How does Tippy do it?

[ngilop]

Hey everybody, i was reading thread last night ( well early this morning) I forgoet the title of the thread. And it is about how he made a 7th level Evoker that casts an obsence amount of fireballs from just 1 slot ( cannot remember if its 20 or 30 right now.. nore can I find that dang thread now... stupid me getting rid fi internet history)

So when I awoke this morning I thought. How does he do it?

Now I know that his ability to optimize is greatly beyond my ability (i am actually as near to being unable to optimize as one can be I think)
But I looked over my books and I am just not seeing the combination or route one would take in order to do such a thing.

[Rubik]

I don't know about Tippy, but I find that for me it's a combination between knowing the rules fairly well, looking for oddities and loopholes, and mentally cross-referencing abilities, items, spells, and so on. Remembering Item A when reading Item B and realizing that they play off of each other in a really unusual way.

And reading various threads and people's thoughts about the game can make you realize that they've been misconstruing something important the whole time (such as mentioning how a halfling wizard can Polymorph into a hydra, when looking over Alter Self [which Polymorph is based on] clearly shows that this cannot be done under any normal circumstance).

[Ionbound]

IIRC, Tippy has a DM that optimizes as hard as the players, and is, from what I've heard, at least, is pretty merciless. He just has years of practice at doing what he does.

[Karnith]

Tippy did post this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16608310&postcount=7) once upon a time:

It's using my old enhanced magic demiplane trick to load on all of the metamagic without having to spend any feats or suffer any level increases. Energy Admixture 4 times, maximized, and twinned. For 10 fireballs worth of maximum damage out of a single 3rd level slot and for no feat investment.
Which could be achievable at relatively low levels via abusing (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#candleofInvocation) wi (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/scrolls.htm)shes (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shapechange.htm) and Gen (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/spells/genesis.htm)esis (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/planes.htm#enhancedMagic). In theory, anyway

[Rubik]

Oh, upon rereading, the O.P. meant that directly, rather than conceptually.

My bad.

[Lanson]

He's actually an ice assassin of an awakened shadesteel golem spell to power erudite that shadow walked into our dimension to spread his knowledge. He stays because our dimension lacks the magic needed to return.

[Vaz]

I don't know about Tippy, but I find that for me it's a combination between knowing the rules fairly well, looking for oddities and loopholes, and mentally cross-referencing abilities, items, spells, and so on. Remembering Item A when reading Item B and realizing that they play off of each other in a really unusual way.

And reading various threads and people's thoughts about the game can make you realize that they've been misconstruing something important the whole time (such as mentioning how a halfling wizard can Polymorph into a hydra, when looking over Alter Self [which Polymorph is based on] clearly shows that this cannot be done under any normal circumstance).

Why, because it's Large? Eh, Enlarge Person+Polymorph gets you there. And, like most people are want to do, they cherry pick Sage rulings if it's beneficial to them.

That said, is anyone actually able to answer his question?

Was this what you were on about?

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=321499

[Erik Vale]

He's actually an ice assassin of an awakened shadesteel golem spell to power erudite that shadow walked into our dimension to spread his knowledge. He stays because our dimension lacks the magic needed to return.

Is it strange that if he came in and said yes I would half believe that?

[Nettlekid]

Just to get it out of the way: Greater Arcane Fusion casting Sanctum Spell Greater Arcane Fusion and Fireball probably gives you an unlimited amount of Fireballs. So that'll do.

All of these "heavy optimization/Tippyverse tricks" rely on potentially spurious readings of rules, be it omission of detail, inclusion of supposed intent and calling it RAW, or an extrapolation of existing rules that have no grounding in actual RAW.

For example, Tippy's a fan of starting off an explanation with "Use Polymorph Any Object twice to make it permanent." This just doesn't work with the spell-stacking rules on PHB page 171-172, which state that the same spell doesn't stack with itself, they simply run their course individually (in case one gets dispelled or something) and don't affect one another. Even if Polymorph Any Object's use of the phrase "original state" referred to the state the creature is in right before the use of the spell (as opposed to the state the creature is in before any spells were ever cast on it, which is more in keeping with what "original" means) then the second spell isn't affected by the first, and should operate the same as the first, duration included. Doesn't stop the suggestion of "Polymorph Any Object twice."

A while ago there was a long and fruitless discussion regarding Genesis and whether or not it could manipulate time traits. My stance was that since it doesn't say you can manipulate time traits, you can't. Other peoples' stances were that because Psionic Genesis says you can't, and Arcane Genesis doesn't say you can't, then RAW you can.

I find myself very unimpressed by theoretical optimization tricks because most of them don't work. When it's said that you're not meant to use them in actual gameplay, I've assumed that's because it wouldn't be fun to actually play in a game where you have an "I Win" button. But really it's because a DM doesn't have to resort to Rule 0 to say no when they can resort to any of the existing rules that deny what you're trying to do. I'd be more impressed by a heavily optimized, moderately powerful character that was absolutely airtight and unambiguous its optimization.

[Phelix-Mu]

I'm not a fan of Tippy's many aleax tricks either (though I'm not sure if we can credit him with originating that manner of exploit), but I think it's disingenuous to say most of his stuff doesn't work.

a.) He's generated a huge amount of stuff on all manner of topics.

b.) Statistically, I don't think he could be wrong about most of it.

Really, the absurdly large number of things that can be fixed by ice assassin is stupid, and his Permanent Emanation(planar bubble) thing is pretty brilliant, unless I am missing something (and occasionally I do).

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Nettlekid
All of these "heavy optimization/Tippyverse tricks" rely on potentially spurious readings of rules, be it omission of detail, inclusion of supposed intent and calling it RAW, or an extrapolation of existing rules that have no grounding in actual RAW.

This, plus the automatic assumption of an infinitely lenient DM, who will always let you get away with the trick in question. That's a key ingredient, almost always required but rarely remarked upon.


Originally Posted by Phelix-Mu
Really, the absurdly large number of things that can be fixed by ice assassin is stupid....

Tippy does seem to lean pretty heavily on that one. I've sometimes wondered how much of Tippydom would puff away if that were disallowed.

[Phelix-Mu]

Well, most of the discussions that Tippy uses his complicated tricks in are more TO than PO, and such positions don't rely on permissive/non-permissive DMs, generally speaking. DMs get to allow or disallow whatever they want, but there is no DM in TO discussions, so Tippy doesn't have to dodge DMGs.

Ice assassin really just speeds up replication and creation of minions, from what I've seen. That spell combines several extremely powerful effects, and creates a permanent creature. Honestly, spells that create permanent creatures...where is my time machine?

[Darrin]

How does he do it?


Most of Tippy's Theoretical Optimization (TO) tricks were discovered years ago on the CharOp boards, primarily by other optimizers. But the important part isn't who discovered how to rip planets in half from a 1st-level spell slot.

For most of us, abusing a TO trick is probably something we try to surprise the DM with as a joke, to prove a point, or just mess around with the rules to see what happens. These attempts generally end the same way: someone (or multiple someones) tells us to knock it off and grow up.

The genius of Tippy is that he appears to be using TO tricks in actual games that don't immediately devolve into an infinite wishfest of adolescent egostroking. Never having seen him play, I don't know what the Lumpley Principle looks like from the perspective of a player or DM, but I'd guess there's a Gentleperson's Agreement that looks something like:

1) No infinite loops, or the DM will infinite loop right back at you.
2) All PCs should be designed and played at the same Theoretical Optimization level (AKA Don't bring a Tier 4 knife to a Tier 1 gunfight).
3) Regardless of the level of optimization, the PCs will still be challenged with things that can hurt and kill them. PC victory is never to be automatically assumed.
4) The players are mature, experienced, and enjoy being challenged. They will deliberately avoid abusive combos that remove all risks and threats to their own personal narratives. They will not get butthurt about PvP or "adult themes" if that's what the story calls for. They trust the DM to not deliberately sandbag their narrative agency without a good reason or a chance to reverse their fortunes.

It sounds more like "Rocket Tag vs. Antimatter Armor", but balanced against each other so there's no automatic "Win" button. As far as how he does it... extremely carefully, with a mature group of players that have the same skillset.

[Psyren]

For most of us, abusing a TO trick is probably something we try to surprise the DM with as a joke, to prove a point, or just mess around with the rules to see what happens. These attempts generally end the same way: someone (or multiple someones) tells us to knock it off and grow up.

Seconding Darrin's whole post really, but highlighting this bit in particular. If you're in a game with a DM who doesn't know how or want to handle this stuff, or would be caught off-guard by it, be an adult and don't use it.

[Phelix-Mu]

Seconding Darrin's whole post really, but highlighting this bit in particular. If you're in a game with a DM who doesn't know how or want to handle this stuff, or would be caught off-guard by it, be an adult and don't use it.

In other words, observe the "Theoretical" in "Theoretical Optimization." Always sage advice in an actual, serious game.

[Icewraith]

As an aside, I believe the infinite fireball mage involved a mobile resetting trap of Mage's Lucubration.

[Phelix-Mu]

Hehehe. Mobile resetting traps. Is there anything they can't solve?

[TuggyNE]

He's actually an ice assassin of an awakened shadesteel golem spell to power erudite that shadow walked into our dimension to spread his knowledge. He stays because our dimension lacks the magic needed to return.

Someone needs to make a Real Tippy Facts thread. :smalltongue:

[Icewraith]

Hehehe. Mobile resetting traps. Is there anything they can't solve?

Higher order nonlinear partial differential equations.

[AMFV]

Higher order nonlinear partial differential equations.

Mobile resetting trap of Hypercognition, solve the problem yourself.

[Rubik]

The specific way that Tippy used to nab extremely high-damage Fireball spells was to create a minuscule animated object from native materials on a plane with specifically enhanced planar traits (such as "all magic is Intensified/Extended/Split Ray'd/Energy Admixtured (x4)/Shaped/Persisted/etc"), then imbued that object with a shaped Planar Bubble (limited to a 5' diameter) for that plane and retained it on his person. From then on, he'd receive all the benefits of that plane, whatever they may be -- in this case, all of his spells are Intensified/Extended/Split Ray'd/Energy Admixtured (x4)/Shaped/Persisted/etc.

[Techwarrior]

As an aside, I believe the infinite fireball mage involved a mobile resetting trap of Mage's Lucubration.

As an aside to your aside, Tippy called it his "Jockstrap of Awesomeness" and wore the trap as a belt.

[kardar233]

I think the secret to Tippy's command over the highest reaches of the ruleset comes from the fact that it's not just theoretical for him. Most of the TO buffs that I've read about seem to play at T3 or T2 most of the time, using what we'd term PO. But in his games, Ice Assassin duplicates and immunity to damage aren't just things you talk about, they're things you need, and so there's an arms race of tricks and counter-tricks that we only see a little of in his posts.

[Karoht]

Someone needs to make a Real Tippy Facts thread. :smalltongue:K...

Real Tippy Facts About Tippy (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=327279)

[zindane2000]

Higher order nonlinear partial differential equations.

For some of the less mathy people in the thread, differential equations is a specific aspect of calculus (y'know, that thing Newton invented to use while he quantified physics). Differential equations is involved in being given a function and it's derivative and some relationship between them, and figuring out the same base function (Like being told the sum of an object's velocity and position always equal 3).

So, that's an introduction to Differential Equations, and is worth an undergraduate mathematics course on it's own. Higher order involves multiple derivatives and solving those for the base function (Given some unspecified relationship between jerk, acceleration, and position, find the velocity). Some methods for solving simpler versions of these problems are discussed in the undergraduate course.

This course has been described as "Bull**** voodoo magic math", and nonlinear and partial differential equations are both further complications, with partials being an upper division mathematics course.

Hypercognition might give you enough to solve it :P

[Emperor Tippy]

All of these "heavy optimization/Tippyverse tricks" rely on potentially spurious readings of rules, be it omission of detail, inclusion of supposed intent and calling it RAW, or an extrapolation of existing rules that have no grounding in actual RAW.
No, they don't.


For example, Tippy's a fan of starting off an explanation with "Use Polymorph Any Object twice to make it permanent." This just doesn't work with the spell-stacking rules on PHB page 171-172, which state that the same spell doesn't stack with itself, they simply run their course individually (in case one gets dispelled or something) and don't affect one another.
Even if Polymorph Any Object's use of the phrase "original state" referred to the state the creature is in right before the use of the spell (as opposed to the state the creature is in before any spells were ever cast on it, which is more in keeping with what "original" means) then the second spell isn't affected by the first, and should operate the same as the first, duration included. Doesn't stop the suggestion of "Polymorph Any Object twice."
Except that the rules you provided a page reference for actually say the exact opposite. Two PAO's is one of the following: Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths (as the duration differs), Same Effect with Differing Results (permanent vs. temporary duration being differing results), or One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant (the longer duration rendering the shorter irrelevant).

In all three cases the permanent duration sticks.


A while ago there was a long and fruitless discussion regarding Genesis and whether or not it could manipulate time traits. My stance was that since it doesn't say you can manipulate time traits, you can't. Other peoples' stances were that because Psionic Genesis says you can't, and Arcane Genesis doesn't say you can't, then RAW you can.
Your stance is flat out contradicting the published rules for demiplanes and totally ignores the actual definition of environment before replacing it with your own custom definition.


I find myself very unimpressed by theoretical optimization tricks because most of them don't work. When it's said that you're not meant to use them in actual gameplay, I've assumed that's because it wouldn't be fun to actually play in a game where you have an "I Win" button. But really it's because a DM doesn't have to resort to Rule 0 to say no when they can resort to any of the existing rules that deny what you're trying to do. I'd be more impressed by a heavily optimized, moderately powerful character that was absolutely airtight and unambiguous its optimization.

Very little of what I post ever requires DM adjudication. The RAW is clear cut and the vast majority of it is basically settled and has been so for a very long time. That you don't like it doesn't mean that it isn't RAW legal.


This, plus the automatic assumption of an infinitely lenient DM, who will always let you get away with the trick in question. That's a key ingredient, almost always required but rarely remarked upon.
No. It relies on a DM who doesn't rewrite the published rules on whim.


Tippy does seem to lean pretty heavily on that one. I've sometimes wondered how much of Tippydom would puff away if that were disallowed.
I mention Ice Assassin because it is fairly trivial to get it to do whatever the hell I want and it saves me from having to go source diving and post the long and complicated step by step process of hacking the rules to get what you want without using it.

[danzibr]

For some of the less mathy people in the thread, differential equations is a specific aspect of calculus (y'know, that thing Newton invented to use while he quantified physics). Differential equations is involved in being given a function and it's derivative and some relationship between them, and figuring out the same base function (Like being told the sum of an object's velocity and position always equal 3).

So, that's an introduction to Differential Equations, and is worth an undergraduate mathematics course on it's own. Higher order involves multiple derivatives and solving those for the base function (Given some unspecified relationship between jerk, acceleration, and position, find the velocity). Some methods for solving simpler versions of these problems are discussed in the undergraduate course.

This course has been described as "Bull**** voodoo magic math", and nonlinear and partial differential equations are both further complications, with partials being an upper division mathematics course.

Hypercognition might give you enough to solve it :P
It's not really fun into you have matrices for your coefficients. Differential systems rather than differential operators. That's where it's at.

[Pan151]

No. It relies on a DM who doesn't rewrite the published rules on whim.


A DM does not have to rewrite any rules to stop you from doing ridiculous (yet RAW legal) stuff. He can simply send a god to punish you for your hubris.

If you are abusing magic, you will inevitably anger the god of magic. Good luck beating an epic spellcaster that can cast 20+ spells per round.

[Kane0]

Why does the line "I reject your reality and substitute my own" come to mind here?

Though I honestly do believe that Tippy is either some sort of manifestation of the D&D ruleset or was the real mind behind it all.

Also, out of curiosity, has Tippy ever posted a rectification/update of the Locate City bomb?

[Rubik]

Also, out of curiosity, has Tippy ever posted a rectification/update of the Locate City bomb?It's better to use Fell Drain on Locate City than Explosive Spell, since the latter will just move you 5' and no more. (Having an area of "circle" is stupid, and it causes all sorts of cognitive and functional difficulties.)

Alternately, apply those feats to Detect Magic and run around exploding things by looking at them.

[Ionbound]

A DM does not have to rewrite any rules to stop you from doing ridiculous (yet RAW legal) stuff. He can simply send a god to punish you for your hubris.

If you are abusing magic, you will inevitably anger the god of magic. Good luck beating an epic spellcaster that can cast 20+ spells per round.

You kidding? Tippy'll probably kill it. He's just that good.

[Rubik]

You kidding? Tippy'll probably kill it. He's just that good.If I optimized to the level of my true ability, I KNOW I could, by level 9 [or earlier, if I tried hard], and I'm fairly sure that he's better than I am.

[Karoht]

No. It relies on a DM who doesn't rewrite the published rules on whim.Lets not kid ourselves, there are more than enough anecdotes of DM's who do this, regularly, on this website alone. Sure, it's anecdotal evidence, but there is a significant pile of it. Heck, I've never used anything even 1% as gamebreaking as you, and I find it a significant chore to even explain to some DM's what I'm doing and why it works, nevermind if the DM can comprehend it, nevermind if he doesn't just say, "I don't really understand what you are doing, but it sounds broken so no."


A DM does not have to rewrite any rules to stop you from doing ridiculous (yet RAW legal) stuff. He can simply send a god to punish you for your hubris.

If you are abusing magic, you will inevitably anger the god of magic. Good luck beating an epic spellcaster that can cast 20+ spells per round.Or he sits back and takes notes, knowing that said God of Magic can probably come and end these schenanigans at any time (most likely with extreme usage of Wish to counteract most of it, but whatevs).
Or, Tippy kills said God somehow.


It's better to use Fell Drain on Locate City than Explosive Spell, since the latter will just move you 5' and no more. (Having an area of "circle" is stupid, and it causes all sorts of cognitive and functional difficulties.)

Alternately, apply those feats to Detect Magic and run around exploding things by looking at them.That made me spit out my drink. Thank you sir.

[Nettlekid]

Except that the rules you provided a page reference for actually say the exact opposite. Two PAO's is one of the following: Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths (as the duration differs), Same Effect with Differing Results (permanent vs. temporary duration being differing results), or One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant (the longer duration rendering the shorter irrelevant).

In all three cases the permanent duration sticks.


Your argument only works if you accept a flawed premise and work from there, namely that you can ever get permanent duration out of a Polymorph Any Object that doesn't give it in the first casting. Polymorph Any Object states that the duration is based on the change between your original state and the state you're being Polymorphed into. No matter how many times you cast the spell, if you cast it to turn into the same creature, then the difference between your original state and the Polymorphed state is the same, and the spell has the same duration. It is the same spell with the same effects overlapping with itself, not stacking. This is an excellent example of the kind of faults in logic that sustain most of Tippyverse's "top tricks," in that they can only be justified "RAW" if you accept they can come to exist in the first place, which they can't because the actual RAW (and not the implicit rewriting of the rules which follow the trend of "Oh I'm sure this actually means that, therefore since the implied meaning is written right there it's RAW" as so many other assertions have) forbids it.



Your stance is flat out contradicting the published rules for demiplanes and totally ignores the actual definition of environment before replacing it with your own custom definition.

The published rules for demiplanes describe all possible demiplanes that can exist, not all possible demiplanes that can be created by the spell Genesis. There are monsters that exist that cannot be summoned by Summon Monster, and there are demiplanes that exist that cannot be created with Genesis. Genesis tells you exactly what you can manipulate, and time/magic traits are not among those qualities. Your stance is flat out operating under the "Since it doesn't say dead characters are forbidden to take actions, I full attack" mindset.

[Psyren]

A DM does not have to rewrite any rules to stop you from doing ridiculous (yet RAW legal) stuff. He can simply send a god to punish you for your hubris.

If you are abusing magic, you will inevitably anger the god of magic. Good luck beating an epic spellcaster that can cast 20+ spells per round.

Or, you know, Option C: Laugh, smack the player upside the head and say "great, you did it, you won D&D. Can we actually play now, or do you want to just fire up the Xbox?"

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Tippy
It relies on a DM who doesn't rewrite the published rules on whim.

A DM can work perfectly well within the published rules and still disallow extreme interpretations, especially when those interpretations would damage or disrupt the game. That's not rewriting anything, and it's by no means "on a whim." Every DM has the right to do this--and those who do aren't automatically wrong simply because they don't allow your favored playstyle.

[Karoht]

A DM can work perfectly well within the published rules and still disallow extreme interpretations, especially when those interpretations would damage or disrupt the game. That's not rewriting anything, and it's by no means "on a whim." Every DM has the right to do this--and those who do aren't automatically wrong simply because they don't allow your favored playstyle.They are when they blanket ban out of laziness or ignorance. Hitting the right target for the wrong reasons is still wrong (usually).

[137beth]

Mobile resetting trap of Hypercognition, solve the problem yourself.

Prove, or disprove, the Continuum Hypothesis in standard ZFC set-theory.


I don't think hypercogniction can get around that one...:smallamused:

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Karoht
They are when they blanket ban out of laziness or ignorance....

I think you can recognize this is smearing all DMs with a very broad brush indeed. Not everyone makes choices based on "laziness or ignorance," and it's hardly accurate--much less fair--to claim that they do.

[Nettlekid]

I think you can recognize this is smearing all DMs with a very broad brush indeed. Not everyone makes choices based on "laziness or ignorance," and it's hardly accurate--much less fair--to claim that they do.

I think Karoht is talking about the type of DM to disallow ToB because they don't like Iron Heart Surge and White Raven Tactics, or to forbid all psionics because Twinned Synchronicity is a thing. I do agree that those kinds of bans are poorly judged, but I also agree with you that specific bans of DM-judged unbalances (like the Sarrukh) are more than appropriate.

[AMFV]

Prove, or disprove, the Continuum Hypothesis in standard ZFC set-theory.


I don't think hypercogniction can get around that one...:smallamused:

Quite possibly it could, with hypercognition you would become 80% smarter at the very least than the smartest human being that could ever exist under mundane rulesets. I don't actually know enough of the math to be able to know if that's solvable, but if it's solvable (and that's a big if) hypercognition can fix it.

To answer the OP. Tippy's tricks typically revolve around the availability of magic through purchase, magic item tricks and a few select spells. There are some readings of RAW that would render many of his tricks for example he takes a very broad reading of Shapechange and of the Magic mantle. But those are debatable points and his side could be right, but I don't approve of his style of optimization because it relies so heavily on the SAME two or three tricks and therefore has serious problems if those particular tricks are banned.

[Irk]

Tippyverse's "top tricks," in that they can only be justified "RAW" if you accept they can come to exist in the first place, which they can't because the actual RAW (and not the implicit rewriting of the rules which follow the trend of "Oh I'm sure this actually means that, therefore since the implied meaning is written right there it's RAW" as so many other assertions have) forbids it.

give an example apart from genesis and PAO. If those are the only two issues, it's not too big a deal, really.

[137beth]

Quite possibly it could, with hypercognition you would become 80% smarter at the very least than the smartest human being that could ever exist under mundane rulesets. I don't actually know enough of the math to be able to know if that's solvable, but if it's solvable (and that's a big if) hypercognition can fix it.



Nope, it was proven impossible by Paul Cohen. I guess there could be a RAW way to break set theory, though...

[Karoht]

I think you can recognize this is smearing all DMs with a very broad brush indeed. Not everyone makes choices based on "laziness or ignorance," and it's hardly accurate--much less fair--to claim that they do.You are correct in that I am describing the actions of anecdotally based strawman DM's, I will not deny this. However, do you deny that at least some of them exist and operate under such pretenses?


I think Karoht is talking about the type of DM to disallow ToB because they don't like Iron Heart Surge and White Raven Tactics, or to forbid all psionics because Twinned Synchronicity is a thing. I do agree that those kinds of bans are poorly judged, but I also agree with you that specific bans of DM-judged unbalances (like the Sarrukh) are more than appropriate.Bingo. In my opinion, when they do it out of afformentioned laziness or ignorance it's just insulting. Particularly if one has put some research into a build and has a really fun idea they want to try which, yes is going to maybe require some research on the part of the DM to know how to handle.

Temper the above with my empathy in that I wholeheartedly acknowledge that DM's kind of get the short end of the stick. They don't get to claim Burden of Proof relies on the one making the claim.
IE-I say rule X allows Y.
The DM now has to verify this one way or another. Either it works, here's why, great, DM can allow this in the game. Or, it doesn't work, here's why, DM can't allow this in the game. Burden of Proof is often left in the hands of the DM. So it isn't all that surprising when they up and decide "Rule Zero, no you can't do that."

This is why I'm really curious to one day meet the DM who runs Tippy's games. Because if Tippy is this good at rules lawyering (it isn't a dirty term in my book), imagine how good the DM who rolls with all of this must be.

[Nettlekid]

give an example apart from genesis and PAO. If those are the only two issues, it's not too big a deal, really.

Since a great number of his "tricks" involve first PaOing twice or making a fast time/enhanced magic plane, it's a bigger deal than you suggest.

I don't have a very good argument against the Ice Assassin Aleax thing, so I've spoilered it. One that's a bit less obviously spurious but dubious at best is the whole fuse-with-Ice-Assassin-of-your-Aleax thing. Usually I see him say "Wish for a scroll of Ice Assassin" which does bypass the issue of "I have a god's toenail in my spell component pouch because it has no price listed and therefore is worth less than one gold" which I've heard other people use. However, the creation of the scroll does imply the existence of the creature the Ice Assassin is imitating, namely the Aleax of the PC, which does not exist until a deity calls it into being.

But really, it's not about the nature of the tricks themselves, it's about how troublesome it is to see people fawn and gush over what they call brilliant and genius and inspired when these things just don't work. That's the thing I have a problem with.

[Pan151]

You kidding? Tippy'll probably kill it. He's just that good.

Not when a divine rank 20 deity of magic can create 20 ice assasins of Tippy each round as a free action...

Or alternatively 20 Miracles/Wishes.

And as his standard action, he can cast Time Stop. So he can keep doing that ad infinitum.

Tippy is good, but he is, from a purely technical point of view, not infinitely better than his own self. So the god of magic still wins.

[Karoht]

One day I want to see Tippy do a thread entitled "The Troubles of Tippyverse"

For example, it must be a crazy lonely life as a Wizard. No friends. You can go to parties but never as yourself. You don't get to really touch people, you use surrogates everywhere. How do you have a real relationship like this?
Most people won't even know you exist, you can do great and epic deeds and they will go untold and unremembered. You don't get Christmas presents or Birthday presents, never mind cards, or a party that is genuinely thrown for you. Sure, you could summon up some stuff and throw your own party on your Demiplane, but where's the fun in that? You will never again know the joy of being surprised at a surprise birthday party.
Honestly, it's worse than the MiB, and it's self-imposed too.
It brings up a lot of questions about who would actually choose something like this.

[Pan151]

One day I want to see Tippy do a thread entitled "The Troubles of Tippyverse"

For example, it must be a crazy lonely life as a Wizard. No friends. You can go to parties but never as yourself. You don't get to really touch people, you use surrogates everywhere. How do you have a real relationship like this?
Most people won't even know you exist, you can do great and epic deeds and they will go untold and unremembered. You don't get Christmas presents or Birthday presents, never mind cards, or a party that is genuinely thrown for you. Sure, you could summon up some stuff and throw your own party on your Demiplane, but where's the fun in that? You will never again know the joy of being surprised at a surprise birthday party.
Honestly, it's worse than the MiB, and it's self-imposed too.
It brings up a lot of questions about who would actually choose something like this.

If a wizard needs friends, he can simply make some.

I mean literally make them.

[Rubik]

Not when a divine rank 20 deity of magic can create 20 ice assasins of Tippy each round as a free action...

Or alternatively 20 Miracles/Wishes.

And as his standard action, he can cast Time Stop. So he can keep doing that ad infinitum.

Tippy is good, but he is, from a purely technical point of view, not infinitely better than his own self. So the god of magic still wins.I have a build that can curbstomp anything that isn't flat-out immune to literally everything.

...which doesn't include DR 20 deities.


One day I want to see Tippy do a thread entitled "The Troubles of Tippyverse"

For example, it must be a crazy lonely life as a Wizard. No friends. You can go to parties but never as yourself. You don't get to really touch people, you use surrogates everywhere. How do you have a real relationship like this?
Most people won't even know you exist, you can do great and epic deeds and they will go untold and unremembered. You don't get Christmas presents or Birthday presents, never mind cards, or a party that is genuinely thrown for you. Sure, you could summon up some stuff and throw your own party on your Demiplane, but where's the fun in that? You will never again know the joy of being surprised at a surprise birthday party.
Honestly, it's worse than the MiB, and it's self-imposed too.
It brings up a lot of questions about who would actually choose something like this.Using Astral Projection means you experience life as though your body was there, since the spell doesn't say otherwise.

It's no more problematic than if you had a 1-up mushroom in your pocket, which activates when you die.

[Lord Raziere]

A DM does not have to rewrite any rules to stop you from doing ridiculous (yet RAW legal) stuff. He can simply send a god to punish you for your hubris.

If you are abusing magic, you will inevitably anger the god of magic. Good luck beating an epic spellcaster that can cast 20+ spells per round.

Yea, I once argued on these very forums for the brute force approach. it only encourages more optimizing, apparently

I'd instead go for something similar to when Methods of Rationality Harry Potter tried to abuse time: instead of it working, a message appears from the universe itself clearly saying "DO NOT MESS WITH THE RULES OF THE UNIVERSE."

[Pan151]

I have a build that can curbstomp anything that isn't flat-out immune to literally everything.

...which doesn't include DR 20 deities.

Well, that's the problem. No matter how powerful you are, you cannot beat something that can create an infinite amount of copies of yourself indefinitely and from a safe distance.

[Rubik]

Well, that's the problem. No matter how powerful you are, you cannot beat something that can create an infinite amount of copies of yourself indefinitely and from a safe distance.Funny thing. With dvati/Shapechange-into-splitting-oozes shenanigans, I can do that, too.

[Pan151]

Funny thing. With dvati/Shapechange-into-splitting-oozes shenanigans, I can do that, too.

You will never get to actually do anything. By the time the god of magic will stop chaining Time Stops he will have put in place multiple counters for every single spell in existance. If he still has problems, he will simply get his buddy, the god of death, that can kill you multiple times a round, in various different ways, as a free action.

The moral of the story: your DM is the highest DR deity of the world you're playing in. If he wants you to stop doing what you're doing, then he can make you do so.

[Rubik]

You will never get to actually do anything. By the time the god of magic will stop chaining Time Stops he will have put in place multiple counters for every single spell in existance. If he still has problems, he will simply get his buddy, the god of death, that can kill you multiple times a round, in various different ways, as a free action.I'm fairly sure that I'd be immortal at that point, so the life-and-death divine ability thing wouldn't work on me. Plus, y'know, the whole "I'm an aleax of myself and thus immune to all forms of attack" thing.

*Shrug*

[charcoalninja]

I do sort of side with those who hold the opinion that many of the TO tricks rely on dubious readings of RAW, such as the infinite solar gating. An oft overlooked aspect of the greater outsiders is that they are immune to mental compulsion and so cannot be commanded to do anything they don't want to do even by gate.

The Solar is under a constant magic circle vs evil (immune to mental control) and Balors, Marilliths and Nalfeshnee are under unholy aura all the time for the same effect.

Whenever I raise this arguement most people start talking about gate not being Mind affecting (which doesn't matter at all to prot from evil) and claiming that the control it grants isn't mental control.

But then nobody can answer what kind of control Gate grants the caster. If I command a solar to kill an orphanage, unless my spell is physically moving their limbs for them, than it is exerting mental compulsion regardless of if the designers were savy enough to slam mind affecting on it, which of course makes the control impossible on the higher outsiders.

Just one example at the forefront of my mind. That being said, there is a TONNE of things Tippy and co. bring up that blow my mind and I love the rules mastery they present and the cases they make. It really I feel shows the extreme strength of the system that 3.5 can be played in so many different ways in such differing levels of power as to support pretty much every playstyle ever.

Another example is Cindy, of an elf generalist wizard using chaos feat shuffle to swap out racial weapon proficiencies for feats they actually care about. That doesn't work because being proficient with a weapon does not equal haveing the weapon proficiency feat for that weapon last I checked otherwise fighters could feat shuffly away for 40 feats at level 1 without concern.

[Irk]

But really, it's not about the nature of the tricks themselves, it's about how troublesome it is to see people fawn and gush over what they call brilliant and genius and inspired when these things just don't work. That's the thing I have a problem with.

This build (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=286818) and this build (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=240212) may appeal to your more as the do not really use many of the thigns that he is known for. I can understand where you're coming from, but I would really appreciate it if you didn't characterize those interested in certain TO ideas in such a way. In all honesty though, check out those builds, they sound like the kind of thing you were mentioning before.

[Rubik]

I do sort of side with those who hold the opinion that many of the TO tricks rely on dubious readings of RAW, such as the infinite solar gating. An oft overlooked aspect of the greater outsiders is that they are immune to mental compulsion and so cannot be commanded to do anything they don't want to do even by gate....which is not a [compulsion] or even [mind-affecting] effect, and thus function as the spell description on Gate says they are.

[G.Cube]

GAIZ, GAIZ, can I interupt just for a moment to point out the blazing pink, Far Realm'd, theoretically awesome-ised, Ice Assassin Elephantal in the room?

......this thread is AWESOME! :)

[Pan151]

I'm fairly sure that I'd be immortal at that point, so the life-and-death divine ability thing wouldn't work on me. Plus, y'know, the whole "I'm an aleax of myself and thus immune to all forms of attack" thing.

*Shrug*

The god death does not even have to use life-and-death.

As a god of death, he can make any action relevant to his portfolio (ie your death, regardless of whether you are immortal or not) as a free action, as many times a round as is his divine rank. The only limitation is that the DC must be 30 or less. And, killing a PC obviously has no set DC, so guess who gets to choose what that DC is :smallsmile:

(see, the DM can abuse RAW better than any player ever could)


Even better: get the creator-of-the-universe over-deity. As the one responsible for the universe itself, he can change the laws of the universe as a free action by the same rules as above. And there, ladies and gentlemen, we have Rule 0: RAW version :smallwink:

[AMFV]

Nope, it was proven impossible by Paul Cohen. I guess there could be a RAW way to break set theory, though...

Well if it's not solvable it can't solve it, but with metafaculty you could discern that its solution is impossible.

[Bakkan]

Another example is Cindy, of an elf generalist wizard using chaos feat shuffle to swap out racial weapon proficiencies for feats they actually care about. That doesn't work because being proficient with a weapon does not equal haveing the weapon proficiency feat for that weapon last I checked otherwise fighters could feat shuffly away for 40 feats at level 1 without concern.

It turns out that elves specifically and explicitly get the proficiency because they gain the appropriate feats, while fighters, as you correctly pointed out, do not (they get the armor feats, though).

[MeiLeTeng]

The god death does not even have to use life-and-death.

As a god of death, he can make any action relevant to his portfolio (ie your death, regardless of whether you are immortal or not) as a free action, as many times a round as is his divine rank. The only limitation is that the DC must be 30 or less. And, killing a PC obviously has no set DC, so guess who gets to choose what that DC is :)

(see, the DM can abuse RAW better than any player ever could)


I'm fairly sure that I'd be immortal at that point, so the life-and-death divine ability thing wouldn't work on me. Plus, y'know, the whole "I'm an aleax of myself and thus immune to all forms of attack" thing.

*Shrug*


Y'all realize that you're currently doing the internet version of "I totally hit you!" "Nu-uh, I had my shield" "Well I attacked you with blah blah blah that totally goes through your shield" etc etc right?

[BrokenChord]

I'm fairly sure that I'd be immortal at that point, so the life-and-death divine ability thing wouldn't work on me. Plus, y'know, the whole "I'm an aleax of myself and thus immune to all forms of attack" thing.

*Shrug*

Forgive my newbishness, but as was previously pointed out, the god is probably throwing Ice Assassins of yourself at you, and considering that the Ice Assassin of the Aleax counted enough as your Aleax to have the same property of only being able to be hurt by *you* that would probably mean the "you* Ice Assassins could potentially harm you. Just postulating, feel free to throw that in my face and prove me wrong, as I don't practice the optimization thing at all if I can help it.

[Palanan]

Real gods don't bother with ice assassins, they just break you down to quantum foam.

And MeiLeTeng is right on target. Once the exchange reaches the "immune to everything, nyah nyah" stage, it's long since stopped being a d20 game that people play for fun.

[Pan151]

Y'all realize that you're currently doing the internet version of "I totally hit you!" "Nu-uh, I had my shield" "Well I attacked you with blah blah blah that totally goes through your shield" etc etc right?

Just demonstrating how silly things get when people try to abuse RAW. And I think we're absolutely succeeding in demonstrating that aformentioned silliness :smallwink:

[BrokenChord]

Real gods don't bother with ice assassins, they just break you down to quantum foam.

And MeiLeTeng is right on target. Once the exchange reaches the "immune to everything, nyah nyah" stage, it's long since stopped being a d20 game that people play for fun.

As a matter of fact, Tippy plays EXACTLY that kind of game for fun. Admittedly, his group of players and DM are probably far too mature and used to this level for it to actually devolve to "nyah nyah" at any point, but that's somewhat besides the point.

[ngilop]

SO.. what I am learning form this is


I should Pay Tippy to build my world's Deities' avatars to do this kind of crazy shenanigans ( every avatar is at least 20 HD outsider with 10 levels of cleric)

no character coudl actually kill a deity in my world as they are above and beyond mortal abilities (i.e they have no stats at all)

And i want avatars to be powerful like a deity should be.

[Psyren]

Y'all realize that you're currently doing the internet version of "I totally hit you!" "Nu-uh, I had my shield" "Well I attacked you with blah blah blah that totally goes through your shield" etc etc right?

And now you see why TO isn't used at tables. (Mature tables anyway.)

[Dalebert]

Not when a divine rank 20 deity of magic can create 20 ice assasins of Tippy each round as a free action...
...
Tippy is good, but he is, from a purely technical point of view, not infinitely better than his own self. So the god of magic still wins.

One flaw with that is that ice assassins can only be healed via a slow and expensive process in a laboratory while Tippy himself could partake of magical healing. I suppose they will apply intensive magical measures to never take damage at all though.

[Pan151]

One flaw with that is that ice assassins can only be healed via a slow and expensive process in a laboratory while Tippy himself could partake of magical healing. I suppose they will apply intensive magical measures to never take damage at all though.

Why heal ice assasins when you could just make more of them?

[TrollCapAmerica]

SO.. what I am learning form this is


I should Pay Tippy to build my world's Deities' avatars to do this kind of crazy shenanigans ( every avatar is at least 20 HD outsider with 10 levels of cleric)

no character coudl actually kill a deity in my world as they are above and beyond mortal abilities (i.e they have no stats at all)

And i want avatars to be powerful like a deity should be.

I think the stats provided for Gods in the books are better as guidelines specifically because the guys designing the game never knew what PCs could do with it with a great example being a guy like Eliminster who wouldnt be allowed to clean the toilets of the TO clubhouse

Now lets think about Tippy D&D 3.5 and the internet nowadays.Bear with me I thought alot about this and thought it would be fun to share

Ya see D&D has been around a long time but the majority of pre-3rd ed days had very cookie cutter characters that all tended to do pretty much the same thing and very few choices in what you could do.Alot of who your character was mechanically was completely up to random dice rolls for things like stats [where usually only 16-18s had any practical application] or random treasure finds that favored only certain things

Later in 2nd ed more options started coming up for building characters ranging from handbooks with kits to the Players option handbooks to Forgotten realms BS that pampered Ed Greenwoods favorites.This opened up the game to actual character builds and headed straight into 3rd and 3.5 which began focusing more on the players than stuff for the DM to use.

The thing is "Emperor Tippy" has always existed.In 1st ed he was the guy in the group of Grognards that noticed that only swords could get above +5 on the random treasure rolls meaning that in the long run they had at least a slight advantage over the few weapons comparable to the almighty OP Longsword.In 2nd ed another I was the "Tippy" of my gaming group who used a Giff Fighter Pugilist kit and the martial arts rules from the Ninjas handbook to create a beast that punched his way through everything in the MM that didnt require a wish to kill

The cool thing that happened though was the Internet.Sure 3.5s wide open ruleset is what allows all the craziness to happen but if not for an internet connection few people would hear of it,Nowadays all the Tippys great and small gather on message boards and can gleefully discuss things from across the planet.All of them have traded knowledge back and forth until its bigger than the any one of them and thats why there are so many ridiculous awesome things floating around now.

I know personally I wouldnt have given 3rd ed a chance if not for being impressed by Red Mage in 8BT writing up a Bard with stupid high Bluff so im pretty glad this kind of guys exist :smallbiggrin:

[Psyren]

So... what you're saying is there's a Slim Shady Tippy in all of us :smalltongue:

(Let's all stand up)

[Kelb_Panthera]

The god death does not even have to use life-and-death.

As a god of death, he can make any action relevant to his portfolio (ie your death, regardless of whether you are immortal or not) as a free action, as many times a round as is his divine rank. The only limitation is that the DC must be 30 or less. And, killing a PC obviously has no set DC, so guess who gets to choose what that DC is :smallsmile:

(see, the DM can abuse RAW better than any player ever could)


Even better: get the creator-of-the-universe over-deity. As the one responsible for the universe itself, he can change the laws of the universe as a free action by the same rules as above. And there, ladies and gentlemen, we have Rule 0: RAW version :smallwink:

Umm... no.

A deity can make actions regarding his portfolio as free actions but the text doesn't say he can do literally anything as long as it can be said to be associated with his portfolio.

Here's the relevant passage, copied from the SRD


Automatic Actions

When performing an action within its portfolio, a deity can perform any action as a free action, as long as the check DC is equal to or less than the number on the table below. The number of free actions a deity can perform each round is also determined by the deity’s divine rank.

While this could be interpreted the way you suggest, the example given in D&DG clarifies the meaning


For instance, a demigod of war could make two longswords as free actions (craft [weaponsmith] DC 15). The deity still needs to have the proper tools and materials at hand.

Emphasis mine.

If a deity can do -anything- with regards to his portfolio, why does he need tools and raw materials?

The logical conclusion is that the god must still follow all the normal rules for doing a thing and the automatic action rules just allow him to do it impossibly fast.

The thing about the overdeity is correct enough. The rules explicitly say that such beings exist outside the rules.

[Scow2]

Death Ward prevents the god of Death from flat-out killing you anyway.

...Isn't an Aleax essentially a supercharged Ice Assassin?

[Lord Raziere]

You will never get to actually do anything. By the time the god of magic will stop chaining Time Stops he will have put in place multiple counters for every single spell in existance. If he still has problems, he will simply get his buddy, the god of death, that can kill you multiple times a round, in various different ways, as a free action.

The moral of the story: your DM is the highest DR deity of the world you're playing in. If he wants you to stop doing what you're doing, then he can make you do so.

Too limited and narrow. you have the universe. If you so choose, their shenanigans merely result in them creating a rift in reality where the offending party is sucked into the Far Realm, whilst cthulhu-esque entities start crawling out of the hole they made and screwing up the rules of the universe even further, causing things like fireball to mean "conjure mop" or for the planet to suddenly split in half because reality is malfunctioning.

there is a reason why people in these universes, don't abuse the rules....they are there for a reason.

[Scow2]

Deities in 3.5 have conflicting rules regarding whether they have omnipotence or not...

[Pan151]

Umm... no.

A deity can make actions regarding his portfolio as free actions but the text doesn't say he can do literally anything as long as it can be said to be associated with his portfolio.

Here's the relevant passage, copied from the SRD



While this could be interpreted the way you suggest, the example given in D&DG clarifies the meaning



Emphasis mine.

If a deity can do -anything- with regards to his portfolio, why does he need tools and raw materials?

The logical conclusion is that the god must still follow all the normal rules for doing a thing and the automatic action rules just allow him to do it impossibly fast.

The thing about the overdeity is correct enough. The rules explicitly say that such beings exist outside the rules.

As we all know, RAW is silly. And what RAW says is that the automatic actions can do anything as long as it is below a certain max DC, as long as there exist the necessery tools and components to do so. I dont think you need any physical components or tools to magically kill someone. Thus, there's no reason why it you not be possible by RAW.

Now, I absolutely agree with you, and would never use the deity rules as I did in the above examples in an actual game, because that would be ridiculous... but the rules are vague enough that there is no limit to how powerful these automatic actions can be. It all depends on how one goes about assigning DCs to things that don't have one (and probably should not have one). And that is why we have DMs in our games - for a game to be playable, it has to depend on RAI, not RAW. And it's why Theoretical Optimisation is exactly that: theoretical.

[eggynack]

If the DM wants to kill this character, they almost certainly can. Arguing about what a god of death can or can not do is completely irrelevant unless there's some way in which this character is specifically pissing off the god of death in his plans. That doesn't make crazy TO tricks stop working, because that fact could be reasonably used to stop anything from being powerful. It's just a completely arbitrary thing. If the DM wants the player to not do a crazy thing, they should tell the player, instead of sending a deity to kill their character for crossing some arbitrary power threshold that exists in the DM's head.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Deities in 3.5 have conflicting rules regarding whether they have omnipotence or not...

The miracle argument? That doesn't work either.

When a cleric casts miracle, he's not actually casting a spell, says so in the description. What he's doing is calling on his deity, if he has one, or whatever deity is listening, if he doesn't, to help him out. When a deity "casts" miracle there's no one for him to call on except himself. Either way it amounts to burning a 9th level slot to get a deity to use its native abilities, spells, SLA's, SU's, and DSA's. Alter reality will let them do virtually anything but it's restricted to deities with cha 29 and is subject to inheriting wish's partial fulfillment clause.

Other than that, I'm pretty sure the only other thing that suggests omnipotence is the one I already mentioned.


As we all know, RAW is silly. And what RAW says is that the automatic actions can do anything as long as it is below a certain max DC, as long as there exist the necessery tools and components to do so. I dont think you need any physical components or tools to magically kill someone. Thus, there's no reason why it you not be possible by RAW.

Now, I absolutely agree with you, and would never use the deity rules as I did in the above examples in an actual game, because that would be ridiculous... but the rules are vague enough that there is no limit to how powerful these automatic actions can be. It all depends on how one goes about assigning DCs to things that don't have one (and probably should not have one). And that is why we have DMs in our games - for a game to be playable, it has to depend on RAI, not RAW. And it's why Theoretical Optimisation is exactly that: theoretical.

Except it doesn't say they can do anything. It says that they can take any action. To parse it over-literally the other way; it says they can take any of a 1 round, full-round, standard, move, swift, immediate, or free action as a free action. The printed example also refutes this interpretation though.


If the DM wants to kill this character, they almost certainly can. Arguing about what a god of death can or can not do is completely irrelevant unless there's some way in which this character is specifically pissing off the god of death in his plans. That doesn't make crazy TO tricks stop working, because that fact could be reasonably used to stop anything from being powerful. It's just a completely arbitrary thing. If the DM wants the player to not do a crazy thing, they should tell the player, instead of sending a deity to kill their character for crossing some arbitrary power threshold that exists in the DM's head.

DM fiat always was, and will be, a valid way to put the kibosh on any kind of shenanigans. Generally, though, people tend to ignore rule zero when discussing RAW because it invalidates the rest of the rules in the same way as that trick test we all got in high-school. You know the one; the first instruction is to read all instructions before doing anything and the last is to ignore all the other instructions and only sign your name, with like 90 other "instructions" in-between.

[SiuiS]

Seconding Darrin's whole post really, but highlighting this bit in particular. If you're in a game with a DM who doesn't know how or want to handle this stuff, or would be caught off-guard by it, be an adult and don't use it.


In other words, observe the "Theoretical" in "Theoretical Optimization." Always sage advice in an actual, serious game.

Man, really wish that were more common advice. Had a guy come into a game with as much abuse as possible because the DM asked for help with one unruly player and the guy had no restraint. Or even functional rules knowledge, for half of it.


A DM does not have to rewrite any rules to stop you from doing ridiculous (yet RAW legal) stuff. He can simply send a god to punish you for your hubris.

With an Aleax? Cake. That's also the only rules system for gods punishing folks...


If you are abusing magic, you will inevitably anger the god of magic. Good luck beating an epic spellcaster that can cast 20+ spells per round.

Done it! Surprisingly easy. Gods are very, very poorly designed.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

which does bypass the issue of "I have a god's toenail in my spell component pouch because it has no price listed and therefore is worth less than one gold" which I've heard other people use.

That's precisely how the wording of spell component pouches (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/goodsAndServices.htm#spellComponentPouch) is written. Does the bit for Ice Assassin have a price? Let's check the text of the spell:



Material Component: This spell is cast over the ice statue of the creature
to be duplicated. Some portion of the creature to be duplicated (hair, nail,
and so on) must be placed inside the ice statue as it is constructed. In
addition, the spell requires powdered diamond worth 20,000 gp.
XP Cost: 5,000.

The "Portion of the Creature to be Duplicated" (the PCD, let's call it) has no listed price. Now, let's look back at the text of our spell component pouch:



A spellcaster with a spell component pouch is assumed to have all the material components and focuses needed for spellcasting, except for those components that have a specific cost, divine focuses, and focuses that wouldn’t fit in a pouch.

Now, if the "PCD" has no listed price (which it does not), and is not a divine focus or a focus that wouldn't fit in a pouch, it's in the pouch. Given that it has no listed price (as we have shown), is not a divine focus, and it is not a focus that wouldn't fit in a pouch*, it is consequently present for use in the pouch, by the rules as written (Q.E.D.).

Now, you may choose to house-rule that parts of specific creatures have a specific cost, are divine focuses, or are focuses which wouldn't fit in a pouch (I think the first of these is best, the other two strain credulity for me (in most cases)), which would then mean they are not present. That may even be a sensible thing to do. However, this is a house rule, and not RAW. By RAW, it works.

And so on for just about any T.O. that passes peer review still gets thrown around. The CharOp community has been thinking about, working on, and debating these things for years, over many different sites. Most of the stuff that sticks around sticks because there is minimal (if any) argument against its working. It may not jive with all sensibilities, it may seem abusive, but "flawed premise[s]" do not functioning rules-exploits/hacks/T.O. make.


When a cleric casts miracle, he's not actually casting a spell, says so in the description. What he's doing is calling on his deity, if he has one, or whatever deity is listening, if he doesn't, to help him out. When a deity "casts" miracle there's no one for him to call on except himself. Either way it amounts to burning a 9th level slot to get a deity to use its native abilities, spells, SLA's, SU's, and DSA's. Alter reality will let them do virtually anything but it's restricted to deities with cha 29 and is subject to inheriting wish's partial fulfillment clause.

Which makes me wonder what happens when a Shadowcraft Mage casts Miracle at greater than 100% reality...but perhaps that's a question better suited to another thread.


*Actually, since it's not a focus, whether or not it would fit in the pouch is irrelevant.

[SiuiS]

Prove, or disprove, the Continuum Hypothesis in standard ZFC set-theory.


Contact other plane: far realms. :smallbiggrin:



I don't have a very good argument against the Ice Assassin Aleax thing, so I've spoilered it. One that's a bit less obviously spurious but dubious at best is the whole fuse-with-Ice-Assassin-of-your-Aleax thing. Usually I see him say "Wish for a scroll of Ice Assassin" which does bypass the issue of "I have a god's toenail in my spell component pouch because it has no price listed and therefore is worth less than one gold" which I've heard other people use. However, the creation of the scroll does imply the existence of the creature the Ice Assassin is imitating, namely the Aleax of the PC, which does not exist until a deity calls it into being.

But really, it's not about the nature of the tricks themselves, it's about how troublesome it is to see people fawn and gush over what they call brilliant and genius and inspired when these things just don't work. That's the thing I have a problem with.

Time travel in D&D exists, as do alternate universes, and potential universes which are discrete entities but never actually happen. If you set it up so that somehow and somewhen there will be an Aleax, you can acquire it's ice assassin.


You will never get to actually do anything. By the time the god of magic will stop chaining Time Stops

He will have been defeated by my ride along feat instant action interrupt chained time stops he's not capable of stopping while I build a nigh-infinite amount of whatever I need to win by the culmination of actual time (for us, since his chained time stops will still have to run their duration).


He will have put in place multiple counters for every single spell in existance.

Redundant penetrations are kinda the point of IP proofing, aren't they?


The god death does not even have to use life-and-death.

As a god of death, he can make any action relevant to his portfolio (ie your death, regardless of whether you are immortal or not) as a free action, as many times a round as is his divine rank. The only limitation is that the DC must be 30 or less. And, killing a PC obviously has no set DC, so guess who gets to choose what that DC is :smallsmile:

As a transcendental singularity, my death does not exist as a possibility in this or any known time stream.

Best use of level eight shenanigans ever!



Even better: get the creator-of-the-universe over-deity. As the one responsible for the universe itself, he can change the laws of the universe as a free action by the same rules as above. And there, ladies and gentlemen, we have Rule 0: RAW version :smallwink:

No, actually, since there are clearly no rules for such beings and you're specifically told they shouldn't be extrapolated from these rules or ever do anything meaningful.

This is actually the plot of my current (stalled) campaign; we're collapsing all possibilities within the multiverse to make it stop being. The other guy wants to escape the D&D verse, I want to reboot it without the flaws. But we've both engineered the ability to exist without the universe, the multiverse, distinct ontological existence, without the game or game rules, and possibly without the player at this point.

... We kinda just want to finish this off to get it over with, actually. It's pretty boring now.

[AuraTwilight]

This is actually the plot of my current (stalled) campaign; we're collapsing all possibilities within the multiverse to make it stop being. The other guy wants to escape the D&D verse, I want to reboot it without the flaws. But we've both engineered the ability to exist without the universe, the multiverse, distinct ontological existence, without the game or game rules, and possibly without the player at this point.

... We kinda just want to finish this off to get it over with, actually. It's pretty boring now.

Campaign Log. I want one.

[chaos_redefined]

Someone needs to make a Real Tippy Facts thread. :smalltongue:

Tippy doesn't follow the D&D rules. The D&D rules follow Tippy.

[Pan151]

Except it doesn't say they can do anything.

Well it doesn't say they can't do anything (aside from actions with a high set DC).

Which is the root of the issue with most TO. It doesn't say it can't work that way, therefore it can work that way. Like how Cancer Mage is "immune to most disease effects", but not explicitly immune to the positive effects of festering anger, therefore infinite strength is possible. Or how Maximise Spell is not explicitely incompatible with rolling in % tables, therefore you can Maximise Reincanate (not that you'd ever want to give your DM explicit permission to permanently turn you into a squirrel, but you get my drift)


Tippy doesn't follow the D&D rules. The D&D rules follow Tippy.

In Soviet Tippyverse, rules follow you.
Which is, btw, why Tippvyerse exists in the first place.

[Vaz]

And it doesn't say Fighter 1's can shoot lasers from their eyes either, any other answers based on "it doesn't say they can't" leads to Spartamadness. TO tends to play by a permissive ruleset, only doing what it says you CAN do.

If you're dealing with Deities that can instantly win with things like that, and you're expecting the Deity to do something about that and stop it happening, why bother statting the gods up anyway?

And why are we discussing the deities when they effectively turn a blind eye to it in Tippyverse?

[Pan151]

And it doesn't say Fighter 1's can shoot lasers from their eyes either, any other answers based on "it doesn't say they can't" leads to Spartamadness. TO tends to play by a permissive ruleset, only doing what it says you CAN do.

I'm pretty sure Tippy can make a lv1 fighter do exactly that. I mean, I'm pretty confident even I could find some way of doing it (possibly through True Mind Switch with a Beholder, but preferably involving an Atropal instead)

Anyway, when I say "it doesn't say I can't" I dont mean it in that way you describe. It's not about making up your own rules - it's about using existing rules, that however are incomplete in some way (some are vague on what the limits are, some are vague as to how they apply in a specific case) and interpreting those incomlete parts as is best for you.

At any rate, DnD rules were never meant to exist in a vaccum - they exist within the context of some world. The DM is there to put limits to what the rules can and can't do within the limits of said world, so that you do not have the aleax of a dweomerkeeper-ur-priest-mystic thaumaturge lich with 3 private planes, its phylactery hidden in the Positive Energy Plane and several bags of holding full of individually-contigencied solars wrecking havoc in Forgotten Realms, where the local god of magic is weak enough to die every other Tuesday. There's a good reason gods are largely absent from the Tippyverse...

[Vaz]

Yes, you can.

Human with Magical Training and Precocious Apprentice gets you a 2nd level spell. I'm sure there's a eye-laser beam from somewhere as a 2nd level spell. However, the point is, FIGHTER 1 explicitly doesn't say "Laser Beams; SU; you shoot death rays from your eyes".

There's a difference between Permission Granted, and Permission not Granted, and Permission withdrawn.

Permission withdrawn is in the form of Banning Spellschools, such as with a Wizard. It stops you using it.

Permission granted explicitly allows you to do so; i.e Fighter 1, you can select a Fighter Bonus Feat.

Permission not granted is the bit that falls in between; effectively "it doesn't say I can't". A bit like there's no mention of the Fighter class shooting laser beams from its eyes. If you have the means to by another "Permission Granted" (such as Magical Training+Precocious Apprentice, say) ability, then the selecting the fighter class won't stop you.

Do you understand where I'm coming from?

As to what you meant; in the wording of Deities and Demigods, you're taking it out of context.


For instance, a demigod of war could make two longswords as free actions (craft [weaponsmith] DC 15). The deity still needs to have the proper tools and materials at hand.

The Deity can, as a free action cause your death. But it needs the ability at hand. You need to be in reach of its spells, say, or its attacks. By the time you're optimizing a god to have that defence anyway against such attacks, you're requiring the Psion/Wizard to up their game, and pick up a weak deity (Imhotep, say), and smush them around, getting their divine rank and portfolio's etc.

However, you're dealing with near Epic, and Deities who can fling around epic magic and abilities; it needs to be heavily monitored. As you say, Tippyverse has present but uncaring, and, more importantly, unstatted deities.

[charcoalninja]

...which is not a [compulsion] or even [mind-affecting] effect, and thus function as the spell description on Gate says they are.

It doesn't need any keywords for Protection from evil to negate the control. Protection from evil says it prevents "mental control" that's it. Doesn't care about keywords or spell descriptors. Gate grants you control over the creature summoned allowing you to command it to perform any task you choose. Since you call the actual being and you can't simply send them home with a dispel magic Gate isn't turning your summon into a physical meat puppet so the control is mental. Do this you say and the creature, by the spell must do that thing.

Protection from evil prevents any sort of thing like this from working. Funny how all of the leaders of the outsider races all have an ability that makes them immune to mental control eh?

Which is why there's so many mechanics about bargaining with this immortal nigh-demigods.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Can we not do the gate discussion again? Last time it got serious we went for around twelve pages and ultimately the conclusion amounts to "the calling function is so poorly written as to make IHS look like an editing masterwork." It's just bad.

As for a deity killing you, if it has the life and death DSA, you're dead, period. Seriously;
Life And Death
Prerequisites

Divine rank 6, Gift of Life or Hand of Death salient divine ability.
Benefit

The deity designates any mortal and snuffs out its life. Or the deity can designate any dead mortal and restore it to life.
Notes

This ability works across planar boundaries and penetrates any barrier except a divine shield. However, the subject must be in a location the deity can sense, either within the deity’s sense range or in a location the deity can perceive through its remote sensing ability. If the deity cannot see the subject, the deity must unambiguously identify the subject in some fashion. If the deity chooses to kill a mortal, the ability works like the destruction spell, except that there is no material component or saving throw. The mortal cannot be raised or resurrected afterward, except by a deity of equal or higher rank using the Gift of Life or Life and Death salient divine ability.

If the deity restores life to a mortal, this ability works like the true resurrection spell, except that there is no material component and the amount of time the subject has been dead is irrelevant.

This ability cannot restore a creature to life against its will, but it can resurrect an elemental or outsider. It can resurrect a creature whose soul is trapped, provided the soul is not held by a deity of higher rank than the one using this ability.

This ability cannot restore life to a creature that has been slain by the Hand of Death, Life and Death, or Mass Life and Death ability of a deity with a higher rank.
Rest

After using either version of this ability, the deity must rest for 1 minute per level or Hit Die of the creature affected.

Deities whose portfolio includes death do not have to rest after using this ability.

Note the benefit line in particular. The god says you die, you die, end of discussion.

[Gemini476]

Can we not do the gate discussion again? Last time it got serious we went for around twelve pages and ultimately the conclusion amounts to "the calling function is so poorly written as to make IHS look like an editing masterwork." It's just bad.

As for a deity killing you, if it has the life and death DSA, you're dead, period. Seriously;

Note the benefit line in particular. The god says you die, you die, end of discussion.


If the deity chooses to kill a mortal, the ability works like the destruction spell, except that there is no material component or saving throw.

Necromancy [Death] (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/destruction.htm)


The subject is immune to all death spells, magical death effects, energy drain, and any negative energy effects. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/deathWard.htm)

I find this hilarious, somehow.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I find this hilarious, somehow.

"Works like" does not equate to "is identical to." There's nothing that says the ability assumes the spell's school or descriptors in any way. Just that it has the same mechanical effect; specifically, "instantly slays the subject and consumes its remains (but not its equipment and possessions) utterly," the rest having been removed by the rest of the DSA's description.

Note also this line, "This ability works across planar boundaries and penetrates any barrier except a divine shield." Divine shield is very comparable to deathward except in its much broader application; any type of damage vs the effects of magic with the death descriptor. Even if the DSA does keep the school and descriptor it penetrates deathward anyway because specific, "penetrates any barrier," beats general, "[barrier granted] immunity to death effects."

[Rubik]

As for a deity killing you, if it has the life and death DSA, you're dead, period. Seriously;

Note the benefit line in particular. The god says you die, you die, end of discussion.Not really. Not only does Death Ward protect you from it, it also says that it only functions on a mortal. Anyone who is immortal, such as a warforged, necropolitan (who is also immune to [Death] effects), tarrasque-hybrid (ditto), elan, character with the Wedded to History feat, high level dread necromancer, level 10 green star adept, or any number of other creatures, are outright immune, and it's not even difficult to manage.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Not really. Not only does Death Ward protect you from it, it also says that it only functions on a mortal. Anyone who is immortal, such as a warforged, necropolitan (who is also immune to [Death] effects), tarrasque-hybrid (ditto), elan, character with the Wedded to History feat, high level dread necromancer, level 10 green star adept, or any number of other creatures, are outright immune, and it's not even difficult to manage.

I just covered why deathward isn't an issue. Mortal, in the context of deities and demigods, means any creature that lacks divine ranks. Sidebar on page 6.

[Rubik]

I just covered why deathward isn't an issue. Mortal, in the context of deities and demigods, means any creature that lacks divine ranks. Sidebar on page 6.But it's not a barrier. It's an immunity. Huge difference in function. Death Ward isn't a barrier, and so that doesn't apply.

[Phelix-Mu]

Gods can't die in the same way mortals can. If this doesn't equate to immunity to death effects, that is pretty silly. I mean, undead are immune to death effects for the same reason (can't die).

Once I get my time machine, visiting the people who worked on D&DG is definitely on my To-Do List.

EDIT: Wow, how did I totally misinterpret the discussion between hitting "Post" and posting.

[Kelb_Panthera]

But it's not a barrier. It's an immunity. Huge difference in function. Death Ward isn't a barrier, and so that doesn't apply.

Yeah, no.


Barrier

4. a limit or boundary of any kind

Death Ward is a barrier to magical death effects. It's even the same kind of barrier as a divine shield; an effect that prevents other effects from affecting the target, the difference being what kind of effect is blocked.

This argument doesn't hold any water at all.

[Rubik]

Yeah, no.



Death Ward is a barrier to magical death effects. It's even the same kind of barrier as a divine shield; an effect that prevents other effects from affecting the target, the difference being what kind of effect is blocked.

This argument doesn't hold any water at all.If the divine ability wasn't meant to be blocked by Death Ward, it wouldn't be a [Death] effect.

And it still doesn't work against anything that isn't mortal, and immortality is really easy to acquire for any spellcaster worth his spells.

[Kelb_Panthera]

If the divine ability wasn't meant to be blocked by Death Ward, it wouldn't be a [Death] effect.

It's very much questionable if it -is- a [death] effect. I just brought that up. Even so, penetrates any barrier beats barrier granting immunity. Deathward simply doesn't stop Life and Death.


And it still doesn't work against anything that isn't mortal, and immortality is really easy to acquire for any spellcaster worth his spells.

So we're just ignoring the fact that mortal is defined and includes -all creatures- that lack divine rank?

[Rubik]

It's very much questionable if it -is- a [death] effect. I just brought that up. Even so, penetrates any barrier beats barrier granting immunity. Deathward simply doesn't stop Life and Death.Ah. I skimmed that part, so you might be right.


So we're just ignoring the fact that mortal is defined and includes -all creatures- that lack divine rank?I looked through that section of the SRD. As far as I can tell, deities are designated as "immortal," but "immortal" is not automatically equated with deities. Conversely (or is that inversely? I can never remember which is which), non-deities are not designated as "mortals."

A non-deity can easily be immortal, though a deity cannot be mortal.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I looked through that section of the SRD. As far as I can tell, deities are designated as "immortal," but "immortal" is not automatically equated with deities. Conversely (or is that inversely? I can never remember which is which), non-deities are not designated as "mortals."

A non-deity can easily be immortal, though a deity cannot be mortal.

Skimmed that portion too, then? It's not on the SRD. It's on D&DG page 6 in a sidebar. Here, I'll transcribe


Mortal: A creature with no divine ranks. Mortals include humanoids, outsiders, and the other creatures in the monster manual.

For the purposes of DSA's, mortal means anything that's not a god.

Edit: I am a ninja, hyah!

[Rubik]

Skimmed that portion too, then? It's not on the SRD. It's on D&DG page 6 in a sidebar. Here, I'll transcribe

For the purposes of DSA's, mortal means anything that's not a god.I looked in the SRD, which apparently doesn't have that part -- or at least I can't find it.

And there are plenty of non-deific creatures that are not mortal, either, so I honestly have no idea how they could add that in.

Oh well. Time to grab a divine rank, then. It's not like it's hard to do or anything.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I looked in the SRD, which apparently doesn't have that part -- or at least I can't find it.

And there are plenty of non-deific creatures that are not mortal, either, so I honestly have no idea how they could add that in.

Oh well. Time to grab a divine rank, then. It's not like it's hard to do or anything.

Under certain definitions of mortal and immortal one could say that none of the creatures defined in the game are truly immortal as they are -all- subject to being slain by other creatures, including the gods themselves. Because of this they can all be described as mortal as well as being described as not immortal.

Since this is the case, they -had- to define mortal and immortal somewhere if they were going to use the terms at all, especially in the mechanical rules.

[Rubik]

Under certain definitions of mortal and immortal one could say that none of the creatures defined in the game are truly immortal as they are -all- subject to being slain by other creatures, including the gods themselves. Because of this they can all be described as mortal as well as being described as not immortal.Except there's a difference between "immortal" and "invulnerable." Inability to die without outside influence would be "immortal," whereas "invulnerable" means "inability to be killed." You can be immortal without being invulnerable, just as you can be invulnerable without being immortal.

"Immortal" can also simply mean "inability to die under any circumstances," but D&D definitely doesn't use that definition.


Since this is the case, they -had- to define mortal and immortal somewhere if they were going to use the terms at all, especially in the mechanical rules.I suppose, though it doesn't make any sense that they wouldn't add those definitions to the SRD.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Except there's a difference between "immortal" and "invulnerable." Inability to die without outside influence would be "immortal," whereas "invulnerable" means "inability to be killed." You can be immortal without being invulnerable, just as you can be invulnerable without being immortal.

That is, again, under certain definitions for those words. Under different definitions they become synonymous. They do, however, carry different connotations in use.


"Immortal" can also simply mean "inability to die under any circumstances," but D&D definitely doesn't use that definition.

Naturally. With that definition there's really not much reason to do about half the creature's stats. HP's become meaningless, AC nearly so, etc. It also makes defeating them in combat utterly impossible. If defeating them is impossible there's no reason to stat them at all. That would've prevented the book from being printed in the first place and -that- just wouldn't do.


I suppose, though it doesn't make any sense that they wouldn't add those definitions to the SRD.

That I'll give you. Then again, WotC's editing wasn't exactly great with the documents that actually made them money. It's really not surprising they kinda half-assed the editing on the freebie.

[Rubik]

Naturally. With that definition there's really not much reason to do about half the creature's stats. HP's become meaningless, AC nearly so, etc. It also makes defeating them in combat utterly impossible. If defeating them is impossible there's no reason to stat them at all. That would've prevented the book from being printed in the first place and -that- just wouldn't do.Note that you can still defeat a creature that's invulnerable to death -- you just can't kill said creature. Casting Eternity of Torture followed by Sequester followed by Plane Shift to a quintessence-filled demiplane followed by Imprisonment (somehow) on an immortal being doesn't exactly kill it, after all.

[Alent]

Note that you can still defeat a creature that's invulnerable to death -- you just can't kill said creature. Casting Eternity of Torture followed by Sequester followed by Plane Shift to a quintessence-filled demiplane followed by Imprisonment (somehow) on an immortal being doesn't exactly kill it, after all.

This level of optimization is sort of alien to me, but why not mindrape, fusion, and astral seed it?

High level play reminds me heavily of the borg anyway.

[Rubik]

This level of optimization is sort of alien to me, but why not mindrape, fusion, and astral seed it?Because creating an Ice Assassin is quicker, easier, and much lower level.


High level play reminds me heavily of the borg anyway.Only if you commit suicide before Astral Seed's duration runs out.

[Alent]

Only if you commit suicide before Astral Seed's duration runs out.

Which is then impossible due to immortality. Heh, there's always something. :smallamused:

[Rubik]

Which is then impossible due to immortality. Heh, there's always something. :smallamused:Note that in D&D, immortal creatures are not invulnerable. Deities can still be killed.

[skyth]

If the divine ability wasn't meant to be blocked by Death Ward, it wouldn't be a [Death] effect.

Other than Death Effects prevent the target from being brought back...

[Rubik]

Other than Death Effects prevent the target from being brought back...Only by certain forms of resurrection, such as Raise Dead (or anything based on it that doesn't specify otherwise).

Note that Astral Seed has no such restrictions, amongst others.

[Fitz10019]

It turns out that elves specifically and explicitly get the proficiency because they gain the appropriate feats, while fighters, as you correctly pointed out, do not (they get the armor feats, though).

The PHB defines elves as getting those bonus feats. If the character chaos shuffles them away, he no longer meets the RAW definition of an elf, and thereafter he no longer has the feats to shuffle. It's like the time travel paradox where you can't change the past because you'd lose your motivation for doing so. Please don't take this too seriously.

[SiuiS]

Oddly, deific power is left with vague wording specifically to a prevent this sort of discussion. Deific abilities only use legalese style rules text when specifically putting a limit on an ability. The lack of defining a barrier in rules text is very clearly to allow the deity to kill through death ward et al.


Can we not do the gate discussion again? Last time it got serious we went for around twelve pages and ultimately the conclusion amounts to "the calling function is so poorly written as to make IHS look like an editing masterwork." It's just bad.


Yeah. I would like to think the language on protection from [whatnot] is also loosey goosey to cover edge cases without needing clear, 100% rules knowledge on the part of future designers. But while it might be easy for someone to shrug and say "sure" for divine abilities doing that, I don't suppose we would extend the same leniency to nondivine standard abilities?


As for a deity killing you, if it has the life and death DSA, you're dead, period. Seriously;

Note the benefit line in particular. The god says you die, you die, end of discussion.

I'm not going to bother with referencing my books, but; does not the listing for types tell you when a creature is immortal, making all other creature types mortal by lack of exception? Outsiders and Fey are explicitly immortal unless listed otherwise.

Undead are likewise implied to be objects just like constructs, but it's not nearly as definite and easiy bypassable by rules.


Yeah, no.

Death Ward is a barrier to magical death effects. It's even the same kind of barrier as a divine shield; an effect that prevents other effects from affecting the target, the difference being what kind of effect is blocked.

This argument doesn't hold any water at all.

Any and all rules debates need to go through the rules first. While I agree with you, you should first make a case for why barrier is not specifically a term with D&D rules meaning. Otherwise... You've seen quibbles on language in these debates before. It's ugly.

[Scow2]

The term mortal when applied to a difference between "Deities" and "Mortals" means someone who plays by the rules of life and existence.

[Karnith]

I'm not going to bother with referencing my books, but; does not the listing for types tell you when a creature is immortal, making all other creature types mortal by lack of exception? Outsiders and Fey are explicitly immortal unless listed otherwise.

Undead are likewise implied to be objects just like constructs, but it's not nearly as definite and easiy bypassable by rules.
We've done this little dance already in this thread, but since you may have missed it, Deities and Demigods does define what it means when it uses the term "mortal." Per Deities and Demigods:

Mortal: A creature with no divine ranks. Mortals include humanoids, outsiders, and the other creatures in the monster manual.

[Rubik]

We've done this little dance already in this thread, but since you may have missed it, Deities and Demigods does define what it means when it uses the term "mortal." Per Deities and Demigods:Unfortunately, this also leads to some stupidity, since immortals are not mortal by definition, and thus can't be mortal, even if they aren't deific.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Oddly, deific power is left with vague wording specifically to a prevent this sort of discussion. Deific abilities only use legalese style rules text when specifically putting a limit on an ability. The lack of defining a barrier in rules text is very clearly to allow the deity to kill through death ward et al.

Vagary is exactly what prompts these sort of debates. You prevent them by being -crystal- clear in your terms and definitions and overall meaning.

Most of the reason this isn't done in a lot of cases is simple cost/benefit issues. The amount of text and editing necessary would've stretched production times and increased page counts, increasing costs without meaningfully affecting the game's saleability. It's really easy to forget, sometimes, that WotC is a business and profits are their primary goal in all things with quality being secondary only as it supports profitability. This is not an excuse for this phenomenon, of course, just an explanation.




Yeah. I would like to think the language on protection from [whatnot] is also loosey goosey to cover edge cases without needing clear, 100% rules knowledge on the part of future designers. But while it might be easy for someone to shrug and say "sure" for divine abilities doing that, I don't suppose we would extend the same leniency to nondivine standard abilities?

Actually I was talking about gate, specifically. The vagary of protection from X's control clause is also somewhat troublesome but it really only applies in this and a few other particular corner cases so it's not -that- bad.




I'm not going to bother with referencing my books, but; does not the listing for types tell you when a creature is immortal, making all other creature types mortal by lack of exception? Outsiders and Fey are explicitly immortal unless listed otherwise.

Undead are likewise implied to be objects just like constructs, but it's not nearly as definite and easiy bypassable by rules.

Between me and Karnith this makes the 5th time it's been pointed out that mortal means non-deity in the context of deities and demigods.




Any and all rules debates need to go through the rules first. While I agree with you, you should first make a case for why barrier is not specifically a term with D&D rules meaning. Otherwise... You've seen quibbles on language in these debates before. It's ugly.

That's asking me to prove a negative. I can't prove that barrier is not a defined game term except by pointing out that, to the best of my knowledge, barrier isn't actually defined anywhere in RAW as a game term. Someone can disprove the idea that it is not a game term by pointing out the RAW definition but absent that definition, which I'm reasonably confident doesn't exist, we default to plain english.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Unfortunately, this also leads to some stupidity, since immortals are not mortal by definition, and thus can't be mortal, even if they aren't deific.

Defined game terms supersede english language definitions in RAW. Since the game term specifies that -all- creatures that are not deities are mortals, highlighting outsiders in particular, it doesn't matter that most outsiders and several other creatures and types are immortal, they're still mortals.

[Melcar]

I have always been sure that Tippy had a Ph.D in D&D... Is it possible at some/most universities!

I must admit that I have ever only used some of his moves for very high end NPCs... Like when stating Larloch or someone like that.

Our game even though my main character is a level 30 wizard, would disintegrate if we started using his, albeit rule legal, crazy stuff. And the fun for us wouldbe gone in minutes.

But I am very impressed every time I read some sick build. Half the stuff he often mentiones I didn't even know existed.

[Rubik]

Defined game terms supersede english language definitions in RAW. Since the game term specifies that -all- creatures that are not deities are mortals, highlighting outsiders in particular, it doesn't matter that most outsiders and several other creatures and types are immortal, they're still mortals.I'm not disputing that. I'm saying that it's stupid, like the books defining water as "not wet," so anything that's wet isn't water, despite the very definitions of the words involved.

Basically, the definitions are incorrect, by definition. Though I'm not disputing the rule, just the stupidity of the rule. Kinda like drown-healing and other such moronicity.

[Karnith]

It's like the situation with nonlethal death effects.

[TuggyNE]

Oddly, deific power is left with vague wording specifically to a prevent this sort of discussion. Deific abilities only use legalese style rules text when specifically putting a limit on an ability. The lack of defining a barrier in rules text is very clearly to allow the deity to kill through death ward et al.

If it's so very clear, why isn't it clear to me? Sorry, but this argument for RAI is disingenuous and rather insulting.

(Also, of course, "let's make things as unclear as possible to prevent confusion and debates!" is well-nigh the stupidest design philosophy I can think of. But hey, maybe they did think that way.)

[Kelb_Panthera]

I'm not disputing that. I'm saying that it's stupid, like the books defining water as "not wet," so anything that's wet isn't water, despite the very definitions of the words involved.

Basically, the definitions are incorrect, by definition. Though I'm not disputing the rule, just the stupidity of the rule. Kinda like drown-healing and other such moronicity.

Meh. Doesn't strike me as any more absurd than a creature made entirely of a low resistance fluid, air elemental, or ionized plasma, fire elemental, being entirely solid to blows with blades and bludgeons.

Sometimes the game departs from what reality would have us expect.

Besides, mortal and immortal, as nouns, can be used as synonyms for not-a-god and god by their english language definitions as well.