I hunger for cheese

[AdamT]

Seems this morning my brain does not want to work. I am trying to think of a build that would get heartwarder 10 and ruby knight vindicator 7 (refluffed to be defender of Sunite church). Anyone able to put that into the same build?

Sticking points are, of course, entry requirements. Heartwarder requires 3rd level spells, reflex 2, diplomancy 6, and 4 feats. RKV requires knowledge religion 8 and one martial maneuver and stance. Only 3 levels of cleric/crusader are available to work with in order to get the 17 levels of both prcs in.

So can it be done?

[Arcanist]

Human: Heighten Spell
1st: Divine Metamagic
3rd: Sanctum Spell

You now have access to 3rd level spells

Cleric/2 Crusader/1
... Just an idea really... Love it or leave it.

[Hirax]

At level 3 you could afford a scroll of polymorph. Get yourself lots and lots of chickens (or whatever), and a scroll of polymorph. Turn into a dusk giant from Heroes of Horror. They have an (EX) ability that explicitly allows them to consume things gain hit dice that confer all the normal benefits of leveling up (feats, etc.). You will lose hit dice when polymorph runs out, but when you're removing your skill points, there's no convention that states you need remove skill points in such a way as to obey maximum ranks. If your DM is willing to swallow this, you can easily get into RKV on a cleric2/crusader1 chassis. The alternative would be having a bard around you all the time using inspire greatness, so that at level 3 your max ranks in a skill would be 8, also allows entry from cleric2/crusader1.

[Rubik]

Human: Heighten Spell
1st: Divine Metamagic
3rd: Sanctum Spell

You now have access to 3rd level spells

Cleric/2 Crusader/1
... Just an idea really... Love it or leave it.How many levels are in Cleric? 1? The 1 is on the wrong side.

[AdamT]

Human: Heighten Spell
1st: Divine Metamagic
3rd: Sanctum Spell

You now have access to 3rd level spells

Cleric/2 Crusader/1
... Just an idea really... Love it or leave it.


That gets you the 3rd level spells, but we are still short the +2 reflex and 4 specific feats. Inspire greatness and dusk giant wouldn't work in our campaigns. Only permanent things allow entry to prcs. Because dusk giant abilities were gained through a limited duration spell it would be disallowed, even though the actual ability used is not limited duration.

Any more thoughts? Having a bad feeling this one is not going to work.

[AdamT]

We'd probably have to have a class with +2 reflex at 1st to qualify. The actual feats needed for heartwarder are dodge, mobility, spell focus enchantment, and whip proficiency. So bard 1 for the reflex and whip to go with cleric. Human, feat at 1 and 3, along with two flaws to gain two feats gives you 5 feats.

Cleric 2 / bard 1
1st flaw (spell focus enchantment), flaw (dodge), mobility, human (sanctum spell)
3rd Divine metamagic
6th martial study
9th martial stance

I think that would work. Would leave you SAD, and not have as many maneuvers/stances as I was hoping for, but we'd still end up 15 bab, 9's, fey type, +5 cha.

[Hirax]

If nothing temporary is possible, you're forced to aim for heartwarder first, as I don't believe there are any ways to boost your skill ranks that would satisfy those criteria. Dipping for reflex +2 under those criteria is unavoidable, which means you might be better off going cleric2/reflexsaveclass1 and grabbing the martial maneuvers from feats. Even adding flaws to the equation, cobbling together 3rd level spells and those 4 pre requisite feats will be tough. If you can squeak the domination domain into your build, that would give you spell focus (enchantment). Or you could get your DM to rop that pre req, because it doesn't make sense for it to be a pre req, given that heartwarders get it as a class feature too. There is a +1 armor property in the Magic Item Compendium that grants the wearer the benefit mobility feat.

[Arcanist]

How many levels are in Cleric? 1? The 1 is on the wrong side.

I write it out differently for my own sake since for me writing Wizard 4 would immediately make me jump to the thought of 4 Wizards of an unknown level. Personal thing really, I generally try to not write it out like that while posting here.


That gets you the 3rd level spells, but we are still short the +2 reflex and 4 specific feats. Inspire greatness and dusk giant wouldn't work in our campaigns. Only permanent things allow entry to prcs. Because dusk giant abilities were gained through a limited duration spell it would be disallowed, even though the actual ability used is not limited duration.

Any more thoughts? Having a bad feeling this one is not going to work.

Hmm... Mixing in Early Entry tricks and meeting the prerequisites for Heartwarder is a feat in and of itself. Are flaws allowed? Otherwise you're S.O.L. on the whole idea due to how feat starved this build would be. Gimme a few hours to finish my school work, take a few shots of 5hour and read through some sourcebooks and I'm pretty sure I'll think of something... Either that or someone will figure it out or deem it impossible to legally do (which is what I'm seeing right now...).

[AdamT]

If nothing temporary is possible, you're forced to aim for heartwarder first, as I don't believe there are any ways to boost your skill ranks that would satisfy those criteria. Dipping for reflex +2 under those criteria is unavoidable, which means you might be better off going cleric2/reflexsaveclass1 and grabbing the martial maneuvers from feats. Even adding flaws to the equation, cobbling together 3rd level spells and those 4 pre requisite feats will be tough. If you can squeak the domination domain into your build, that would give you spell focus (enchantment). Or you could get your DM to rop that pre req, because it doesn't make sense for it to be a pre req, given that heartwarders get it as a class feature too. There is a +1 armor property in the Magic Item Compendium that grants the wearer the benefit mobility feat.

That right there! Your the winner. I'm sure I can get that pre req droped. That would let me switch in swordsage instead of bard.

Cleric 2 / swordsage 1
1st whip proficiency, dodge, mobility, sanctum spell
3rd divine metamagic

I'm open for suggestions to make it even better, but this gets where I want to go. Whats that feat that lets you base cleric casting off of cha? Can it be taken with the 6th level feat?

[AdamT]

You know, after thinking this one over, there REALLY should be a cleric acf that lets you trade a domain for proficiency in dieties favorite weapon =(

[Arcanist]

That right there! Your the winner. I'm sure I can get that pre req droped. That would let me switch in swordsage instead of bard.

Interesting idea.


Cleric 2 / swordsage 1
1st whip proficiency, dodge, mobility, sanctum spell
3rd divine metamagic

I'm open for suggestions to make it even better, but this gets where I want to go. Whats that feat that lets you base cleric casting off of cha? Can it be taken with the 6th level feat?

You still don't qualify and the feat you're thinking of is Lost Traditions from Bastards and Bloodlines. A 3rd Party Source. Since your DM is anal about the whole early entry shenanigans.

[docnessuno]

Human Cleric 1 / Feat rogue 1 / Crusader 1

Flaw: Dodge
Flaw: Heighteen spell
Human: Spell focus (enchantment)
1st: Divine metamagic
Rogue: Mobility
3rd: EWP (Whip)

Unless i'm missing the obvious, DMM + heighteen allows you to cast 3rd level spells without needing sanctum spell.

EDIT:
Doesn't require any houseruling (except for the Sune / Wee-jas conflict and flaws) and doesn't rely on item-granted feats.
Also, DMM + sanctum qualifyes for 3rd level spells only if the DM allows you to ally the same metamagic feat twice.
Finally, swordsages doesn't gain devoted spirit manouvers without expending a feat.

[Hirax]

Be careful hoping for your DM to drop that pre req, they might come right back and say that it still stands, but that the class will give you greater spell focus as a bonus feat, instead.

[AdamT]

Human Cleric 1 / Feat rogue 1 / Crusader 1

Flaw: Dodge
Flaw: Heighteen spell
Human: Spell focus (enchantment)
1st: Divine metamagic
Rogue: Mobility
3rd: EWP (Whip)

Unless i'm missing the obvious, DMM + heighteen allows you to cast 3rd level spells without needing sanctum spell.

Doesn't require any houseruling (except for the Sune / Wee-jas conflict) and doesn't rely on item-granted feats.
Also, DMM + sanctum qualifyes for 3rd level spells only if the DM allows you to ally the same metamagic feat twice.

Blah, forgot heighten =(
The spell focus I believe I can get droped since class grants it. 3rd party is pretty much off the table unless it is obviously weak and being taken for flavor... so no lost traditions.

Ok, I'm not seeing a way to do this and still get 9's. If thats the case then the build would have to focus on buffs and bab. So cleric 2 is no longer a requirement, cleric 1 works. Possibly totemist 1 for the reflex save?

[AdamT]

Ok, how about human cleric 1 / fighter 2

1st flaw (dmm), flaw (heighten spell), human sanctum spell, fighter lightening reflexes, dodge
2nd mobility
3rd whip
6th martial study
9th martial stance

build would be cleric 1 / fighter 2 / heartwarder 6 / rkv 7 / heartwarder 4

Gives bab 16, 8's, 4 maneuvers, 2 stances. Looks weaker than cleric 20, but overall I like it. Leaves open the option of changing to rkv 10, heartwarder 7 as well which would move bab to 17 at the cost of losing fey type at 20. Of course that all assumes I can get that spell focus pre req droped.

Any more suggestions to make the overall build work better?

[docnessuno]

Ok, how about human cleric 1 / fighter 2

1st flaw (dmm), flaw (heighten spell), human sanctum spell, fighter lightening reflexes, dodge
2nd mobility
3rd whip
6th martial study
9th martial stance

build would be cleric 1 / fighter 2 / heartwarder 6 / rkv 7 / heartwarder 4

Gives bab 16, 8's, 4 maneuvers, 2 stances. Looks weaker than cleric 20, but overall I like it. Leaves open the option of changing to rkv 10, heartwarder 7 as well which would move bab to 17 at the cost of losing fey type at 20. Of course that all assumes I can get that spell focus pre req droped.

Any more suggestions to make the overall build work better?

The build doesn't have Refex +2 by level 3, also you cannot have both a fighter bonus feat and DMM (requiring turn undead) at level 1.
Another problem with this build is that you are stuck with adding manouvers and stances to a non-TOB class, leaving you without any recovery mechanism except for Divine recovery.
Also i'm not getting why everyone picks up sanctum spell.

[Arcanist]

I'm not getting why everyone picks up sanctum spell.

Early entry tricks.

[docnessuno]

Early entry tricks.

Wich should be fufilled with Heighteen + DMM, without needing a third feat, or needing to apply the same MM feat twice (wich is very debtable).

AFAIK Sanctum was used to skip 1 spell level with a single feat, if you need to skip 2 or more, Heighteen + DMM (if divine) or Heighteen + versatile spellcaster (if spontaneous) are enough.

[ravagerofworlds]

EDIT: After reading the text for Sanctum spell via a google search....

Anyone trying to use this feat to bypass 1 spell level prereq... is misinterpreting the text on purpose. It increases the spell level, not access to the actual higher level spell lists. It is the spell lists that are intended for those prestige classes. The...

Mid Post Edit: I finally looked for a definition of "cheese." When I saw a synonym as "cheat" well... I'm done here.

[docnessuno]

Here's the text (http://EDITED/) for Sanctum spell via a google search.

Anyone trying to use this feat to bypass 1 spell level prereq... is misinterpreting the text on purpose. It increases the spell level, not access to the actual higher level spell lists. It is the spell lists that are intended for those prestige classes. The...

Mid Post Edit: I finally looked for a definition of "cheese." When I saw a synonym as "cheat" well... I'm done here.

And what did you exactly add to the discussion, other than a link to copyright-protected material?

Note that while using sanctum spell for ealy entry is debatable (and moreso if applying it twice), using highteen spell to fufill the same objective is perfectly RAW.

[AdamT]

The build doesn't have Refex +2 by level 3, also you cannot have both a fighter bonus feat and DMM (requiring turn undead) at level 1.
Another problem with this build is that you are stuck with adding manouvers and stances to a non-TOB class, leaving you without any recovery mechanism except for Divine recovery.


You are correct, as i said to start, my brain has not been working very well lately. It should have been levels 1 and 2 fighter and level 3 cleric. The dmm should have been the 3rd level feat and whip should have been 1st. Lightning reflexes gives the +2 reflex.

Recovery is outside of fights. The maneuvers are actually not the important part of the build, it is the rkv 7th level ability to turn turn undead attempts into free actions. The cleric chassis is improved with this build with respect to melee, and the fact is a buffer cleric can do pretty well in melee on his own, add in a few one-shot per encounter tricks from ToB and he "feels" more interesting in melee... while still providing his primary role to the group as buffer. While this looks very SAD, it really isn't bad. Wis only needs to hit 18 (19 if going epic), mid teens for cha should be fine and could even be lower since heartwarder gives +5 cha. Stats would go almost fully into str and con after ensuring 18 wis. Finally, while the whole point of the heartwarder is actually to play Gary Cooper, that capstone ability would allow some nifty tricks with the polymorph line should we go epic. In the event of epic, 9's come on line at level 21, so overall, its not behind the t1/t2 crowd by much, while being a lot more enjoyable to actually rp. At least thats my take on it...

[Aegis013]

Human Cleric 1 / Feat rogue 1 / Crusader 1

Flaw: Dodge
Flaw: Heighteen spell
Human: Spell focus (enchantment)
1st: Divine metamagic
Rogue: Mobility
3rd: EWP (Whip)

Unless i'm missing the obvious, DMM + heighteen allows you to cast 3rd level spells without needing sanctum spell.

EDIT:
Doesn't require any houseruling (except for the Sune / Wee-jas conflict and flaws) and doesn't rely on item-granted feats.
Also, DMM + sanctum qualifyes for 3rd level spells only if the DM allows you to ally the same metamagic feat twice.
Finally, swordsages doesn't gain devoted spirit manouvers without expending a feat.

This is how I'd do it. Though, I might use Cloistered variant for Cleric to drop the free Knowledge Domain for Knowledge Devotion.

[AdamT]

This is how I'd do it. Though, I might use Cloistered variant for Cleric to drop the free Knowledge Domain for Knowledge Devotion.

That makes a couple that prefer the feat rogue / crusader more. Tradeoff is more of the ToB stuff vs +1 bab. It probably does make more sense, and fits the rp aspect better (crusading knight for the church of Sune... who just happens to be as suave and smooth as they come). I still think I can get that spell focus pre req droped, so there is actually one open feat in that build to aim at extend spell.

Thanks guys, I believe I have worked out what goes to the table next.

[ravagerofworlds]

And what did you exactly add to the discussion, other than a link to copyright-protected material?

Note that while using sanctum spell for ealy entry is debatable (and moreso if applying it twice), using highteen spell to fufill the same objective is perfectly RAW.

Um... that using either spell or feat is willfully misinterpreting the prereqs. This very argument occurred in the playground in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/archive/index.php?t-180524.html).

I google stuff all the time. I link to evidence all the time. But fine, I edited my own post- thanks for the vigilante moderating. I was unaware it was not OGC or from a non-OGC site. I suggest you edit your own quote.

The intent is access to certain level spell lists for prereqs- people who advocate it is broken and take advantage are just the types to steal a car because someone left a window down and they were asking for it. Same moral equivalent.

[Aegis013]

The intent is access to certain level spell lists for prereqs- people who advocate it is broken and take advantage are just the types to steal a car because someone left a window down and they were asking for it. Same moral equivalent.

This simply isn't true. The intent [of the game] was for people to have fun. If a group can get together and have more fun using cheesy stuff, then more power to them.

That would be the same moral equivalent as your friend giving you explicit permission to take his car, and also that the window is down.

[ravagerofworlds]

This simply isn't true. The intent [of the game] was for people to have fun. If a group can get together and have more fun using cheesy stuff, then more power to them.

That would be the same moral equivalent as your friend giving you explicit permission to take his car, and also that the window is down.

Sigh... and people can have fun playing monopoly without changing the rules about passing go getting 300 instead of 200 dollars. Having fun has nothing to do with willfully misinterpreting a law.

Rules are important, especially for people who game online or play in game conventions at officially sanctioned events... the expectation is to follow the rules as set forth, and arguing that something is allowed has the possibility of giving a false reality (and future potential conflicts) to casual readers (ie, people who have not yet learned what "cheese" actually means in this particular co-culture).

The more I read on the playground's forums, the more I'm convinced this is not a good community to determine rule interpretations. This thread has so far convinced me that if any of my players came with a build from this forum, it would have the same smell test I'd give to a National Inquirer story.

[Aegis013]

Sigh... and people can have fun playing monopoly without changing the rules about passing go getting 300 instead of 200 dollars. Having fun has nothing to do with willfully misinterpreting a law.

Rules are important, especially for people who game online or play in game conventions at officially sanctioned events... the expectation is to follow the rules as set forth, and arguing that something is allowed has the possibility of giving a false reality (and future potential conflicts) to casual readers (ie, people who have not yet learned what "cheese" actually means in this particular co-culture).

The more I read on the playground's forums, the more I'm convinced this is not a good community to determine rule interpretations. This thread has so far convinced me that if any of my players came with a build from this forum, it would have the same smell test I'd give to a National Inquirer story.

The issue with what you're saying, is that you're saying everybody should play by RAI (Rules As Intended) which is impossible, as everybody will interpret things differently. The expectation here, is that the assumptions and restrictions should be laid out before you enter into a game, online, at a convention, whatever.

Since, we can't all adhere to the same RAI, as most everybody believes it to be different, we attempt to adhere to RAW for discussion (Rules As Written). Since even though the RAW has interpretation bias as well, it has less interpretation bias. This gives the community a better foundation with which to discuss things.

Most of the time, if people seek build help, they are warned if a particular build is cheesy (probably not following RAI, may not be ok in some games), and many people ask what level of cheese tolerance is acceptable for their game table. This community is well aware that people play at different optimization levels and with different sets of houserules, but since the only common ground we really have is exactly what all of our books say (since we all have the same book, but very few of us have the same DM) that's our starting point.

Whatever your perception is is up to you, but this community is excellent at following the Rules As Written (which admittedly, are atrociously goofy at times). Hopefully I was able to explain it clearly.