given on the alternative to "no action". If it's not "no action" then what is it? And when would this "not no action" be applied? Looking at the information we have, every Knowledge check will default to "no action", as no alternative is given.

That is incorrect. The obvious alternative to "no action" is "action(s)". IE, some length of time. It does not matter how frequent they are, or how long the duration is. So long as any percentage of them take any length of time, infinite checks take infinite time.

Your options are defined in the general skill rules as follows: "Using a skill might take a round, take no time, or take several rounds or even longer."

There is only one "take no time" option, which is described as no action later. They're the same. The other alternatives are all things with a duration of time.

Also, by the definition of "most", the amount need only be greater than any alternative. Imagine an election. The person to receive the most votes wins. But what if that person is voted for unanimously? By your logic, he would not have "most" of the votes, because "most" is not "all of the votes". Therefore, the election would end in a tie. Most refers to the greatest single group, regardless of whether or not an alternative exists.

If "most" meant "all" in this case, it would have been more logical and parsimonious to just write all.

It's quite obvious that it does not mean "all", and assuming that it MUST mean all is extremely illogical. Yet, without that assumption, omnificer fails.

Fable Wright

2012-05-30, 03:03 PM

Kaje

2012-05-30, 03:04 PM

Where's that from? I'm fairly confident that isn't in any first party official books.
Jester is from Dragon Magazine Compendium.

And congratulations, you discovered that TO builds don't stand up to DM fiat.

Gandariel

2012-05-30, 03:08 PM

You, man, have some problems with infinite quantities.
Infinite actions DO NOT necessarily take infinite time.

Imagine i'm running a 1-meter race. Yes, they exist! don't you watch the Olympics?

I can mentally divide that meter in 10 pieces, each 10 centimeters long.
Each piece takes, obviously, 1/10 the time it takes to run the whole thing.
Also, those 10 centimeter spaces can be divided each in 10 shorter pieces, and so on.
A meter can be divided in infinite pieces (each of whose take ~zero time).
BUT
The infinite amount of "pieces", despite being infinite, IS included in a finite space (one meter), and i CAN run through them all easily.
There you go, infinite actions in a finite time.

Tyndmyr

2012-05-30, 03:08 PM

Fable Wright

2012-05-30, 03:43 PM

Not, no penalties, sir. You still have whatever penalties you incurred along the way. Every status effect stays until fixed unless it has a condition under which it stops. It so happens that both disabled and dying have conditions under which they stop.

Unconscious does not. That's a notable difference.

Unconscious
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.

It does have conditions that stop it. Unless you want to argue that healing you above 0 HP doesn't revive you to consciousness, and that Unconscious is therefore a permanent condition, Unconsciousness ceases to affect you after -9 HP.

Tyndmyr

2012-05-30, 03:48 PM

It does have conditions that stop it. Unless you want to argue that healing you above 0 HP doesn't revive you to consciousness, and that Unconscious is therefore a permanent condition, Unconsciousness ceases to affect you after -9 HP.

Can result.

Firstly, it shows us that this is not the only way to become unconscious.

Secondly, it CREATES the status effect. It does not end it. Healing to 0+ fixes conscious because being at 0 hp fulfills the requirements of disabled, which results in becoming conscious. This is explicit in the text of the disabled status.

Morph Bark

2012-05-30, 03:49 PM

The problem here is that one of your arguments, Tyndmyr, relies on "dying" meaning "between -1 and -9 hit points" rather than "negative hit points and not stabilized" while at the same time relying on "death" NOT meaning "having been reduced to -10 hit points, 0 Con or hit by a successful death effect".

RAW clearly says the following

From: d20SRD.com (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm)

Dead
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.

If a character's hit points are reduced to -11 or further into the negatives, without first being reduced to -10, then they aren't dead by RAW. Sure, they'll have to find a way to become immune to instant-death spells and Con damage and drain, but otherwise, they aren't dead.

Fable Wright

2012-05-30, 04:01 PM

Can result.

Firstly, it shows us that this is not the only way to become unconscious.

Secondly, it CREATES the status effect. It does not end it. Healing to 0+ fixes conscious because being at 0 hp fulfills the requirements of disabled, which results in becoming conscious. This is explicit in the text of the disabled status.

[Citation Needed]

Disabled
A character with 0 hit points, or one who has negative hit points but has become stable and conscious, is disabled. A disabled character may take a single move action or standard action each round (but not both, nor can she take full-round actions). She moves at half speed. Taking move actions doesn’t risk further injury, but performing any standard action (or any other action the game master deems strenuous, including some free actions such as casting a quickened spell) deals 1 point of damage after the completion of the act. Unless the action increased the disabled character’s hit points, she is now in negative hit points and dying.

A disabled character with negative hit points recovers hit points naturally if she is being helped. Otherwise, each day she has a 10% chance to start recovering hit points naturally (starting with that day); otherwise, she loses 1 hit point. Once an unaided character starts recovering hit points naturally, she is no longer in danger of losing hit points (even if her current hit points are negative).

Show me here where it says you become conscious when you become disabled, please. Or, say, in dying:

Dying
A dying character is unconscious and near death. She has -1 to -9 current hit points. A dying character can take no actions and is unconscious. At the end of each round (starting with the round in which the character dropped below 0 hit points), the character rolls d% to see whether she becomes stable. She has a 10% chance to become stable. If she does not, she loses 1 hit point. If a dying character reaches -10 hit points, she is dead.

Show me here where it says that a character becomes conscious after regaining hit points.

Tyndmyr

2012-05-30, 04:02 PM

candycorn

2012-05-30, 04:25 PM

That is incorrect. The obvious alternative to "no action" is "action(s)". IE, some length of time. It does not matter how frequent they are, or how long the duration is. So long as any percentage of them take any length of time, infinite checks take infinite time. Incorrect, for a reason you yourself stated.

Not all infinities are equal.

Let's say there are infinite knowledge checks. Let's say that 75% of them require no action, and 25% of them require an action of some type.

How many require no action? Infinite
How many require an action of some type? Infinite

Therefore, using this as a guideline, one can make the first set of infinite checks, taking no action as all. Just not the second.

Further, you're a big proponent of using the strictest reading of knowledge checks, favoring barring anything without a listed DC and result. Apply the same to actions. Let's interpret "Usually none. In most cases, making a Knowledge check doesn’t take an action—you simply know the answer or you don’t" as, "default is no action required. Exceptions will be noted as such".

Every usage of the knowledge skill with a DC listed does not note an exception. That's left to DM adjudication, and we can't really bring that in here.

While it's reasonable to require a person using a library, or referencing a tome, to spend time to get that circumstance bonus, that is the exception, not the rule.

If you are using knowledge to determine whether or not your character inherently knows something, it falls under "doesn't take an action—you simply know the answer or you don’t". Since the Omnificer's schtick is pretty much solely in that camp, then justify a demonstrated percentage greater than 0% for determining whether or not a character knows information (i.e. a listed entry of a knowledge check for this purpose requiring an action). Else, the "most" refers to "all RAW listed uses", and the rest is "DM purview", which is outside of the scope of this discussion.

Morph Bark

2012-05-30, 04:46 PM

I'm not relying on that definition of death at all. death is utterly irrelevant if you cannot act. Delay death avoids the death while it's up, yes. Delay death also clearly specifies that if it ends, and you're below -10, you die instantly.

So, no, I don't care what the definition of death says. It triggers.

My point is, by RAW, Delay Death isn't even needed, since you bypass death. Since you allowed for some slight modification of the original way to make the Omnificer work (like investing in Bluff and Diplomacy and being higher level to get the right items, rather than custom items), I figured the simple ommission of Delay Death would be no problem. This makes point 3 a nonissue.

Point 4 and 6 stand pretty clear to me, at least 6. Point 4 relies a little on DM rulings on what action the Knowledge checks would take, if not a nonaction. Point 7 is a valid point, though I cannot check Stormwrack myself ATM, but it could be argued that Stormwrack simply might not be available, whilst the other necessary books are.

Point 5, IMO, is erroneous. Not in the sense of it being wrong that Knowledge isn't Power, I agree with that, but in the apparent assumption that Knowledge cannot LEAD to Power, such as the Power to kill a god. It can, it just doesn't mean the Omnificer is currently able to do it, at least by himself. Then again, the Omnificer is primarily aimed at becoming omniscient.

Fable Wright

2012-05-30, 04:53 PM

My point is, by RAW, Delay Death isn't even needed, since you bypass death.

By RAW, no one ever needs Delay Death. The Dead condition doesn't actually prevent you from taking any actions. While dying you can take no actions, yes, while Dead doesn't stop you from doing anything.

Taking a less extreme viewpoint, BlueEyes does have a point about reaching -10. The infinite damage loop does take out past -10, meaning that you reached -10 HP at some point doing it, and you're dead. You don't just skip to -infinity.

BlueEyes

2012-05-30, 05:24 PM

The rules kinda say that unless the rules say otherwise, you use RL physics/common sense/whatever. Which could mean that they didn't say "When you're dead you can't take actions and stuff", because that goes under RL stuff. They stated up effects like being dazed, stunned or unconscious, because those could have any mechanical implications, but dead is simple - you are dead and can't do anything.

Tyndmyr

2012-05-30, 09:34 PM

Alright. First, the exception to the usually no action Knowledge checks is Research, as outlined in Expedition to the Demonweb Pits, and possibly other sources. Second, Tyndmyr, by your interpretation, a character suffers no penalties for being below -10. If they are not suffering from a condition, as in, not disabled, they by RAW suffer no penalty for being below -10, barring hoiserules. So, Beastland Ferocity is no longer needed for the combo. It works without it.

They continue suffering from all penalties accrued to that point. Dead is unfortunately vague on it's own status, true, but it does not fix previous statuses.

Jester is from Dragon Magazine Compendium.

Indeed it is. Unfortunately, all of it's abilities are specifically tied to Jester level and ranks in a specific skill(ie, Perform(Comedy)), not DC. Therefore, it offers you fairly little in terms of skill checks, and nothing you can't get without the Omnificer combo.

[Citation Needed]...Show me here where it says you become conscious when you become disabled, please. Or, say, in dying:

Certainly. " A disabled character may take a single move action or standard action each round"

Taking actions is in-congruent with being unconscious and thus helpless. The general condition rules say that if rules cannot be combined, to apply the more severe effect. It is unfortunately unclear about which effect is more severe between unconsciousness and disabled, but I could certainly see a case for either side. However, it's pretty clear that they considered consciousness in the disabled rules, and did not include it in the 0 hp clause. Therefore, being at 0 hp would seem to cure consciousness.

Yes, I'm aware that this RAW is dumb when an unconscious person gets knocked down to 0 hp. RAW is dumb a lot.

That said, there seems to be a reasonable expectation that the usual implications of English words still apply to conditions...IE, the reasonable conclusion is that dead would in fact make you unable of acting. We can't entirely dispense with normal definitions in RAW, since they're sort of written in normal language undefined in the rules themselves.

Incorrect, for a reason you yourself stated.

Not all infinities are equal.

Let's say there are infinite knowledge checks. Let's say that 75% of them require no action, and 25% of them require an action of some type.

How many require no action? Infinite
How many require an action of some type? Infinite

Therefore, using this as a guideline, one can make the first set of infinite checks, taking no action as all. Just not the second.

This is correct, and yes, this does mean the omnicificer, if everything else works, does in fact know an infinitely large set of data. That is, however, different from knowing ALL data, which is a larger, infinite set. Thus, while wise, he is not truly omniscient.

Further, you're a big proponent of using the strictest reading of knowledge checks, favoring barring anything without a listed DC and result. Apply the same to actions. Let's interpret "Usually none. In most cases, making a Knowledge check doesn’t take an action—you simply know the answer or you don’t" as, "default is no action required. Exceptions will be noted as such".

You followed up "strict RAW" with "interpret". That's a pretty favorable interpretation to you, and one I don't think can be assumed. It's certainly possible, but it's not the only possibility. Regardless, it is RAW that with infinitely large knowledge modifiers, you will know MOST of the knowledge out there. This is somewhat less certain, and not up to the original advertised standards, but still useful.

I'm surprised nobody has tried to come up with immunity to unconciousness yet. I can't think of a way off the top of my head that'd conducive to this trick, but it would neatly bypass the entire issue AND make the one buff avoidable.

My point is, by RAW, Delay Death isn't even needed, since you bypass death. Since you allowed for some slight modification of the original way to make the Omnificer work (like investing in Bluff and Diplomacy and being higher level to get the right items, rather than custom items), I figured the simple ommission of Delay Death would be no problem. This makes point 3 a nonissue.

Well, disapproving of minor fixes would ruin all the fun, wouldn't it? It's much more challenging to chew on the entire idea, rather than just that specific half finished build.

Point 4 and 6 stand pretty clear to me, at least 6. Point 4 relies a little on DM rulings on what action the Knowledge checks would take, if not a nonaction.

I can't say how many knowledge checks would end up taking actions, or even what sort of actions or how many they'd take. But the options specified in the standard skill actions list are move, standard, and 1+ rounds. So, any of those brings us into finite time for some questions.

Point 7 is a valid point, though I cannot check Stormwrack myself ATM, but it could be argued that Stormwrack simply might not be available, whilst the other necessary books are.

Possible...though TO exercises usually assume availability of all books(unless it's marked as core only). However, this does bring up other complications. First, we have the updated drowning rules in Rules Compendium as well. So, you also need this book to be unavailable, and the wide assortment of other books needed for the combo to be available. This is a fairly specific set of circumstances.

Secondly, and more amusingly, in core, it is not possible to STOP drowning. So, if we're going by strict RAW, drown healing doesn't quite work as desirably as you'd think. It's actually kind of silly.

Point 5, IMO, is erroneous. Not in the sense of it being wrong that Knowledge isn't Power, I agree with that, but in the apparent assumption that Knowledge cannot LEAD to Power, such as the Power to kill a god. It can, it just doesn't mean the Omnificer is currently able to do it, at least by himself. Then again, the Omnificer is primarily aimed at becoming omniscient.

Oh, I don't deny that it CAN lead to power. It's just not guaranteed to.

By RAW, no one ever needs Delay Death. The Dead condition doesn't actually prevent you from taking any actions. While dying you can take no actions, yes, while Dead doesn't stop you from doing anything.

Taking a less extreme viewpoint, BlueEyes does have a point about reaching -10. The infinite damage loop does take out past -10, meaning that you reached -10 HP at some point doing it, and you're dead. You don't just skip to -infinity.

While the bit about the Dead condition being undefined is correct...if it works that way, it works that way for everyone. So, everything keeps taking actions forever, regardless of dying. This is a....very strange world. While perhaps amusing to consider or explore the repercussions of, we can easily see that this is not correct, because this leads to a path that is wildly inconsistent with basically everything else in D&D.

Incidentally, if it was literally infinite damage at once(or any number >50), that'd trigger a massive damage check by RAW. And since you take damage an infinite number of times, that's a problem. Now, sure, I hate massive damage rules too, but when you're doing abusing RAW, the sword of RAW cuts both ways.

However, damage is shown as continuous. All examples point to falling and taking > hp+10 dmg as resulting in death. So, the continuous model for modeling hp is the only result to take from RAW without introducing wild amounts of contradiction. Thus, on your way to -infinity, you pass through the intermediate states along the way.

The note about general rules being in play wherever specific rules don't cover something is also important. It's RAW, technically, even if it's not always easy to ajudicate. However, we shouldn't ignore it when it is, and it's pretty obvious what dead means in the real world with regards to taking actions.

Spuddles

2012-05-31, 01:45 AM

An infinite number of checks, some of which take a period of time, will take an infinite amount of time.

Assuming an infinitely even spread of checks. There are an infinite number of numbers between zero and infinite, but only a finite number of numbers that are 13 (there is precisely one 13).

Killer Angel

2012-05-31, 02:26 AM

I would point out something different than Tyndimyr's point.

While drowning doesn't work, there are some spells that bring your hit points to set numbers. Crisis of Breath at caster level 5 will only bring you to -5, but sets your HP to 0 after 1 failed save. From there, you can explicitely be healed normally. So, just one more magic item to add on.

Contingent rez will also fix things, or would the amulet of second chances...but unless you're actually down infinite hit points, you don't get the +infinity to heal checks.

Adding items, or adding ranks in bluff / diplomacy, and keeping in mind the cost of hirelings' services, undermines the point of the original Ominifiscer, which was "be quick and beat PunPun".
(The fact that PunPun now can ascend even before than its first appearance, doesn't help neither).

Rejusu

2012-05-31, 06:06 AM

1. Bringing what a DM would/wouldn't allow into TO discussions is pointless. TO is about what's in the rules, because no sane DM would ever allow these characters.

2. Your assumption here is that the hirelings are in the loop. Which is of course not necessary in the slightest. All that's needed is you request the aid of three people and promise they'll be paid for it. All they need to do is wear a few things and activate them when you tell them to. They might question it, but unlike your assertion that it'd require serious bluffing/diplomacy it would only require a simple bluff. And I doubt these hirelings have particularly good sense motive scores. Even if they do and you fail then you find some other chumps to help you. Again there's no need to tell them what's going on. So this is a bit of a weak argument on your part.

3. Wrong. The whole disabled/dying/dead thing is a state system. When you drop to 0 you enter the disabled state, when you drop to -1 you enter the dying state, when you hit -10 you reach the dead state. Delay death however prevents you entering the dead state, HOWEVER this does not mean you leave the dying state. Dying is not explicitly -1 to -9, it's just that under normal circumstances anything less than -9 would cause you to enter the dead state.

Note the wording from delay death:
The spell does not prevent the subject from entering the dying state by dropping to -1 hit points.

Nothing causes you to leave the dying state when you hit -10 or below except that you'd normally enter the dead state. If you are prevented from entering the dead state (through delay death) then by extension you are prevented from leaving the dying state when you hit -10.

Also note that Beastland Ferocity only specifies -1 to -9 when referring to the enhancement bonus to strength. The actual ruling that states you can fight without penalty while disabled or dying. It's restricted by the state you're in, not your actual HP.

As far as unconsciousness is concerned that's prevented by the wording of Beastland ferocity:
The subject becomes such a tenacious combatant that it continues to fight without penalty even while disabled or dying.

4. Your argument about the whole infinite knowledge taking infinite time is self-defeating. The wording you're trying to use to suggest it would take an infinite amount of time not only also suggests it wouldn't take any time at all but actually presents this as the rule rather than the exception. Also note that the wording your using to support your argument refers to "actions", it doesn't refer to a specific kind of action. So even if you want to argue that in some cases it takes an action you'd have to then argue that the type of action isn't say a free action.

7. This doesn't make it not work, it's just a flaw with the suggested reset mechanism. As suggested there are other reset mechanisms. Not to mention that although you say the buffs are finite there's nothing to stop them being refreshed before their duration expires.

Considering how much these builds have been picked apart do you really think you're going to find some crippling flaw that prevents them from ever functioning at this point?

Tyndmyr

2012-05-31, 07:39 AM

Adding items, or adding ranks in bluff / diplomacy, and keeping in mind the cost of hirelings' services, undermines the point of the original Ominifiscer, which was "be quick and beat PunPun".
(The fact that PunPun now can ascend even before than its first appearance, doesn't help neither).

This is actually the reason I mentioned increasing level a few times...the less accessible it is made, the less useful it is at performing it's originally stated task.

1. Bringing what a DM would/wouldn't allow into TO discussions is pointless. TO is about what's in the rules, because no sane DM would ever allow these characters.

Correct. Which is why the original chars reliance on DM-approval only items is suspect. You don't rely on DM approval in a TO build.

2. Your assumption here is that the hirelings are in the loop. Which is of course not necessary in the slightest. All that's needed is you request the aid of three people and promise they'll be paid for it. All they need to do is wear a few things and activate them when you tell them to. They might question it, but unlike your assertion that it'd require serious bluffing/diplomacy it would only require a simple bluff. And I doubt these hirelings have particularly good sense motive scores. Even if they do and you fail then you find some other chumps to help you. Again there's no need to tell them what's going on. So this is a bit of a weak argument on your part.

Well, he needs people with some level of skill, so he's looking for at least experts. They'll also need to be at least level two. Expert can train sense motive since it picks it's own class skills. I would presume that it is generally undesirable to have it learned that you're hiring a bunch of people to kill themselves. It introduces reasonable risk of failure into the plan. TO builds should strive toward reliability, not "well, this might work, if the DM loves you".

Now, you can mitigate this risk of failure by pumping diplomacy and/or bluff to levels where they won't reasonably be expected to pass(about +25). This is by no means impossible, but it is a notable flaw in the original build.

3. Wrong. The whole disabled/dying/dead thing is a state system. When you drop to 0 you enter the disabled state, when you drop to -1 you enter the dying state, when you hit -10 you reach the dead state. Delay death however prevents you entering the dead state, HOWEVER this does not mean you leave the dying state. Dying is not explicitly -1 to -9, it's just that under normal circumstances anything less than -9 would cause you to enter the dead state.

Citation please. The SRD, the DMG, and the Rules Compendium all state dying as explicitly -1 to -9.

Your assumptions are quite reasonable for actual play, but RAW is sometimes ridiculous.

Note the wording from delay death:
The spell does not prevent the subject from entering the dying state by dropping to -1 hit points.

Absolutely correct.

Nothing causes you to leave the dying state when you hit -10 or below except that you'd normally enter the dead state. If you are prevented from entering the dead state (through delay death) then by extension you are prevented from leaving the dying state when you hit -10.

Conditions are not strict states. For instance, you can explicitly have multiple conditions at once. Some conditions do conflict with other conditions yes, but there is no statement that you invariably end up "dying" if below -10.

As far as unconsciousness is concerned that's prevented by the wording of Beastland ferocity:
The subject becomes such a tenacious combatant that it continues to fight without penalty even while disabled or dying.

But it ceases to protect you once the "dying" status no longer applies. Works as on the tin until below -9, though.

4. Your argument about the whole infinite knowledge taking infinite time is self-defeating. The wording you're trying to use to suggest it would take an infinite amount of time not only also suggests it wouldn't take any time at all but actually presents this as the rule rather than the exception. Also note that the wording your using to support your argument refers to "actions", it doesn't refer to a specific kind of action. So even if you want to argue that in some cases it takes an action you'd have to then argue that the type of action isn't say a free action.

It's all rule. You can't take just part of it, even if it is the more commonly used part.

The Omnificer, if he avoids unconsciousness, will be able to make a great many skill checks, yes. However, he will not be able to make ALL possible knowledge checks, and therefore cannot be assumed to know everything. He'll be very knowledgeable, yes. But not omniscient, as advertised.

The "free action" is not listed as a valid option for a skill check to take in the general skills section. Therefore, it can be ruled out. It's either no action, a move action, a standard action, or 1+ rounds. All of those take real time but no action.

7. This doesn't make it not work, it's just a flaw with the suggested reset mechanism. As suggested there are other reset mechanisms. Not to mention that although you say the buffs are finite there's nothing to stop them being refreshed before their duration expires.

Yes. However, it takes substantially more resources for him to ensure that these buffs are up constantly than it does to buy the listed resources.

Considering how much these builds have been picked apart do you really think you're going to find some crippling flaw that prevents them from ever functioning at this point?

Drown healing is commonly accepted as working, despite very obviously not. I suspect that my TO-fu is stronger than most. Or, more likely, I'm just very pedantic and go check each individual source, while most people just say "yeah,that sounds about right". It's really amazing how often you see poor optimizing advice that fails to work when you check the sources, because lots of people repeat specific combos they've heard of without checking things, and those combos eventually get re-purposed. Soon, you've got someone comboing together fifteen things he never read, and probably doesn't even know the sources of.

ahenobarbi

2012-05-31, 08:48 AM

So you say
@ -1 to -9 HP creature is dying
But when it gets below it is no longer dying. So the character becomes conscious again. Because reason of unconsciousness (dying state) was removed.

Tyndmyr

2012-05-31, 08:52 AM

So you say
@ -1 to -9 HP creature is dying
But when it gets below it is no longer dying. So the character becomes conscious again. Because reason of unconsciousness (dying state) was removed.

Nah. Unconsciousness is a separate state, and one that does not apply only to dying.

So, it remains, as effects normally do unless they have a specific condition that limits them.

Morph Bark

2012-05-31, 08:55 AM

Correct. Which is why the original chars reliance on DM-approval only items is suspect. You don't rely on DM approval in a TO build.

Doesn't Pun-Pun also require DM approval? Among the greatest of which, approval to turn into a S... something. The yuan-ti-like kobolds from a specific part of the Forgotten Realms. If those don't exist, the kobold cannot turn into one of them.

The nonexistence/nonpossibility of Pun-Pun would thus also remove the purpose of the Omnificer. :smalltongue:

So you say
@ -1 to -9 HP creature is dying
But when it gets below it is no longer dying. So the character becomes conscious again. Because reason of unconsciousness (dying state) was removed.

This point was brought up before. :smallwink:

Specifically though, if you bypass dying by going instantly to -11 or more, you effectively become immune to lethal damage while still being conscious.

Studoku

2012-05-31, 08:59 AM

Nah. Unconsciousness is a separate state, and one that does not apply only to dying.

So, it remains, as effects normally do unless they have a specific condition that limits them.
So in a normal situation, a character drops to -4 hp for some reason. He then receives a heal spell. He is now no longer dying, but is still unconscious? :smallconfused:

If the omnicifier is no longer dying when below -9, why is he still unconscious? Yes, it's a different condition but the only thing causing it was the dying state.

Tyndmyr

2012-05-31, 09:14 AM

Doesn't Pun-Pun also require DM approval? Among the greatest of which, approval to turn into a S... something. The yuan-ti-like kobolds from a specific part of the Forgotten Realms. If those don't exist, the kobold cannot turn into one of them.

A Sarruk, yes. If you're playing in FR, they're a thing. If not, it's entirely DM approval, since they're not assumed to be in non-FR games. So, strictly speaking, you only get pun-pun in faerun by TO. This is actually an objection to pun-pun I've brought up before.

Another objection I've brought up with the level 1 pun-pun is that Pazuzu does not always use a wish to grant the petitioner's desires. So, there's a RAW possibility of failure. It could work, yes, but it's not guaranteed to work. That said, the level 6 build sidesteps this concern.

So in a normal situation, a character drops to -4 hp for some reason. He then receives a heal spell. He is now no longer dying, but is still unconscious? :smallconfused:

As you add the hp back, your hp spool back up through disabled and then, out of disabled. The disabled status effect is incompatible with unconscious, and thus, per condition confliction rules, you apply only the one condition, disabled.

I admit, the conditions could have been written more clearly, but you do have a removal of unconsciousness when healed to 0+ hp.

If the omnicifier is no longer dying when below -9, why is he still unconscious? Yes, it's a different condition but the only thing causing it was the dying state.

It caused it. It does not remove it.

Edit: You can see precedence for this in the fear rules. You can make someone shaken, then make someone frightened due to the existing shaken effect, and the effects are cumulative. If you then opt to dispel the shaken effect, the frightened effect is not removed or changed.

Interestingly enough, the wording of death with regarding conditions can actually remove several of them, such as blown away.

So, cleverly worded contingencies could remove the condition of say, being blown away, by killing you and rezzing you. That said, this is purely for entertainment value, as there's far easier ways to avoid it.

Fable Wright

2012-05-31, 09:18 AM

So in a normal situation, a character drops to -4 hp for some reason. He then receives a heal spell. He is now no longer dying, but is still unconscious? :smallconfused:

If the omnicifier is no longer dying when below -9, why is he still unconscious? Yes, it's a different condition but the only thing causing it was the dying state.

I believe that his reason was that Disabled explicitely allows you to take actions, so removes Unconscious. Which is wrong, because by that logic, if a character was stunned and became nauseated, they would suddenly be able to move again, even if the Stun's duration wasn't over yet.

Tyndmyr

2012-05-31, 09:21 AM

I believe that his reason was that Disabled explicitely allows you to take actions, so removes Unconscious. Which is wrong, because by that logic, if a character was stunned and became nauseated, they would suddenly be able to move again, even if the Stun's duration wasn't over yet.

Deconfliction rules say to use whichever is more severe. I can argue that stunning is a worse condition than nauseated quite easily, and thus, takes priority.

I can also argue that Disabled is worse than Unconscious, since it actually has the potential to kick you over to dying, a situation that normally risks death. And certainly, we can agree that death is probably the worst condition, and would usually override all others.

Now, it would have helped if a more explicit priority list were given for conditions, but I think my evaluation of seriousness is not unreasonable.

ahenobarbi

2012-05-31, 09:30 AM

This point was brought up before. :smallwink:

Ah right. After I re-read PHb I understand how Tyndmyr argues.

Well it doesn't really matter, does it? You do not loose consciousness when dying (-1 to -9) thanks to beastland ferocity and you don't loose consciousness @-10 and below because it's not dying state.

Specifically though, if you bypass dying by going instantly to -11 or more, you effectively become immune to lethal damage while still being conscious.

:smallredface:

Tyndmyr

2012-05-31, 09:44 AM

Ah right. After I re-read PHb I understand how Tyndmyr argues.

Well it doesn't really matter, does it? You do not loose consciousness when dying (-1 to -9) thanks to beastland ferocity and you don't loose consciousness @-10 and below because it's not dying state.

:smallredface:

Strictly speaking, it says you "fight without penalty". I would agree that the unconsciousness is something that would be reasonably construed to be a penalty, and thus, you do not suffer the effect of it until you go below -9.

It does not grant immunity to anything.

And, if you wanted to be particularly pedantic, you could argue that the fact that the Omnificer isn't fighting anything means the spell does nothing. I'm not going to go that far, but I will state that Beastland Ferocity is not something that would appear to say, cure level drain, or ability score damage, or anything else. It doesn't make conditions go away, you just get to temporarily ignore their negative effects. I mean, it obviously doesn't remove disabled or dying, does it?

ahenobarbi

2012-05-31, 09:56 AM

Strictly speaking, it says you "fight without penalty". I would agree that the unconsciousness is something that would be reasonably construed to be a penalty, and thus, you do not suffer the effect of it until you go below -9.

It does not grant immunity to anything.

And, if you wanted to be particularly pedantic, you could argue that the fact that the Omnificer isn't fighting anything means the spell does nothing. I'm not going to go that far, but I will state that Beastland Ferocity is not something that would appear to say, cure level drain, or ability score damage, or anything else. It doesn't make conditions go away, you just get to temporarily ignore their negative effects. I mean, it obviously doesn't remove disabled or dying, does it?

Well. This makes things a bit more complicated but you could just become conscious @-9 HP and get infinite damage after that.

Tyndmyr

2012-05-31, 10:01 AM

Well. This makes things a bit more complicated but you could just become conscious @-9 HP and get infinite damage after that.

Correct. I mentioned earlier that some method of becoming immune to unconsciousness would fix things. One hasn't been brought up yet...but 3.5 is big. One might be out there.

Answerer

2012-05-31, 10:05 AM

Just another hireling with a readied action to cast something that wakes you up? You don't need immunity if the you're no longer in the Disabled state, you just need recovery.

That is, of course, if we buy this "Disabled is from -1 to -9 only" and "Disabled causes unconsciousness but the unconsciousness is not removed when you are no longer disabled," neither of which I agree with. On the former, I'd argue that specific trumps general (the specific here being Delay Death – don't bother telling me that it doesn't specifically state that it changes the parameters of Disabled, I don't really care, because I think it's inane to argue that it doesn't) and on the latter, simply on the basis that I don't see any justification for that position at all.

Tyndmyr

2012-05-31, 10:13 AM

Just another hireling with a readied action to cast something that wakes you up? You don't need immunity if the you're no longer in the Disabled state, you just need recovery.

This is correct. The question is then, what spell is this? As long as it doesn't reset your hp total and it solves unconsciousness, it should work.

That is, of course, if we buy this "Disabled is from -1 to -9 only" and "Disabled causes unconsciousness but the unconsciousness is not removed when you are no longer disabled," neither of which I agree with. On the former, I'd argue that specific trumps general (the specific here being Delay Death – don't bother telling me that it doesn't specifically state that it changes the parameters of Disabled, I don't really care, because I think it's inane to argue that it doesn't) and on the latter, simply on the basis that I don't see any justification for that position at all.

Can't argue that Specific Trumps General without having something specific.

Answerer

2012-05-31, 10:16 AM

I can and have; deal with it. I recognize what you're saying, and I don't have anything specific to point out other than I do not think you're making a fair interpretation of the rules.

Then again, I suppose it's no less absurd than the healing-by-drowning that is frequently used to get the Omnificer out of that position anyway.

Tyndmyr

2012-05-31, 10:18 AM

I can and have; deal with it. I recognize what you're saying, and I don't have anything specific to point out other than I do not think you're making a fair interpretation of the rules.

It's not about interpretation, it's about RAW.

If we're talking about RAI, well then, it's not much of a conversation. The Omnificer was pretty clearly not intended. But that's a boring solution, and doesn't let us examine the craziness of TO interactions.

Then again, I suppose it's no less absurd than the healing-by-drowning that is frequently used to get the Omnificer out of that position anyway.

Oh, it's highly absurd. But then, RAW often is.

Fable Wright

2012-05-31, 10:20 AM

Strictly speaking, it says you "fight without penalty". I would agree that the unconsciousness is something that would be reasonably construed to be a penalty, and thus, you do not suffer the effect of it until you go below -9.

Now, this makes no sense. If you don't suffer from the unconscious period, then after you go through dying without it, you suddenly obtain the unconscious condition and keep it because it didn't have a condition which ended it? Also, is Unconscious not a more serious condition than Disabled? If it is, by your logic, your agrument of Disabled removing Unconsciousness does not apply.

Tyndmyr

2012-05-31, 10:42 AM

Now, this makes no sense. If you don't suffer from the unconscious period, then after you go through dying without it, you suddenly obtain the unconscious condition and keep it because it didn't have a condition which ended it?

Correct. Beastland Ferocity does not remove conditions(and indeed, requires certain conditions for certain effects). However, it does let you ignore penalties when certain conditions are met.

Ignoring penalties and removing the causing condition are distinctly different.

Also, is Unconscious not a more serious condition than Disabled? If it is, by your logic, your agrument of Disabled removing Unconsciousness does not apply.

There is, sadly, not a clear priority list for conditions. That said, being unconscious, all by itself, does not usually cause death. Disabled can cause dying, which can cause death.

Therefore, I see death as the worst, dying as the second worst(it has unconscious AND can bleed you to death, clearly worse than just unconscious), and disabled as the third worst.

Since there is not an explicit ordering here, you are free to lay out a justification of why a different ordering would be more reasonable, though.

Xodion

2012-05-31, 10:48 AM

This is a fascinating thread, but there is one thing mentioned earlier that could settle this bit of the argument, at least - according to the SRD unconsciousness happens if you have -1 to -9 hitpoints OR if your current hitpoints are lower than your current nonlethal damage. If your nonlethal damage is at 0, then any negative number of hitpoints results in you being unconscious, right?

Fable Wright

2012-05-31, 11:05 AM

Correct. Beastland Ferocity does not remove conditions(and indeed, requires certain conditions for certain effects). However, it does let you ignore penalties when certain conditions are met.

Ignoring penalties and removing the causing condition are distinctly different.

There is, sadly, not a clear priority list for conditions. That said, being unconscious, all by itself, does not usually cause death. Disabled can cause dying, which can cause death.

Therefore, I see death as the worst, dying as the second worst(it has unconscious AND can bleed you to death, clearly worse than just unconscious), and disabled as the third worst.

Since there is not an explicit ordering here, you are free to lay out a justification of why a different ordering would be more reasonable, though.
Unconscious means you are helpless. That is, Coup de Grace or worse bait. Also, Beastland Ferocity explicitely does not remove unconsciousness. However, you do not suffer from Unconsciousness while the effect is up. So, you do not get Unconscious from the dying condition, and so you remain conscious while below -10. If unconsciousness is an effect of dying, then when you are no longer unconscious when you are no longer dying.

This is a fascinating thread, but there is one thing mentioned earlier that could settle this bit of the argument, at least - according to the SRD unconsciousness happens if you have -1 to -9 hitpoints OR if your current hitpoints are lower than your current nonlethal damage. If your nonlethal damage is at 0, then any negative number of hitpoints results in you being unconscious, right?
Nonlethal damage N/A is different than 0. RAW also disagrees in that people can act at 0 HP.

Tyndmyr

2012-05-31, 11:21 AM

Unconscious means you are helpless. That is, Coup de Grace or worse bait. Also, Beastland Ferocity explicitely does not remove unconsciousness. However, you do not suffer from Unconsciousness while the effect is up. So, you do not get Unconscious from the dying condition, and so you remain conscious while below -10. If unconsciousness is an effect of dying, then when you are no longer unconscious when you are no longer dying.

There is a difference between "not suffering the effects" and "not receiving the condition". If you are immune to damage, attempts to damage you do not work. If you are merely immune to the effects of damage for a duration....you still take the damage, you just don't die until after the duration.

Same principle as what Delay Death itself relies on.

And unconsciousness, while it is triggered by dying, is distinct from it(you can be unconscious without dying, yes?). So removing the "dying" condition is not guaranteed to remove the unconscious condition.

This is actually made explicit in the stable condition, which mentions that while it removes the dying condition, it does not remove the unconscious condition.

Nonlethal damage N/A is different than 0. RAW also disagrees in that people can act at 0 HP.

I haven't fully looked at the implications of non-lethal damage being comboed in here, I'm afraid. This may bear some analysis.

Edit: Addtionally, for those who quibbled with my condition based description of "healed to 0 = conscious", there's also this line from the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/injuryandDeath.htm): Healing that raises the dying character’s hit points to 0 makes him conscious and disabled.

So, we actually have RAW that entirely confirms the consciousness thing.

Xodion

2012-05-31, 11:22 AM

Nonlethal damage N/A is different than 0. RAW also disagrees in that people can act at 0 HP.

This is how I would see it using common sense, yes. Just another thing to be misinterpreted though. Also, at equal HP and nonlethal damage you would be staggered, which is identical to disabled - you don't fall unconscious until your nonlethal is above your current HP, so RAW doesn't help clear it up.

VGLordR2

2012-05-31, 11:26 AM

7. Drown healing doesn't actually work. This isn't a core-only rules trick, so you don't get to ignore non-core rules. Stormwrack is the primary source on water rules, and has rather complete rules for drowning. The crappy DMG rules are not relevant once you allow splatbooks into the picture. Even if he were awake, the Omnificer has no way to ever recover from his infinite damage. Hence the explosion once delay death runs out.

So, I took a look at the drowning rules on page 11 of Stormwrack. These "rather complete" rules specifically reference the drowning rules in the DMG. Therefore, your primary source for water rules does nothing to contradict the cruddy DMG rules.

Tyndmyr

2012-05-31, 11:29 AM

So, I took a look at the drowning rules on page 11 of Stormwrack. These "rather complete" rules specifically reference the drowning rules in the DMG. Therefore, your primary source for water rules does nothing to contradict the cruddy DMG rules.

Stormwrack's not with me at the moment, but even supposing that DMG rules are all we have...

How do you intend to stop drowning before the round 3 death kicks in?

Morph Bark

2012-05-31, 11:41 AM

Correct. I mentioned earlier that some method of becoming immune to unconsciousness would fix things. One hasn't been brought up yet...but 3.5 is big. One might be out there.

I figure constructs and undead are immune to unconsciousness. I don't think there are a whole lot of ways to make someone unconscious, other than through making them dying (which undead and constructs never become due to being destroyed or becoming inert) or dealing a lot of nonlethal damage (which those creature types are immune to), other than maybe some spells or effects that target Fort saves (which they are immune to).

If there are saveless or Will-targeting spells or effects that cause unconsciousness though, those'd still work, maybe.

Tyndmyr

2012-05-31, 11:48 AM

I figure constructs and undead are immune to unconsciousness. I don't think there are a whole lot of ways to make someone unconscious, other than through making them dying (which undead and constructs never become due to being destroyed or becoming inert) or dealing a lot of nonlethal damage (which those creature types are immune to), other than maybe some spells or effects that target Fort saves (which they are immune to).

If there are saveless or Will-targeting spells or effects that cause unconsciousness though, those'd still work, maybe.

I would agree with that interpretation, but yeah, the "death at 0 hp" might be a problem. Living Constructs(ie, warforged) any help there?

Fable Wright

2012-05-31, 11:49 AM

There is a difference between "not suffering the effects" and "not receiving the condition". If you are immune to damage, attempts to damage you do not work. If you are merely immune to the effects of damage for a duration....you still take the damage, you just don't die until after the duration.

Same principle as what Delay Death itself relies on.

And unconsciousness, while it is triggered by dying, is distinct from it(you can be unconscious without dying, yes?). So removing the "dying" condition is not guaranteed to remove the unconscious condition.

No. This does not work.

According to your argument:
1. Unconsciousness is a state separate from Dying. When you become Dying, you become afflicted with the Unconsciousness condition.
2. When you are immune to the effects of Dying, you become immune to the effects of the unconsciousness triggered by Dying.

This is where I am confused. The first part of your argument states that Unconsciousness is a completely separate condition from Dying. Dying triggers that condition, which affects you, and does not necessarily go away when Dying does. However, the second part of the argument contradicts this, stating that Unconsciousness is actually a part of Dying. I could see the argument that Beastland Ferocity prevents Dying triggering Unconsciousness. However, the problem occurs when you stop Dying and are below -10. Unconsciousness is no longer trying to happen, since you are no longer Dying. However, you state that you would instead be unconscious. If we look at this with logic, it would be: if condition == dying: character = unconscious. When you suppress the effects of Dying, as in, you suffer no penalties from being Dying, nothing happens. You are treated as if you aren't Dying. However, when you cease Dying, you can no longer trigger unconsciousness from Dying. You bypassed this step altogether. If your condition was Dying, and treated as such, you would be Unconscious, which is not suppressed by Beastland Ferocity. I really don't understand your argument here.

Tyndmyr

2012-05-31, 12:00 PM

No. This does not work.

According to your argument:
1. Unconsciousness is a state separate from Dying. When you become Dying, you become afflicted with the Unconsciousness condition.
2. When you are immune to the effects of Dying, you become immune to the effects of the unconsciousness triggered by Dying.

This is where I am confused. The first part of your argument states that Unconsciousness is a completely separate condition from Dying. Dying triggers that condition, which affects you, and does not necessarily go away when Dying does. However, the second part of the argument contradicts this, stating that Unconsciousness is actually a part of Dying. I could see the argument that Beastland Ferocity prevents Dying triggering Unconsciousness. However, the problem occurs when you stop Dying and are below -10. Unconsciousness is no longer trying to happen, since you are no longer Dying. However, you state that you would instead be unconscious. If we look at this with logic, it would be: if condition == dying: character = unconscious. When you suppress the effects of Dying, as in, you suffer no penalties from being Dying, nothing happens. You are treated as if you aren't Dying. However, when you cease Dying, you can no longer trigger unconsciousness from Dying. You bypassed this step altogether. If your condition was Dying, and treated as such, you would be Unconscious, which is not suppressed by Beastland Ferocity. I really don't understand your argument here.

Read Beastland Ferocity carefully. You do not suffer the penalties. That does not remove conditions. In fact, you need to be suffering conditions for it to matter.

Leaving the dying state does not cure unconsciousness. Look at the stable condition. It removes the dying state, but does NOT cure the unconsciousness. Ergo, unconsciousness caused by "dying" persists after dying ends.

VGLordR2

2012-05-31, 12:39 PM

Just take two flaws and go for Endurance and Diehard. You never reach the Dying condition; you skip over it, as you automatically become Stable if you so choose.

Togo

2012-05-31, 01:12 PM

Considering how much these builds have been picked apart do you really think you're going to find some crippling flaw that prevents them from ever functioning at this point?

You serious? Finding flaws is these builds is easy, which is why these kinds of threads are so popular. I mean, there are still people out there using Ice Assasin to clone gods...

This discussion seems a good one, and I'm impressed at the levels of thought being put in.

Fable Wright

2012-05-31, 01:15 PM

Read Beastland Ferocity carefully. You do not suffer the penalties. That does not remove conditions. In fact, you need to be suffering conditions for it to matter.

Leaving the dying state does not cure unconsciousness. Look at the stable condition. It removes the dying state, but does NOT cure the unconsciousness. Ergo, unconsciousness caused by "dying" persists after dying ends.

That doesn't solve my problem. Unconscious is a condition. You claim that Unconscious is a penalty for Dying, as well. It cannot be both. Pick one and stick with it. Whichever one it is, Beastland Ferocity bypasses the effect. Either you never enter unconsciousness, or unconsciousness goes away when you stop Dying.

olentu

2012-05-31, 01:51 PM

By the way, I was wondering where the rules say to apply damage in one HP increments or whatever, so that you are required to move through all intermediate values. It is a rather important point and I seem to have missed where that was all ironed out.

Tyndmyr

2012-05-31, 03:02 PM

Just take two flaws and go for Endurance and Diehard. You never reach the Dying condition; you skip over it, as you automatically become Stable if you so choose.

This is an excellent point, this allows you to always pick Disabled(which you ignore the downside of), and which does not make you unconscious.

The only possible concern is if the "you die" effect in it trumps Delay Death, which might well be the case, given the "death" clause in it. However, it does show an airtight way to avoid the "Dying" status effect.

That doesn't solve my problem. Unconscious is a condition. You claim that Unconscious is a penalty for Dying, as well. It cannot be both. Pick one and stick with it. Whichever one it is, Beastland Ferocity bypasses the effect. Either you never enter unconsciousness, or unconsciousness goes away when you stop Dying.

I said it was a condition that was applied by the dying condition.

The Unconscious condition itself has the penalty of being helpless. You gleefully ignore that penalty until you sink to -10.

Glad you're enjoying the discussion, Togo, =)

By the way, I was wondering where the rules say to apply damage in one HP increments or whatever, so that you are required to move through all intermediate values. It is a rather important point and I seem to have missed where that was all ironed out.

The rules are not, in fact, particularly clear on this point. However, there are a number of examples, and it is relatively clear that say, taking twenty damage dropping you straight to -12 does not avoid the condition of dead.

So, for the rules as written to make any sense at all, we must assume that HP is continuous.

olentu

2012-05-31, 03:19 PM

The rules are not, in fact, particularly clear on this point. However, there are a number of examples, and it is relatively clear that say, taking twenty damage dropping you straight to -12 does not avoid the condition of dead.

So, for the rules as written to make any sense at all, we must assume that HP is continuous.

Er the reason why you don't avoid the condition of dead is because the rules say "When your character’s current hit points drop to –10 or lower, or if he takes massive damage (see above), he’s dead." It is the "or lower" that keeps you from avoiding death when going directly to -12.

Tyndmyr

2012-05-31, 03:31 PM

Er the reason why you don't avoid the condition of dead is because the rules say "When your character’s current hit points drop to –10 or lower, or if he takes massive damage (see above), he’s dead." It is the "or lower" that keeps you from avoiding death when going directly to -12.

Can you give me a link/quote? I couldn't find such a phrase in rules compendium last night, and the SRD condition for dead doesn't mention it.

olentu

2012-05-31, 03:40 PM

Can you give me a link/quote? I couldn't find such a phrase in rules compendium last night, and the SRD condition for dead doesn't mention it.

PHB 145 or under injury and death in the combat section in the SRD.

Actually now that I think about it the injury and death section might be where HP interaction is ironed out but I haven't read through that section in detail in a while (just picked out the quote) so I can't say. Ah well if nothing definite turns up I may have to review later.

Tyndmyr

2012-05-31, 03:42 PM

PHB 145 or under injury and death in the combat section in the SRD.

Actually now that I think about it the injury and death section might be where HP interaction is ironed out but I haven't read through that section in detail in a while (just picked out the quote) so I can't say. Ah well if nothing definite turns up I may have to review later.

Nifty, Ima have to take a look at it later. It's one of those sections that veteran players tend to skip over, because we already know how it's supposed to work, so specific wording gets ignored for actual play.

VGLordR2

2012-05-31, 03:49 PM

PHB 145 or under injury and death in the combat section in the SRD.

Actually now that I think about it the injury and death section might be where HP interaction is ironed out but I haven't read through that section in detail in a while (just picked out the quote) so I can't say. Ah well if nothing definite turns up I may have to review later.

I've looked through it, and it doesn't say specifically how HP should be deducted. Most likely because no one expected anyone to need to know the specifics.

olentu

2012-05-31, 03:49 PM

Nifty, Ima have to take a look at it later. It's one of those sections that veteran players tend to skip over, because we already know how it's supposed to work, so specific wording gets ignored for actual play.

Yeah I haven't read through that section in detail in probably more than a year.

Fable Wright

2012-05-31, 04:04 PM

The Unconscious condition itself has the penalty of being helpless. You gleefully ignore that penalty until you sink to -10.

Here is the difference in our understandings: Beastland Ferocity does not prevent the Unconscious condition. However, for the RAI to work, you can't become unconscious as an effect of the dying condition. My understanding is that the spell therefore suppresses whatever causes the unconscious state while you are dying, and after that point the effect ceases to try to apply the unconscious condition, so you're off the hook. You seem to say that the ability to suppress the Dying state is the same as the ability to suppress the Unconscious state. However, they are separate conditions, with one applying the other, and Beastland Ferocity only applies to one of them. For this reason, I cannot really understand your argument.

Tyndmyr

2012-05-31, 04:14 PM

Here is the difference in our understandings: Beastland Ferocity does not prevent the Unconscious condition. However, for the RAI to work, you can't become unconscious as an effect of the dying condition. My understanding is that the spell therefore suppresses whatever causes the unconscious state while you are dying, and after that point the effect ceases to try to apply the unconscious condition, so you're off the hook. You seem to say that the ability to suppress the Dying state is the same as the ability to suppress the Unconscious state. However, they are separate conditions, with one applying the other, and Beastland Ferocity only applies to one of them. For this reason, I cannot really understand your argument.

No, Beastland Ferocity is triggered by only one of them. Merely being unconscious would obviously not trigger it.

However, when it is triggered, it has a fairly broad effect. It just says "fights without penalty". What penalty? Any penalties at all, including say, armor check penalties. So, you're not affected by the unconscious condition as that can be described as a penalty.*

*Unconscious is not clearly defined as a penalty, but the standard English readings of the words would make it fairly obvious that it can't reasonably be seen as anything else.

Fable Wright

2012-05-31, 05:01 PM

No, Beastland Ferocity is triggered by only one of them. Merely being unconscious would obviously not trigger it.

However, when it is triggered, it has a fairly broad effect. It just says "fights without penalty". What penalty? Any penalties at all, including say, armor check penalties. So, you're not affected by the unconscious condition as that can be described as a penalty.*

*Unconscious is not clearly defined as a penalty, but the standard English readings of the words would make it fairly obvious that it can't reasonably be seen as anything else.

So, in other words, it's basically a vague interaction that can't be objectively ruled one was or the other without the intervention of an impartial third party. Or, in other words, DM jurisdiction. With no clear RAW, there isn't really a way to rule it otherwise.

Answerer

2012-05-31, 09:47 PM

It's not about interpretation, it's about RAW.

If we're talking about RAI, well then, it's not much of a conversation.
I never said anything about intent. Moreover, I most likely never will.

What I did talk about was interpretation. Which is always what is going on, even with RAW. The "Rules As Written" are just squiggles on a page if you're not interpreting them. Context and things like, well, the rules of the English language, certainly characterize how they might be interpreted.

My argument is that Beastland Ferocity and Delay Death specifically change the general rules of how Disabled, Dying, and Dead work. I read the -9 number as descriptive of the overall situation, which has changed. This is similar, in my mind, to reading "you start with" as what you have at ECL 1 if you're a single-classed martial adept. No one will convince me that it is strict RAW that multiclassed initiators cannot select 2nd-or-higher-level stances if their Initiator Level would allow it. So, too, do I not buy that the description of the normal level range in which Disabled operates proscribes that in a -10-or-lower-but-somehow-not-dead state, you are not Disabled.

But it doesn't matter. We're arguing semantics. One of us could be found absolutely right if the rules were a legalistic document, perhaps, but they're not. There are no hard and fast rules for how it is to be interpreted. The closest the community has is a vague consensus. I won't pretend to know how my interpretation fairs by that consensus, but that doesn't mean I'm convinced, either. There's not really any point in responding to me, though: I understand you, I just don't agree. I presume, barring any failure on my part to communicate my thoughts, that you understand me and simply do not agree either. I wasn't even going to comment because my objection is basically irrelevant anyway; if we can't agree on basic things like "how it should be read" then we're never going to convince one another.

So I'll return to my original stipulation, ignoring my own objection to it, and again ask if there's any good way of rousing someone from an unconscious state? Pretty sure there are. Hell, there's a spell called Rouse; I wonder what that does...

EDIT: Looked it up; no dice. That specifically says it can't waken those who have been knocked unconscious by HP damage.

moritheil

2012-05-31, 10:26 PM

Your DM might rule otherwise, but if you bring DMs into this, this exercise becomes pointless.

That about sums up the practicality of this whole thought exercise. :smallwink:

there are still people out there using Ice Assasin to clone gods...

Virtual people, in theoretical builds, right? As opposed to, in campaigns?

moritheil

2012-05-31, 10:30 PM

But it doesn't matter. We're arguing semantics. One of us could be found absolutely right if the rules were a legalistic document, perhaps, but they're not.

Just FYI, RAW reading generally requires that you read rules in a legalistic fashion. This is partly a function of modern literary criticism (what the author intended doesn't matter; it's what is written that matters) and partly the 3.x style social contract (players must be able to absolutely rely on the rules, with clarifications and house rules declared by the DM beforehand rather than tossed out in play as unpleasant surprises, as with 1e.)

A implies B, B means C, C means D, D means E, and then real ultimate power follows.

You are, in short, telling him you have no interest in obeying the conventions of a RAW discussion.

Flickerdart

2012-05-31, 10:37 PM

Virtual people, in theoretical builds, right? As opposed to, in campaigns?
Considering how gods have this tedious habit of dying when it's most inconvenient, it's never a bad idea to make some backups before it's too late.

VGLordR2

2012-06-01, 12:40 AM

You know, since LoP is using the custom magic item rules, I'm surprised that he didn't just go for a single use, spell completion item of Wish for 3,825. Using that, he could wish for a use-activated item of Wish, then proceed to wish for the other needed items. With this method, the trick (assuming here that it works) would be achievable about halfway through level three, since it wouldn't be necessary to take the fourth Artificer level.

EDIT:

After taking a closer look, the item would cost 25,000 GP more than I had calculated. I missed the part that said that the cost increases by 5*experience required. That restores a bit of my faith in the custom item rules.

Tyndmyr

2012-06-01, 05:45 AM

So, in other words, it's basically a vague interaction that can't be objectively ruled one was or the other without the intervention of an impartial third party. Or, in other words, DM jurisdiction. With no clear RAW, there isn't really a way to rule it otherwise.

Well, here's the thing...if the effect of Unconciousness is not a penalty, then Beastland Ferocity does nothing of any use, and you fall over as soon as you get to -1.

If it IS a penalty, then BF avoids the effect until below -9.

Either interpretation is a problem for the Omnificer. The first interpretation is just...very questionable. I see no reason to bring up such a flimsy objections when the outcome of this decision is irrelevant to the overall discussion.

But it doesn't matter. We're arguing semantics. One of us could be found absolutely right if the rules were a legalistic document, perhaps, but they're not. There are no hard and fast rules for how it is to be interpreted

They're rules. Rules are kind of a legalistic document. Hell, people in the legal world differ in interpretations all the time too. There is no perfect set of rules. However, RAW is accepted as an extremely literalist reading of the rules. This may frequently be silly, or undesirable, but what the idea of RAW is, is pretty uncontroversial.

Long story short, there ARE hard and fast rules for the rules themselves. That's why things like Specific trumping General and primary sources matter.

If you're abandoning reading the rules in a legalistic fashion, you're abandoning RAW. That's fine, but it has relatively little use in a discussion about RAW, which is all TO is.

Answerer

2012-06-01, 07:42 AM

Just FYI, RAW reading generally requires that you read rules in a legalistic fashion.

[...]

You are, in short, telling him you have no interest in obeying the conventions of a RAW discussion.
They're rules. Rules are kind of a legalistic document. Hell, people in the legal world differ in interpretations all the time too. There is no perfect set of rules. However, RAW is accepted as an extremely literalist reading of the rules. This may frequently be silly, or undesirable, but what the idea of RAW is, is pretty uncontroversial.

Long story short, there ARE hard and fast rules for the rules themselves. That's why things like Specific trumping General and primary sources matter.

If you're abandoning reading the rules in a legalistic fashion, you're abandoning RAW. That's fine, but it has relatively little use in a discussion about RAW, which is all TO is.
You both misunderstood me.

I am reading the rules literally, as in what is written on the page. I am saying that your reading inherently leads to an inconsistent, contradictory not-state that is undefined by the rules, which I do not think is something reasonably supported by what is written.

But it does not matter, so forget I said anything.

Rejusu

2012-06-01, 09:02 AM

Correct. Which is why the original chars reliance on DM-approval only items is suspect. You don't rely on DM approval in a TO build.

DM-approval doesn't come into TO builds in the slightest. In TO you assume everything to be approved by the DM or it doesn't work. The only restriction of TO is that you remain within the rules of the game. Stating that a DM might not allow something is pointless in a TO discussion because most TO characters would induce rocks falling the moment they hit the table. So no reliance on DM approved items is not suspect because what a DM would or wouldn't let you do is not relevant to a TO discussion. In fact even mentioning the DM is pointless when it comes to TO.

Well, he needs people with some level of skill, so he's looking for at least experts. They'll also need to be at least level two. Expert can train sense motive since it picks it's own class skills. I would presume that it is generally undesirable to have it learned that you're hiring a bunch of people to kill themselves. It introduces reasonable risk of failure into the plan. TO builds should strive toward reliability, not "well, this might work, if the DM loves you".

As above the DM doesn't come into it. And no TO builds should NOT strive towards reliability. It sounds to me like you're not sure what TO really is. These are characters that are never intended to be played. PRACTICAL optimization strives towards reliability, but THEORETICAL optimization is exactly what it says on the tin. Also once again there's no requirement that you tell the hirelings anything more than their instructions. They have no idea what is going to happen and therefore if they grow suspicious it's a relatively simple bluff to assure them that they'll be fine.

Now, you can mitigate this risk of failure by pumping diplomacy and/or bluff to levels where they won't reasonably be expected to pass(about +25). This is by no means impossible, but it is a notable flaw in the original build.

Hardly, this is a massive exaggeration. Especially since you need to beat a bluff by 11 or more to completely see through it. And once again you're paying them. The only reason you'd need to bluff them in the first place is if they grew suspicious about what they were doing, and the sense motive DC for that is 20.

Citation please. The SRD, the DMG, and the Rules Compendium all state dying as explicitly -1 to -9.

ENTERING the dying condition is specifically -1 to -9 but the only exit conditions are being stable or being dead. The condition doesn't just vanish if you drop below -9. Also from the disabled condition on the SRD:

A character with 0 hit points, or one who has negative hit points but has become stable and conscious, is disabled. A disabled character may take a single move action or standard action each round (but not both, nor can she take full-round actions). She moves at half speed. Taking move actions doesn’t risk further injury, but performing any standard action (or any other action the game master deems strenuous, including some free actions such as casting a quickened spell) deals 1 point of damage after the completion of the act. Unless the action increased the disabled character’s hit points, she is now in negative hit points and dying.

Emphasis mine. Here is a RAW example of where dying is defined as negative hit points rather than explicitly -1 to -9. Besides all this is completely moot anyway because the spell the Omniscificer uses in order to act while sustaining infinite damage (Beastland Ferocity) does not specifically state dying, it states disabled OR dying. And as from the SRD definition I've posted about there's no arguing that the disabled condition requires you have a specific amount of hit points.

Conditions are not strict states. For instance, you can explicitly have multiple conditions at once. Some conditions do conflict with other conditions yes, but there is no statement that you invariably end up "dying" if below -10.

This is true, but not in this case. Disabled, Dying, Dead, are all mutually exclusive conditions as noted in their descriptions. You cannot enter one of those conditions without leaving the other. The point is that you pass through -1 to -9 on your way to below -10, this means that you invariably are affected by the "Dying" condition. However there is nothing under RAW that states you cease to be affected by the "Dying" condition upon reaching -10 EXCEPT the fact that this would normally cause you to enter the "Dead" condition.

But it ceases to protect you once the "dying" status no longer applies. Works as on the tin until below -9, though.

Your argument is kind of self-defeating in this regard. You're arguing that for Beastland Ferocity to function the character needs to be in the dying state (even though it works fine when you're disabled too) and that it doesn't work because when the character drops below -9 they are no longer affected by the "Dying" condition. Except if they aren't affected by it then Beastland Ferocity is no longer required since if you're not affected by the dying condition you can function without penalty.

Beastland Ferocity does not protect the Omniscifier, all it's required for is to allow it to function while dying. Except if it's not dying it's not needed. Either way you slice it, it doesn't stop the Omniscifier from working. If we agree that unconsciousness could be reasonably interpreted as a penalty since it'd prevent the Omniscifier from fighting then BF prevents him from being affected by the Unconscious condition. Since Unconsciousness is caused by being affected with the dying condition once you exit the dying condition you will not then be automatically affected by unconsciousness when you leave the dying condition in the first place since:
A) You never were affected by the condition.
And
B) The source that might cause you to be affected with it has been removed.

It's all rule. You can't take just part of it, even if it is the more commonly used part.

Why not? You seem to be doing so. You're focusing on the part that implies that a knowledge check may in some circumstances take an action to perform and almost ignoring the part where it says that it usually takes no action. It's a very contrived argument when you act like the exception to the rule is the primary part of the rule.

Drown healing is commonly accepted as working, despite very obviously not. I suspect that my TO-fu is stronger than most. Or, more likely, I'm just very pedantic and go check each individual source, while most people just say "yeah,that sounds about right". It's really amazing how often you see poor optimizing advice that fails to work when you check the sources, because lots of people repeat specific combos they've heard of without checking things, and those combos eventually get re-purposed. Soon, you've got someone comboing together fifteen things he never read, and probably doesn't even know the sources of.

But again. It doesn't stop the character from working. All it means is an alternate reset mechanism is required.

candycorn

2012-06-01, 09:58 AM

As you add the hp back, your hp spool back up through disabled and then, out of disabled. The disabled status effect is incompatible with unconscious, and thus, per condition confliction rules, you apply only the one condition, disabled.

I admit, the conditions could have been written more clearly, but you do have a removal of unconsciousness when healed to 0+ hp.

There is no rules support for this. There are not seconds, microseconds, and decaseconds. There are rounds, standard actions, and swift actions. If I see someone at -4 HP, and I cast Heal on them, at Caster Level 11, they gain 110 hp, going to 106hp, or max HP, whichever is first.

They do not gain 1 hp at a time, 110 times. There is no rules support for this; and, in actuality, this is contradicted by the rules.

You are, at the beginning of a standard action, at -4 hp. At the end, you are at 106 hp. At no time were you ever at 0 hp. At no time were you disabled. Therefore, you never receive the conflicting status condition of disabled and unconscious. Therefore, by the strict RAW, you never wake up.

All because most healing isn't gradual. It is, by the very rules, instantaneous. Brief moments have no place in the rules, aside from free actions. Since healing doesn't give 1 HP as a free action a bunch of times, we can safely assume that when healing is given, it's a lump sum.

Like when you deposit a check into your bank account. They don't add it a penny at a time. Before it's processed, you have $12.36 in your account. After, you have $1212.14 in your account. At no point did you ever have exactly $150.00. Because it's processed, by the rules that govern banks, in a lump sum.

Just as healing is, in D&D.