Eludecia, the Succubus Paladin, Hellspawn of Heaven

[toapat]

most people have heard of the succubus Palaidn (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a), but everyone can pretty much admit shes not that good despite having a colossal Cha score.

This is an attempt to make her competent at all levels:

Eludecia
Race: Succubus (Savage Species)
Class: Succubus 3, Paladin 7, Ruby Knight Vindicator 10
Alignment: Lawful Good
Attributes: 16+6 str (+2 level), 10 dex, 14+6 con, 14 Int, 8 wis, 28+10 cha (+2 level, +6 item, +4 tome)

Succubus 1: Dynamic Priest (Paladin), Flaw (Bravado): Power Attack, Flaw (Implacable): Dreadful Wrath
Succubus 2:
Succubus 3: Woo, fly speed, the lack of feat is annoying though
Paladin, Hunter of Fiends 1: Martial Study: Crusader Strike, Favored Enemy (Evil Outsider) +(1/2 Paladin) (with only 4 uses at most i dont see a point in smite evil)
Paladin 2:
Paladin 3:
Paladin 4: Battle Blessing
Paladin, Sword of Celestia 5:
Paladin 6:
Paladin 7: Martial Stance: Thicket of Blades
Ruby Knight Vindicator 1:
Ruby Knight Vindicator 2:
Ruby Knight Vindicator 3: Divine Might
Ruby Knight Vindicator 4:
Ruby Knight Vindicator 5:
Ruby Knight Vindicator 6: Sword of the Arcane Archer
Ruby Knight Vindicator 7:
Ruby Knight Vindicator 8:
Ruby Knight Vindicator 9: Sacred Vitality or Goad
Ruby Knight Vindicator 10:

Flaws are from D328

What we have: Cast as a paladin of 15th level, Innitator of lvl 15, Spellslots of 5/3/3/3, and one upto 7th level maneuver. we have 5 maneuvers and 2 stances from RKV


So, what items and Maneuvers does Eludecia have

[thethird]

How are you taking only 3 levels of Succubus?

[toapat]

How are you taking only 3 levels of Succubus?

Note the bolded word.


A monster character using these rules may not multiclass until it completes the full progression in its monster class

Note that that choice of word makes it not an absolute statement, thus rendering it optional

[Seerow]

Note the bolded word.

Note that that choice of word makes it not an absolute statement.

....that is not how the english language works.

[toapat]

....that is not how the english language works.

That doesnt make it an absolute statement. May not =/= Cannot.

May not, while typically accepted is as a prohibitive statement, as far as i can tell and as far as results from throwing it at the internet, is in actuality a grammatical mistake (alternatively it means "typically disallowed" although it typically is used as "Absolutely disllowed" aka Cannot).

[One Step Two]

Savage species is a 3.0 book, the most recent form of Savage Progressions as given on the Wizards website, allows you to stop progression if you don't want to take all of them. I think it's a relatively simple adaptation, and not an unreasonable one at the end of the day.

[torrasque666]

That doesnt make it an absolute statement. May not =/= Cannot.

May not, while typically accepted is as a prohibitive statement, as far as i can tell and as far as results from throwing it at the internet, is in actuality a grammatical mistake (alternatively it means "typically disallowed" although it typically is used as "Absolutely disllowed" aka Cannot).

The definition of "May" being to request/give permission, while becoming less common, is still a definition.


Modal Use
Positive Forms
1. = Present 2. = Past 3. = Future
Negative Forms
1. = Present 2. = Past 3. = Future
You can
also use:


may
possibility
1. Jack may be upset. I can't really tell if he is annoyed or tired.2. Jack may have been upset. I couldn't really tell if he was annoyed or tired.
3. Jack may get upset if you don't tell him the truth.
1. Jack may not be upset. Perhaps he is tired.2. Jack may not have been upset. Perhaps he was tired.
3. Jack may not get upset, even if you tell him the truth
might


may
give permission
1. You may leave the table now that you're finished with your dinner.2. SHIFT TO "BE ALLOWED TO"
You were allowed to leave the table after you finished your dinner.
3. You may leave the table when you finish your dinner.
1. You may not leave the table. You're not finished with your dinner yet.2. SHIFT TO "BE ALLOWED TO"
You were not allowed to leave the table because you hadn't finished your dinner.
3. You may not leave the table until you are finished with your dinner.
can


source: http://www.englishpage.com/modals/may.html

So in this case it is not indicating possibility, but rather permission.
Note the rest of the quoted paragraph.

A monster character using these rules may not multiclass
until it completes the full progression in its monster
class. This rule keeps characters from gaining the benefits
of a monster’s type and then quickly switching to a
standard class.


This explicitly outlines that it says that you CANNOT multiclass until progression is complete.

Boom, Lawyered.

[BWR]

That doesnt make it an absolute statement. May not =/= Cannot.

May not, while typically accepted is as a prohibitive statement, as far as i can tell and as far as results from throwing it at the internet, is in actuality a grammatical mistake (alternatively it means "typically disallowed" although it typically is used as "Absolutely disllowed" aka Cannot).

The problem is you are mixing two meanings of "may": possibility and permissibility. In the case of possiblity you can reword "may not" to "may or may not" and keep the same meaning, while you cannot do that with permissibility.
In the case of the rules quoted, this is permissibility.

Think of it this way:
"May I borrow the car?"
"No, you may not"
"Thanks"
Does that sound right? No, because we are talking about what you have permission to do. If someone says you may not do something, they are saying you do not have permission. If they say an event may not happen, they are saying it is a possibility the event will not occur.

[animewatcha]

Where was the succubus birthed?

@to everyone about multiclassing: The few threads that I read that toapat responded to ( note this may not be entirely true ) have given me the impression that toapat has a tendency to read things only that are favorable to him/her versus the little things that can say that one can't do this ( tends to be pre-reqs ).

Note: while the Ruby knight vindicator's normal requirement is wee jas and sword of the arcane order is not, the adaption text in the ToB says it can be adapted to almost any other deity.

[Socksy]

Technically speaking, toapat is right. And if the point is to stop a build being horrible, go for it!

[BWR]

Technically speaking, toapat is right.
No he is not, technically. Unless you mean 'technically right about the original build sucking', in which case it's a matter of taste.

[toapat]

Where was the succubus birthed?

Note: while the Ruby knight vindicator's normal requirement is wee jas and sword of the arcane order is not, the adaption text in the ToB says it can be adapted to almost any other deity.

well assuming its actually the same Eludecia, an ancient layer of the abyss. If you are wondering because of the regional feat, you can take those with 2 ranks in know (region). Which is a useful rule but not really one i like, especially for a race who would probably cause fear when they fight.

also, i moreso threw SotAO in because by that point there are not enough feats to fit the situation. That and saying that a character who is not supposed to have any religion getting god specific feats/classes might as well just ignore all of them.

Besides that, I never said this character is supposed to be a PC.


No he is not, technically. Unless you mean 'technically right about the original build sucking', in which case it's a matter of taste.

Even applying may's definition as the expression of permission, Permission is a request by one person to another. The original character was cosmically bestowed her first level of paladin. Assuming the same thing as before, then the bequeathing of that level breaks the rules anyway. In a more game related manner, The DM gets to decide when the character may leave progression, not the player.


Arguably, this build also sucks because there just isnt a way to get Cha to Hit (other then Slippers of Battledancing) that is worthwhile, and it doesnt have Combat Reflexes to take advantage of Thicket of Blades.

[thethird]

If you are ignoring prerequisites blatantly...

This needs more beholder mage and more epic feats.

On a more serious note I don't see how we can help if you are not playing by the rules.

[toapat]

If you are ignoring prerequisites blatantly...

im ignoring exactly 2 pre-requisites, neither of which the character could ever qualify for, And thats because PrCing as Eludecia (also filling out a full set of useful feats) is impossible as a LG Paladin into anything other then Grey Guard which wouldnt help.

Assuming the version on the website used the Monster Advancement rules correctly, she would have 17 levels of paladin at CR20, not 14 like its implied.

[torrasque666]

Even applying may's definition as the expression of permission, Permission is a request by one person to another. The original character was cosmically bestowed her first level of paladin. Assuming the same thing as before, then the bequeathing of that level breaks the rules anyway. In a more game related manner, The DM gets to decide when the character may leave progression, not the player.


Are you still arguing about this? I provided the EXACT answer to if it means a possibility vs a restriction. The Savage Species guide clearly states that YOU CANNOT MULTICLASS UNTIL IT IS DONE! It explicitly states that the rule exists to prevent taking only a few levels before ditching for other stuff.

[toapat]

Are you still arguing about this? I provided the EXACT answer to if it means a possibility vs a restriction. The Savage Species guide clearly states that YOU CANNOT MULTICLASS UNTIL IT IS DONE! It explicitly states that the rule exists to prevent taking only a few levels before ditching for other stuff.

Except that you are not correct. There is no measure by which you can retain the definitions of the auxilary verb May and have it be an Absolute Statement. The rule does not take away the ability to multiclass, it removes permission. The loophole is already covered in the original character in that an Astral Deva gave her that first paladin level. in normal DnD Kolyaruts exist to kill those who violate contracts, such as doing so.

If you argue theres a benefit? not really, the Fly speed + Telepathy are offset by the colossal penalties of the evil and chaotic subtypes and the loss of hit die. the huge CHA is nice but not broken on a paladin.

[torrasque666]

No, not about that. I meant about the fact that the very next line clarifies what it means by "may not"


A monster character using these rules may not multiclass
until it completes the full progression in its monster
class. This rule keeps characters from gaining the benefits
of a monster’s type and then quickly switching to a
standard class.


Therefore, you need to take ALL levels of Succubus before you can take ANYTHING ELSE. So you're about 9 levels short there. Guess ya gotta lose some class levels there bud.

Remember though that this was made by Wizards and as such are allowed to break their own rules.

[HammeredWharf]

I, too, can't see how the "may or may not" definition of "may" can be applied here. Unless, of course, you can explain how being able to take a few levels of Succubus and bail out

keeps characters from gaining the benefits of a monster’s type and then quickly switching to a standard class.

[toapat]

I, too, can't see how the "may or may not" definition of "may" can be applied here. Unless, of course, you can explain how being able to take a few levels of Succubus and bail out

1: Meets Angel, falls in love, is bequeathed level of Paladin

2: your quoted section is fluff. its explaining that RAI the first sentence should say Cannot so that it can deny the ability to multiclass upto completion of the progression. however RAW its saying the character themselves doesnt have the permission to multiclass. and Permission =/= Ability. By RAW, that rules violation also has an inevitable, called the Kolyarut

[HammeredWharf]

Well sure, if you want to play it that way, but at that point you might as well equip her with a water bucket for healing. There's RAW and there are rules-as-clearly-not-intended. This is clearly the latter. If the purpose of this thread is to make a viable build for Eludecia, the build should be optimized practically, not theoretically.

[toapat]

optimized practically

Optimized practically involves taking at least 1 Extra Smiting feat and getting the ranged smite variant from the same issue as SoC and HoF (which trades out shield proficiency and heavy armor. which is no loss because of fly speeds). Taking Divine spirit (because RAW, a CR 20 Succubus paladin has 17 levels of paladin) and awesome smite

If we really are going with "if any RAW cheese is legal, then all of it is", then Punpun just reaches out, grapples + Pins you as a standard action, then hols you underwater with his infinite reach till you get the drown loop, at which point bucket healing doesnt work and the marut that was built for you is re-assigned to more practical and less stupid tasks while Punpun writes actually good drowning rules.

[Slipperychicken]

If I ask my boss "May I take a break before completing this work?", and he says "No, you may not", that doesn't leave much room for interpretation: He's not allowing it. It's the same way here.

[toapat]

He's not allowing it. It's the same way here.

Not Allowing =/= Removing the ability to. Its not the same thing. Besides that, your example carries implied penalty of losing employment, as opposed to the book where the only penalty can be assumed to be an annoyed DM.

it also does not really break the intention of the rule because there is minimal benefit to the character. She always will be taken as the worst possible alignment under any given situation, gaining allies is extremely difficult. Her former allies want to kill her and her potential allies will attack first ask questions during banter.

the only potential source of Cha to hit is negated by Flaw: Implacable because she can not retreat without a near universal -2 penalty for an hour.

besides that, im pretty certain that you could stack templates that add up to +8 or more Cha with less then or equal to 3 LA

[HammeredWharf]

Look, no one's saying the build is somehow OP. It just doesn't follow any reasonable interpretation of the rules and is pretty much as good as giving her some free LA. I sure would give freebies to someone who decided to play a Paladin with a suboptimal race. However, that's a house rule, not a build.

[ngilop]

best advice I can give is to just let toapat do whatever she wants to however she wants.


you can look at every post she has ever done and they fall into one of 2 categories
1) incorrect to everybody, but correct to only her definition(s) of word(s)
2) how you are dumb and she is smart.


Just let her build her character in peace and allow her blahs and everybody will be happy. can't we all just get along :smallsmile:

I like the fact that she made a better paladin than the PhB only I would have went paladin 4/favored soul X myself

paladin ruby knight vindicator it pretty cool as well. not sure if it fits the holy warrior serving good though, maybe cuz all the RKVs ive seen in action have been evil

[toapat]

Look, no one's saying the build is somehow OP. It just doesn't follow any reasonable interpretation of the rules and is pretty much as good as giving her some free LA. I sure would give freebies to someone who decided to play a Paladin with a suboptimal race. However, that's a house rule, not a build.

And The fact is, its bitching about the nature of the english language (the Rule doesnt legitimately function as intended) and personal attacks the entire time.

Intended: Cannot

Actual Printing: May Not

Result: The rule doesnt function to actually prevent multiclassing

[Hecuba]

Not Allowing =/= Removing the ability to.

When examining the rules that define how the game operates, they are most assuredly equal.
The rules define what abilities are allowed.


Intended: Cannot

Actual Printing: May Not

Result: The rule doesn't function to actually prevent multiclassing

You seem to be conflating 2 the two different modes of "may."
The word can express either possibility or permission: the two ideas are not somehow merged together in usage.
In an individual sentence it can indicate either the deontic or epistemic mode, but not both.

Thus we have 2 possible cases for the meaning of the line in question:
It is possible the character might not multi-class before completing the class
The character is not permitted to multi-class before completing the class

Thus, if the sentence deals with permission at all then your proposed build is not rules legal.

Moreover, the other possible reading seems exceedingly contextually unlikely.

[toapat]

You seem to be conflating 2 the two different modes of "may."

No, im not.

Permission, Aka what your argument relies on, is the Acceptance/Forbidence of an action. It is not the Allowance/Denial of said action

If the book is in play, then use of monster classes as base classes is in play.

If the book is in play, then you may multiclass a monster character. Because the book does not, Under ANY terms which are not willful interpretation, Remove the character's ability to multiclass.

[Chronos]

It's true that nobody has removed your ability to cheat. But it's still cheating. The rules do not permit you to multiclass out of a racial class early. If you do so anyway, then you are breaking the rules. You are able to multiclass early in the same way that I am able to write on my character sheet that my strength mod is +bazillion.

[toapat]

It's true that nobody has removed your ability to cheat. But it's still cheating. The rules do not permit you to multiclass out of a racial class early. If you do so anyway, then you are breaking the rules. You are able to multiclass early in the same way that I am able to write on my character sheet that my strength mod is +bazillion.

The difference between Cheating is ignoring the rules to do something, this is ignoring rules because they, in effect, have no functional purpose despite having intended purpose. This is the same issue as with the Minimum casterlevel clause in the PHB. It doesnt do anything.

[Red Fel]

No, im not.

You're not conflating two different definitions. But you are choosing the one which is more advantageous, based on ambiguous terminology. And it's an ambiguity which, for the most part, you are creating. Here, in essence, is the ambiguity that others have been trying to explain to you.

The word "may" typically reflects permission (as opposed to "can," which indicates ability, the distinction between which has created one of the most infamous question-and-answers between elementary school students and their instructors). In essence, "may" means "has permission to." For example, "John may go to the movies" means that John has permission to go to the movies; whether he does so or not is John's choice, and thus creates the ambiguity in "may."

"May not" means "does not have permission." "John may not go to the movies" means that John is not permitted to go to the movies.

Instead of using the negative of "may" as described above, you are using the positive and affixing the negative to the verb that follows. Thus, "John may not go to the movies" goes from meaning "John is not permitted to go to the movies" to meaning "John is permitted to not go to the movies, although he could just as easily go to the movies if he so chose."

That's just tortured language, at best. Consider the following scenario:

You: "Teacher, may I be excused to use the restroom?"
Teacher: "No, you may not be excused to use the restroom."

What do you think will happen if you leave your desk to use the restroom? By your logic, "You may not be excused" suggests that you can still choose to be excused; the teacher's intent, however, seems quite clear to me. (And, I think, to many others.)

[Hecuba]

Permission, Aka what your argument relies on, is the Acceptance/Forbidence of an action. It is not the Allowance/Denial of said action

Rules in games are definitional: they describe what you are permitted to do.
This is different from societal rules, which are prescriptive: describing with the prescribing party wishes you to do.

Since the rules here define what you as a player are permitted to do, there is no distinction to be had between capacity and permission.



Even setting that aside, a good definition of breaking a rule is taking an action of which you are capable but for which you expressly lack permission.
And if your build breaks a rule, it is not Rules Legal.

[toapat]

*snip*

You are trying to equate RAI as RAW. RAW you dont have permission. Permission is not Abillity. RAI, its clear that you are not supposed to be able to multiclass without handwave at all. As is, the classes are fully well able to so long as multiclassing is a possibility.

Multiclassing is Assumed the be allowed.


And if your build breaks a rule, it is not Rules Legal.

It breaks no rules because:

Multiclassing Is inherently not allowed.

The rule does not Remove the ability, once granted, to multiclass.

The book at no point to say that Multiclassing is a necessity.

[Hecuba]

Permission is not Abillity.
Please demonstrate a RAW distinction between the two: for I know of none.
The permission here is not some in-universe edict the character can rebel against: it is an portion of the system rules defining what you, the player, are permitted to do.

A player taking an action in a game that they are not permitted to take is a good definition of cheating.


Multiclassing is Assumed the be allowed.
Actually, multiclassing in general is expressly allowed: no assumption is needed.
This is, however, alterable by more specific rules (such as the one under discussion here): specific rules always trump general ones.


It breaks no rules because:
Yes, it does. The rule "you may not do X" indicates you are not permitted to do X.
If you, as a player, do X even though you are not permitted to do so then you are breaking that rule.

[toapat]

Please demonstrate a RAW distinction between the two: for I know of none.
The permission here is not some in-universe edict the character can rebel against: it is an portion of the system rules defining what you, the player, are permitted to do.

A player taking an action in a game that they are not permitted to take is a good definition of cheating.


Actually, multiclassing in general is expressly allowed: no assumption is needed.
This is, however, alterable by more specific rules (such as the one under discussion here).

assuming sufficient tricks are taken to do so, and any of the 3 generic classes is taken at level 4 (as there is no other way to gain Extra Slot at lvl 4), A paladin, Spelltheif, or Ranger can have a 1st level spell slot before they have casting. This spell slot, despite any of those classes having it early, Cannot be prepared, even if all other pre-requisites are met.

PBH: A Character MAY add new classes as he or she progresses in level. Multiclassing is explicitly not inherent.

[Hecuba]

assuming sufficient tricks are taken to do so, and any of the 3 generic classes is taken at level 4 (as there is no other way to gain Extra Slot at lvl 4), A paladin, Spelltheif, or Ranger can have a 1st level spell slot before they have casting. This spell slot, despite any of those classes having it early, Cannot be prepared, even if all other pre-requisites are met.

That makes no distinction at all between capacity and permission. Under this situation, they are permitted to have the slot but not permitted to prepare anything in it.


PBH: A Character MAY add new classes as he or she progresses in level. Multiclassing is explicitly not inherent.

I never said it was required, merely expressly permitted.

[toapat]

That makes no distinction at all between capacity and permission. Under this situation, they are permitted to have the slot but not permitted to prepare anything in it.



I never said it was required, merely expressly permitted.

yes, it does. If they had the ability to cast spells, they would. the slot is not usable because, despite those classes having access and meeting all requirements, they can not use that slot at level 3. Because they do not have casting yet.

Multiclassing is not Implicit in the rules. if it was, then the wording would be "may choose to add".

[pwykersotz]

People who live by the RAW are like English teachers. Only another of their kind can actually understand them. :smalltongue:

If you're looking for overall capability, you could always do a level of Cleric followed by Prestige Paladin. 7 levels should grant 4th level spells, which is good enough for Divine Power, and hence a midpoint between poor BAB and mid BAB.

If it's not a PC and it's based on CR, you have a lot more freedom since the Paladin levels aren't considered an associated class. Heck, even the write-up in the article has her with 12 levels and 6RHD in addition to her +7LA.

[Hecuba]

yes, it does. If they had the ability to cast spells, they would. the slot is not usable because, despite those classes having access and meeting all requirements, they can not use that slot at level 3. Because they do not have casting yet.

I'm not saying that they are able to cast: under your example, they are not.
They are also not permitted to cast.

Again, there is no distinction.

Trying to make such a distinction is would in fact be internally contradictory: you are a not able to, without breaking the rules, take an action that the rules indicate you are not allowed to take.



Multiclassing is not Implicit in the rules. if it was, then the wording would be "may choose to add".

I never said it was implicit. As point of fact, it is explicit (and thus not assumed), as I noted here:

Actually, multiclassing in general is expressly allowed: no assumption is needed.
This is, however, alterable by more specific rules (such as the one under discussion here): specific rules always trump general ones.

[Khatoblepas]

Let's apply this torture of the english language to other rules:


Should the paladin’s mount die, it immediately disappears, leaving behind any equipment it was carrying. The paladin may not summon another mount for thirty days or until she gains a paladin level, whichever comes first, even if the mount is somehow returned from the dead. During this thirty-day period, the paladin takes a -1 penalty on attack and weapon damage rolls.

"A paladin can just resummon back his horse if it dies, no sweat."


You may not take a 5-foot step using a form of movement for which you do not have a listed speed.

"Let's just five foot step through the ground, don't worry, it may not say I have a burrowing speed, but it's not outside of my ability to do so!"


Halt

The subject stands in place for 1 round. It may not take any actions but is not considered helpless.

"Don't worry, guys! I can still take actions against this dude who cast Command on me!"


On your action, before making attack rolls for a round, you may choose to subtract a number from all melee attack rolls and add the same number to all melee damage rolls. This number may not exceed your base attack bonus. The penalty on attacks and bonus on damage apply until your next turn.

"I'll just take a -∞ to my attack roll, then cast Hunter's Mercy, heh heh." *goblin evaporates into red mist, as does the entire plane*

[toapat]

Let's apply this torture of the english language to other rules

All you are showing is that the Editors dont know english well enough to understand that May, when not referencing the 5th month of the Gregorian year, is completely worthless.

the 5ft step is a derivative rule. You can not use a movement speed you dont have quantifiable integer values in

considering Hunter's Mercy is a ranged buff which causes the attack to auto-threaten critical There is no hit confirm in the Ghostwalk version. and Power attack can not be made with ranged weapons.

[torrasque666]

1: Meets Angel, falls in love, is bequeathed level of Paladin

2: your quoted section is fluff. its explaining that RAI the first sentence should say Cannot so that it can deny the ability to multiclass upto completion of the progression. however RAW its saying the character themselves doesnt have the permission to multiclass. and Permission =/= Ability. By RAW, that rules violation also has an inevitable, called the Kolyarut


1: While granted a level in Paladin, it cannot necessarily ADVANCE in paladin.

2: It is not fluff, it is clarification. If you're going to ignore the clarification why not just say **** all to all the rules that say "MAY"

[toapat]

2: It is not fluff, it is clarification. If you're going to ignore the clarification why not just say **** all to all the rules that say "MAY"

Because clarification clauses dont change anything. Just because wizards are supposed to (and stated to) need CL 1/3/5/7/9/11/13/15/17 to cast the respective spell tiers doesnt mean that counts as a rule.

[Anlashok]

All you are showing is that the Editors dont know english well enough to understand that May, when not referencing the 5th month of the Gregorian year, is completely worthless.

No, what he's showing is that your completely made up ruling would break the game apart and is completely nonsensical.

[Slipperychicken]

Not Allowing =/= Removing the ability to. Its not the same thing. Besides that, your example carries implied penalty of losing employment, as opposed to the book where the only penalty can be assumed to be an annoyed DM.

Well, if the rules don't allow you to do something, that means it's against the rules. Which means it isn't viable by RAW.

[Khatoblepas]

considering Hunter's Mercy is a ranged buff which causes the attack to auto-threaten critical There is no hit confirm in the Ghostwalk version. and Power attack can not be made with ranged weapons.


Power Shot: At 3rd level, a peerless archer learns how to make devastatingly powerful bowshots. On her action, before making any attack rolls, she may choose to subtract a number from all ranged attack rolls and add the same number to all ranged damage rolls. This number may not exceed her base attack bonus. The penalty on her attack rolls and bonus on her damage rolls apply until her next action.

The use of "may not" implies that it is against the rules of the game to do so, and since the game's ruleset is just that, a set of rules, "can not" and "may not" are syntactically identical.

Doing something that is against the rules of the game in-universe is impossible. Doing something that is against the rules of the game out of universe is cheating.

[toapat]

Well, if the rules don't allow you to do something, that means it's against the rules. Which means it isn't viable by RAW.

There is no stack Heriarchy of how books take effect, and as i pointed out a few posts ago, Multiclassing is something that is not native to the standard assumption of rules.

saying Permission and Ability are Synonymous is not correct, ever.

[Hecuba]

All you are showing is that the Editors dont know english well enough to understand that May, when not referencing the 5th month of the Gregorian year, is completely worthless.

"May" (the auxillary verb) is a perfectly good word that happens to have multiple definitions (the primary two being "have permission" and "and might").
"You may not do X" and "you are not allowed to do X" are functionally equivelent statements in English. Moreover, this usage of may is neither controversial nor new: it has been in use for over 11 centuries.

Using "may" to express possible events is also valid, but that does not make the other usage less valid nor indicate any fault on the part of the editors.

[toapat]

"May" (the auxillary verb) is a perfectly good word that happens to have multiple definitions (the primary two being "have permission" and "and might").
"You may not do X" and "you are not allowed to do X" are functionally equivelent statements in English. Moreover, this usage of may is neither controversial nor new: it has been in use for over 11 centuries.

And English's colloquial usages have no place in Legalese. May, because it represents Permission or Permissibly, does thus not belong outside of Indefinite statements, such as the Acts of God clause.

[Hecuba]

And English's colloquial usages have no place in Legalese. May, because it represents Permission or Permissibly, does thus not belong outside of Indefinite statements, such as the Acts of God clause.

It is not strictly colloquial: it is used with some frequency in legal documents throughout the English-speaking world.
Your personal dislike of the word does not make it any less valid.

Example:

Title 26-INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle A-Income Taxes
CHAPTER 1-NORMAL TAXES AND SURTAXES
Subchapter D-Deferred Compensation, Etc.
PART I-PENSION, PROFIT-SHARING, STOCK BONUS PLANS, ETC.
Subpart C-Special Rules for Multiemployer Plans
§418D. Adjustments in accrued benefits
[...](b) Limitation on reduction
(1) In general
Accrued benefits may not be reduced under this section unless-

[Vaz]

"May" is the proposition - the request for permission, and phrased as a question, to which there are two answers. "May" or "May not", which equate to permission granted, or not granted.

You need to take the entirety of the paragraph into consideration.

For example, there may be a sentence like "It doesn't say that Fighters cannot shoot lasers out of their eyes, so that must mean that Fighters can shoot lasers out of their eyes." if you ignore the rest of the sentence, and take only the bolded one, then that leaves you with "Fighters can shoot lasers out of their eyes" - which is obviously not true.

Meanwhile, the build is still pretty terrible even then. 38 Charisma isn't all that brilliant for what you're achieving. Any build can get +16 (+5 Levelling, +6 Item, +5 Tome), so every build is rocking 34 minimum. On a Lesser Aasimar, that's +36. You have flight from spells or magic items.

This build does nothing that any other similarly optimized character cannot do. It has "super duper high DC's" - but nothing to actually use them with - congratulations, you may have all those Charisma points, but nothing to put them into. Sorcerer, or Wilder? Yeah! But no. Paladin's suck for a reason. Sure, your saves are good - but it's no higher than any other high Cha character - and a Sorcadin or Wilder/Paladin, or Bardadin gets more out of it.

[BWR]

And English's colloquial usages have no place in Legalese. May, because it represents Permission or Permissibly, does thus not belong outside of Indefinite statements, such as the Acts of God clause.

Legalese? These are game rules, not legal documents.
You are choosing an interpretation with no support whatsoever and claiming that it's ok. You are dismissing all evidence that you are wrong.
If you want to house rule things, fine but don't go claiming that your ridiculous and faulty understanding of English is in any way right.
Because what you are doing is saying, in the face of overwhelming evidence, "everyone else is doing it wrong and I'm right".
Languages don't work that way. Had you been able to point to some historical usage that supported your position you might have been able to save face but there isn't any. There is only your refusal to acknowledge your error.

[Loxagn]

Well, let's see. Even if she were correct, and 'may' in this instance indicated permission rather than ability, it would make no difference. Why?

Let's use an example. A student asks a teacher 'may I go to the restroom' and the teacher says 'no, you may not'. The student does so anyway, because he's rebellious. He does not have permission, even if he has the physical ability. He is breaking the rules, and will be punished for it, via detention, or what have you.

In this instance, you have the physical ability to multiclass. You can put whatever you want on your character sheet. The difference here is that, in a game that is defined by its rules, if you cannot abide by the rules, your punishment is that you don't get to play.

So, in this one instance, Permission and Ability are, functionally, identical.

That, toapat, and I highly doubt that ten years of examination of this system has failed to pick up anything you claim to have found.

[Killer Angel]

You're not conflating two different definitions. But you are choosing the one which is more advantageous, based on ambiguous terminology. And it's an ambiguity which, for the most part, you are creating. Here, in essence, is the ambiguity that others have been trying to explain to you.

Do I have to link The Ten Commandments of Practical Optimization? Because I'm sure that we can apply to this case 2 or 3 of them...

[Brookshw]

Do I have to link The Ten Commandments of Practical Optimization? Because I'm sure that we can apply to this case 2 or 3 of them...

I believe one of those commandments is that its something that could/would be played in an actual game and from the responses seems like that would be a no-go.

[Mitchellnotes]

So....i'm not going to weigh in on the "may/may not" controversy. What I will do is throw some ideas on how to capitalize on the basic succubus.

Even straight from the MM, the succubus can be very, very good. Its just not a front line fighter. It is a superb face and excellent scout.

Any build using a succubus should absolutely make use of its insane charisma. I would throw two of my favorites out there.

Warlock making strong use of UMD and being able to take 10s at level 4. Remember, staves base dc off casters stats and you both have a high charisma and can mimic scores with umd. Also grab the invocation that adds to a save based on charisma.

Im also a huge fan of evangelist on a succubus, again making use of high dcs with charisma.

[Mitchellnotes]

Oh, also ur-priest is likely doable, youd prob get 8 levels and fiend of possession is good.

[Loxagn]

Another counterpoint:

By your logic, Toapat, the following is also true.

All of the following is taken from the Player's Handbook, and uses the term 'may not'.

* Bards can take 10 or 20 on bardic knowledge. (p29)
* A cleric can be full neutral regardless of his deity. (p30)
* An ex-paladin can continue to advance in levels of paladin. (pp44-45)
* A wizard can change his specialization and prohibited schools. (p57 sidebar)
* Combat Expertise's bonus to defense (or Power Attack's bonus to damage) can exceed your BAB. (p92, p98)
* If you're the target of an Improved Overrun attempt, you can still avoid it. (p96) Likewise with Trample. (p102)
* Inherent bonuses to ability scores can totally exceed +5. (p302, Wish.)

So hey, I guess. Good news, guys! Infinite AC and stats for everyone.

[The Glyphstone]

Great Modthulhu: Locked for review.