Roleplaying So I've made the ultimate Anti-Mage??? [Archive]

PDA

View Full Version : Roleplaying So I've made the ultimate Anti-Mage???

Pages : [1] 2

Thillidan

2014-07-18, 06:39 AM

sideswipe

2014-07-18, 06:50 AM

Esprit15

2014-07-18, 06:55 AM

Barely an optimizer here, but just the basic questions:

Even if you detect scrying, how do you stop it? Otherwise, you're still at risk for the rest of stuff.

Can you deal with someone that is flying around above you?

Can you deal with several summoned meat shields monsters all ganking you at once?

Can you deal with Time Stop?

What about Wish?

What if a caster targets your weapons for destruction first? If you can't kill a caster while naked and unarmed, you can't really kill any caster.

Brookshw

2014-07-18, 06:56 AM

Well, didn't see any protection from having your own toys dispelled/MDJ'd so that's the biggest one that jumped at me. Something incorporal could be a problem. Not seeing much you could do to stop your opponent from running away effectively via magic.

Honestly you could be swatted in one round by a properly optimized wizard, before you even had a chance to go.

Also you're spanning editions, might want to update your DR.

Edit: oh yeah, and if you're group "threatens" one another to the point you've felt you need to make this character to preserve your agency, you might want to have a serious OOC conversation.

sideswipe

2014-07-18, 07:10 AM

DMVerdandi

2014-07-18, 07:23 AM

So, due to previous campaigns, I detest people who play Mages, and think they ARE the party. They control every choice we make, because "I can destroy you if you disagree."

So I made a 20th Level Character who can WRECK any mage hes against, including party members. Problem is, now Everyone in the party is scared, because one of our regular players, playing a mage, tried threatening me, so he's dead now :P

Due to some events in the campaign, He's now immortal. I should also mention, he was born without eyes. Due to this, DM granted me a bonus feat, and the "blind-fight" feat for free, due to my inability to make spot checks, or see, at all. After reading into some spell descriptors, it became apparent that "aura vision" does not require actual eyesight.
__________________________________________________ ________

Venator Veneficus

Class: Fighter 5; Occult Slayer 5; Planar Champion 10
Alignment: LN
Age: 2345 (immortal) Height: 6' 5" Weight: 190lbs Eyes: None Hair: Black Skin: Pale/Fair
HP: 180
Attributes: STR: 26 DEX: 22 CON: 12 INT: 15 WIS: 22 CHA: 8
Saves: FORT: 14 REF: 17 WILL: 20
Initaitive: +16 (+6 Dex +10 misc)
AC: 26 || Touch: 20 Flat-Footed: 22 DR 20/+1

Weapons.
Ultor:
+3 Eager, Everbright, Magebane Nodachi,
LN, Int: 19, Wis: 19, Cha: 10, (CL 20), Intelligent Item.
Speech, Telepathy, 120ft Darkvision, Blindsense, hearing.
Powers: Cast Major Image 3/day, Constant "Detect Scrying", Detect Thoughts at will.

Rod of Negation. +26 Ranged touch.

Skills: If anyone Really cares, i guess i can post...
But max ranks in Spellcraft, Knowledge (arcana), (the planes), Intimidate, Sense Motive.

Feats: (omg, get ready for all the feats)
Exotice weapon prof. (Nodachi), Weapon Focus (nodachi), Weapon Spec. (nodachi), Improved Critical (nodachi)
Improved initiative, Supreme Initiative.
Mage slayer, Pierce Magical Armour, Pierce Magical Concealment,
Death Blow, Blind sense 120ft, Blind-fight.

Flaws:
Born-blind, hatred for the arcane.

Special Abilities:
Just stuff from occult slayer, and Planar Champion, and then Racials.
Favored Plane (Fire), Favored Plane (Shadowfell), Favored Plane (Astral)

Items:
+2 Mithral Breast Plate of Blinking, Death Ward, Speed.
Devastation Gauntlets: crit for +4d6 damage before multiply
Boots of Swiftness: Haste 3/day, +6 Dex
Dreaming Blindfold, Cloak of Weaponry,
Lavender & Green Ioun Stones (2), Clear Ioun Stone(1), Iridescant Ioun stone(1),
Ring of Spell Turning, Ring of Protection +4.
Periapt of Wisdom +6, Belt of Giant Strength +6
__________________________________________________ _______

Need advice: What do? Is this OP? Unless mistaken, nobody can do anything around him.
Also, Anyone interested in the character, feel free to ask...

Honestly, At this level, it is asking to be in combat with level 20 mages. And as a blind dude with only 120 ft vision (which is pretty low, AND doesn't allow him the ability to read maps or discern direction outside of an area of mossy trees.) This puts the guy at a real disadvantage.

Now yes, I understand what you are thinking. MAGE SLAYER. GETTING THESE GUYS IN A ONE ON ON FIGHT WHERE MY STEEL IS WORTH MORE THAN HIS SPELLS!
HOL'UP.

This just tells me that you are making a bunch of assumptions.
1. You are going to be fighting wizards.
That is a bad assumption, if it's magic that is your bane, then most likely all 9th level casters are welcome.

2. They are going to be alone forever.
Really though? Now maybe if your DM is lenient, he hasn't thrown some terrible stuff at you, but its within possibility. You don't want the DM and the party deeming you unnecessary or ready to get killed, because if they throw some stuff at you that you don't want, you are dead.

A Druid/Planar shepard is wrecking your day. Honestly, A straight up druid is wrecking your day.
A wizard that came back with a load out based on countering Anti-mages is wrecking your day.
A cleric is wrecking your day.
A Spirit Shaman is wrecking your day.
And these I mean individually. If he decided to come at you with a church of boccob, you are getting smoked.
Cleric,Druid,Wizard,XX party designed for Counter-terrorism against mages? Mage-killer-killers? That is your tush.

This idea of being a mundane slayer of magical people(except those magic weapons you are holding), is something people like to think is unique and cool, but think for a second... Unless this is the first one ever, any mages guild, church, or or other place of magical learning worth anything is going to recognize the first, have options to send out an extermination squad, and just roast these jokers.

They don't need to search for food or water, housing, or anything like that. They are autonomous and intelligent, and have the best resource in the world. Magic. And upstarts think they aren't going to be dealt with accordingly.

Sure, he has detect scrying on. He knows when people are watching him, but he cannot do the same. He has no idea what they are doing on the other side, just that one person is scrying.

Your guy didn't even fathom the idea of a mage going and making a contract with a beholder, and using it to disable you with it's eyes did he. No. Of course not.
Did he think of them going and hiring giants to shoot arrows at you? No.
Did he think maybe these mages know other people and can compound their resources to kill you, a threat to their lives? No.

Did he think that they could go infiltrate a castle, IF THEY ARENT ALREADY TIED IN, get a local police force/Military, to kill your guy for them? Nope.

Weather based spells? Naw.
No save no resistance spells? Nope.
Summoning
Geas
Planar binding
Bombs
Poison
Assasination
War

No. Because the guy is blind, and isn't aware of how high the ivory tower sits. You take for granted a Dungeon Master that can make up enemies on the fly, whom are completely legal, yet your worst nightmare.
You know what is the death of an adventuring team? Another one, that is more optimized.
They thrive on getting the big bad in a room all alone, but when does that ever happen? Hell, in real life?

If the guy is strong, he understands that there is strength in numbers, and probably has a geas'd guard on hand at all times.

It's cute, but weak compared to A skilled spell caster. You throw a team at him, and he is mincemeat.

Brookshw

2014-07-18, 07:24 AM

problem is as long as the mage has to sleep he will eventually kill the mage. he is immortal. so he can wait. so yes he will eventually cause the mage to die.

but he also will get owned in any fight with a mage.

Meh, that's easy enough to work around. Gotta find the mage after all and mind blank/teleport/planeshift/extradimensional spaces make that a bit of a challenge.

But again for emphasis, this isn't a mechanics problem, its a mechanics solution to a larger issue that needs to ne discussed OOC.

Beardbarian

2014-07-18, 07:32 AM

Even a Warlock would laugh at you
This is not a Mage-Slayer, is a Mage-With-Some-Mental-Disease-Slayer-Maybe

Vaz

2014-07-18, 07:34 AM

Meanwhile, Wizard is sat in his own Private Demiplane using Astral Projection to gate in Great Wyrm Dragons.

Your move.

Esprit15

2014-07-18, 07:54 AM

The best way for a mundane to kill mages is to pick up a spellbook and start studying / go to the local church and start praying / go out into the forest and start getting in tune with nature / etc. Otherwise, you're just not going to ever have a chance of comparing to them.

Prepared casters are versatile. Prepared casters are powerful. There is a reason that among optimizers they have a tier that is all their own, and it's the top one. If they know what they're fighting (hint: today it's the guy in a tin can who wants to fight wizards with a metal stick) and they have the resources (hint: at level 20, they do), they will probably win.

Segev

2014-07-18, 08:27 AM

Is this "immortality" of his something you've obtained through a combination of build mechanics, or something the DM has given you?

I ask because your response of "he's immortal; he might get owned in a straight-up fight, but the mage has to rest sometime" makes it sound less like you've built the ultimate mage-slayer, and more like you've got a powerful trick that is not available without DM fiat which you can use to eventually take revenge on anybody who you couldn't otherwise beat.

Not trying to fault or argue with you, here, but you made specific claims about your build being a "mage-slayer," so I want to see if that crucial component is part of your build. It seems like it's what you're hanging the "mage-slaying" ability on.

Seppo87

2014-07-18, 08:50 AM

Excuse me, I don't see Iron Heart Surge in your build. How do you deal with forcecages or repel metal?

Somensjev

2014-07-18, 09:08 AM

so, level 20, right?

this is a completely unoptimised wizard

important feats: arcane thesis (mage's disjunction), sculpt spell, enlarge spell

so, an enlarged, sculpted (120ft line), mage's disjunction is a 9th level spell, and has a maximum range of 220ft :smallwink: how far can you see again?

so, now you know you're being attacked by an enemy you can't see, and all your magic items are useless, and all magical effects that're acting upon you end, there's even a 20% chance of artifacts being rendered useless
so, you're effectively blind, have no toys, and you're fighting a 20th level wizard with all but one spell for the day. have fun :smallbiggrin:

also, you're immortal? okay, the wizard uses time stop (or just makes sure he's far enough away from you), wishes for a scroll of an ice assassin of you, then does the simple fusion+astral seed combo, and becomes you, with all his abilities on top of yours, have fun fighting a better version of yourself

to do this, the wizard must use three spells, a scroll, and two power stones i really hope i have all my information correct, i had to do a number of google searches to check this method

Zanos

2014-07-18, 09:11 AM

I'm less concerned about the build and more concerned that you respond to a threat with killing another character.

That said even at low optimization(which this group seems like), many very basic spells have a range of 400+40ft/CL. If a wizard flies above this character and just throws fireballs at him, he'll die eventually since he can't "see" beyond 120 ft. It's less an issue that your character is overpowered and more an issue that your group shouldn't be killing one another and that the mage player has no idea what he's doing. I'm assuming that immortally doesn't stop you from being knocked unconscious, but even if it did the wizard could just cast imprisonment, or temporal stasis, or trap the soul.

Vhaidara

2014-07-18, 09:21 AM

Yeah, most of the problems have been covered, but a lot of people are saying "Wizard 400ft above you)", but I'm saying "Wizard 50ft above you with wings". You can't fly. This is part of why Vow of Poverty monks don't work (just part): they can't fly. Flying is important.

Zweisteine

2014-07-18, 09:25 AM

*Ahem*

I present to you, the one, the only, The Ultimate Anti-Mage:

Pun-Pun

Obey the Tenth Commandment (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=517.0).

Aside from that, I have three things to say:

1. How do you have darkvision when blind?

2. As DMVerdandi (and various other people) said, vision with a limited range hurts a lot. A Wizard might just stand 200 feet away and hurl orbs of force/fire/whatever at you all day. If you prepare an action to absorb the spell, that's fine, but they might have more than one to cast, and your Ioun Stone will eventually run out of space. They also can also stand somethng like 1000 feet away and hurl chain lightning and other powerful spells at you. And you have no defenses against spells like apocalypse from the sky and meteor swarm (which no self-respecting Wizard should be using, anyway).

3. Remember that a Wizard's best strategy is in control and save-or-suck/die spells. What do you do when you're suddenly encased in walls of iron/force? What can you say to a wish? And when they realize you're easily deflecting everything they cast at you, what do you do when they polymorph, or worse, shapechange into a dragon, the Tarrasque, or something better?

EDIT: Thought of some more stuff.

Is your immortality bound to your body or your soul? If it's the body, you are highly susceptible to, say, Mind Switch, or Magic Jar.
If it's bound to your soul, there are methods of sealing a soul in a box, and locking it in places nobody will ever find it (such as the Tomb of Horrors, half way to the nearest star, or in Vecna's personal library).

Here's how I suspect your fight with a well-made Wizard might go. Keep in mind that this Wizard is not nearly as optimized as many others.
Encounter 1:
Round 0: Wizard rolls higher initiative due to various bonuses and/or spells.
Round 1: Wizard casts takes a look at you, visually identifies the ioun stones, casts time stop.
Round 1.1-2: Wizard gives you a closer look, figuring out what defenses you have.
Round 1.3: Wizard casts rope trick, goes inside, and pulls in the rope.
Round 2 to hour 8: Wizard prepares spells to find and defeat you.

Wizard locates you with spells.

Encounter 2:
Round 0: Wizard gets higher initiative. You also haven't seen the Wizard yet, because he's too far away.
Round 1: Wizard moves directly above you 200 feet. You still haven't seen him.
Round 2: Wizard drops closer to you, and traps you in a barred forcecage. You have no way out, and spend the round preparing to counter spells or attack.
Round 3-5: Wizard uses Mordenkainen's disjunction to break your ring, your best ioun stone, and something else.
Round 4: Wizard puts you in a second, non-barred forcecage.
Rounds 5-X: Wizard casts various entrapping spells on you.
Round X+1: Wizard goes into a rope trick and begins to rest.
Hours later, he emerges with more useful spells, and finishes entrapping you.

Vaz

2014-07-18, 09:42 AM

Excuse me, I don't see Iron Heart Surge in your build. How do you deal with forcecages or repel metal?

Because IHS'ing "The Wizard" is cheating.

lytokk

2014-07-18, 09:44 AM

Zweisteine

2014-07-18, 09:44 AM

Because IHS'ing "The Wizard" is cheating.
But IHSing a spell the Wizard used to trap you is not.

EDIT:

I always find it odd when someone proclaims hatred for magic and then proceeds to wear and use magical items. But maybe that's just me. I know some of this could be crafted via divine means but still. Hating one form of magic yet embracing another.
Divine magic is the power of the gods, a righteous magic given power by their holiness. Arcane magic is an abomination against nature, man subjugating the power that should be the gods' for personal gain.

EDIT 2:

Problem is, now Everyone in the party is scared, because one of our regular players, playing a mage, tried threatening me, so he's dead now :P
Don't do this. Party killing is never advisable, unless all players involved agree to it.

Seppo87

2014-07-18, 09:59 AM

Dalebert

2014-07-18, 10:36 AM

My first thought was you killed an idiot who doesn't know how to play a wizard for the many reasons already given. This guy had two weaknesses that immediately come to mind. First is already stated many times--he didn't really know how to play a wizard. The second is that he had some sort of trust in you as a member of his party and allowed you catch him off-guard.

I'm less concerned about the build and more concerned that you respond to a threat with killing another character.

Yes. I'm curious of the specifics of the "threat". The fact that the rest of the party is scared of you now makes me think you play your character as being very douchey and probably make the game unfun for the rest of the party and the threat was in response to a valid concern about your behavior. Were you picked on a lot IRL and are using RPGs as a kind of pillow-punching therapy for that? I've witnessed a lot of people with issues who bring their issues into the game and that's a recipe for a short and not fun game that leads to everyone quitting.

I understand the frustration with wizards and magic-using tier 1 and 2 characters dominating the game. It's tempting to chalk this up to poor game design but I think it runs deeper than that. D&D and many other RPGs are based on a fantasy world where things are possible that aren't possible in our mundane world, either through magic or world-changing advanced science. That's integral to the fun of such fantasies. The whole point of magic is to give an unfair advantage. Character types who don't take advantage of that, practically by definition, will be disadvantaged to those who do. And that brings us back to how your character is a hypocrite who is uses lots of magic, now including divine magic that makes him immortal, to hate and kill magic-users.

Was it Ars Magica that finally acknowledged this and all the PCs were variations of magic-users? I may have the system wrong that I played once. No one played fighters or rogues. It was considered pointless to play mundanes in a magical fantasy world. Those were NPCs that you hired to do the boring mundane stuph that needed to be done.

dascarletm

2014-07-18, 10:50 AM

I always find it odd when someone proclaims hatred for magic and then proceeds to wear and use magical items. But maybe that's just me. I know some of this could be crafted via divine means but still. Hating one form of magic yet embracing another.

Oh, I'm sure you can find plenty of historical examples where people are hypocritica,l or make a large dichotomy over some small difference....

I say it is par for the course in a pseudo-medieval setting.

snip

I always wonder why in these discussions it is assumed that magic users have some sort of coalition, or common interest that binds them, always. It's not RAW, and fairly campaign specific. Even if it would make sense to have, I've not seen one anywhere close to the scope in a published campaign setting.

Zanos

2014-07-18, 10:54 AM

I always wonder why in these discussions it is assumed that magic users have some sort of coalition, or common interest that binds them, always. It's not RAW, and fairly campaign specific. Even if it would make sense to have, I've not seen one anywhere close to the scope in a published campaign setting.
Even if they disagree, being made aware that there's somebody walking around who is reasonably high leveled who's entire purpose in life is to hate and kill people who use arcane magic is probably going to cause them to take action. Unless they don't consider that person a threat.

In general wizards in particular are assumed to have some sort of organization because they benefit more from cooperation than pretty much any other class. Trading spells can make you a much more powerful wizard on the cheap.

Vhaidara

2014-07-18, 10:57 AM

I always wonder why in these discussions it is assumed that magic users have some sort of coalition, or common interest that binds them, always. It's not RAW, and fairly campaign specific. Even if it would make sense to have, I've not seen one anywhere close to the scope in a published campaign setting.

First, what Zanos said.

Second, that wasn't really "There's a massive organization of wizards". It's "hey, this wizard has a friend who's a cleric, and a friend who's a druid". Which makes sense, since they can provide spells he can't cast for item creation or what have you.

dascarletm

2014-07-18, 11:01 AM

Even if they disagree, being made aware that there's somebody walking around who is reasonably high leveled who's entire purpose in life is to hate and kill people who use arcane magic is probably going to cause them to take action. Unless they don't consider that person a threat.

In general wizards in particular are assumed to have some sort of organization because they benefit more from cooperation than pretty much any other class. Trading spells can make you a much more powerful wizard on the cheap.

Yes, even if it would make sense, mass communication networks, and other such modern luxuries do not exist. Sure, you could set up something similar with magic, but such massive networks don't exist in the settings I've read as I recall.

Though I did say before that it may make sense, but it would be in a custom setting, which isn't RAW, and from RAW is where we argue.
The point I'm trying to make is that I could just as easily say that in the setting wizards are all recluses, and never speak with one-another. They all prefer to be hermits.

Again, I'm not saying it isn't possible or probable, I'm saying it isn't a given, and shouldn't be treated as such.

First, what Zanos said.

Second, that wasn't really "There's a massive organization of wizards". It's "hey, this wizard has a friend who's a cleric, and a friend who's a druid". Which makes sense, since they can provide spells he can't cast for item creation or what have you.
I'm not arguing the wizard won't/can't have friends. My post was directed to other elements.

Brookshw

2014-07-18, 11:03 AM

Yes, even if it would make sense, mass communication networks, and other such modern luxuries do not exist. Sure, you could set up something similar with magic, but such massive networks don't exist in the settings I've read as I recall.

Though I did say before that it may make sense, but it would be in a custom setting, which isn't RAW, and from RAW is where we argue.
The point I'm trying to make is that I could just as easily say that in the setting wizards are all recluses, and never speak with one-another. They all prefer to be hermits.

Again, I'm not saying it isn't possible or probable, I'm saying it isn't a given, and shouldn't be treated as such.

I'm not arguing the wizard won't/can't have friends. My post was directed to other elements.

The network is somewhat ingrained in the game, just look at the original council of 8 in Greyhawk (before the settings writing was taken over). There's a traditional element to it. Great mages from across settings coming together to trade spells is also something that's existed in the past.

dascarletm

2014-07-18, 11:04 AM

I suppose the majority of that post wasn't in line with the whole "large magical organization." So my previous comments are mostly irrelevant. :smalltongue:

dascarletm

2014-07-18, 11:06 AM

The network is somewhat ingrained in the game, just look at the original council of 8 in Greyhawk (before the settings writing was taken over). There's a traditional element to it. Great mages from across settings coming together to trade spells is also something that's existed in the past.

Having a meeting spot that people gather to (like a large trade city) is a far cry from a communication network comparable of the modern day's. It's all word of mouth, it would travel much slower. Which helps this sort of character concept.

Seppo87

2014-07-18, 11:16 AM

Vaz

2014-07-18, 11:23 AM

[QUOTE=Zweisteine;17789548]But IHSing a spell the Wizard used to trap you is not.

http://forums.na.leagueoflegends.com/board/attachment.php?attachmentid=847964

Vhaidara

2014-07-18, 11:23 AM

Having a meeting spot that people gather to (like a large trade city) is a far cry from a communication network comparable of the modern day's. It's all word of mouth, it would travel much slower. Which helps this sort of character concept.

Excuse me, but are you imply high level wizards don't all make items of at will quickened sending, aka Twitter? I can elaborate it when I get home, but it involves a golem server.

Juntao112

2014-07-18, 11:38 AM

MirddinEmris

2014-07-18, 11:45 AM

I don't think "pixie" is the right rank for a topic starter. I think he deserves more.

Brookshw

2014-07-18, 11:49 AM

Having a meeting spot that people gather to (like a large trade city) is a far cry from a communication network comparable of the modern day's. It's all word of mouth, it would travel much slower. Which helps this sort of character concept.

Doesn't Eberron have a house that specifically facilitates this?

I don't know, but we've seen organizations in various settings that definitely sat up and took notice, often proactively policing certain issues.

Going back to the council of 8, this wasn't just 8 people, it was 8 people who commanded massive power and respective organizations. Likewise if your small gathering is Elminster, Mordenkain and Raistlin, well, at least the first two definitely had connections and get things done (M's even on that council).

Also, sending stones.

You don't need this in every setting or game, but its kinda there.

Seppo87

2014-07-18, 11:51 AM

Word of mouth travels faster than you do.
This is common in fiction, but how is it even possible?

SethoMarkus

2014-07-18, 11:57 AM

I'm more concerned with how a character such as this would reach level 20. I'm assuming that the character was created at level 20 (and I sure hope that the other players also had characters that started at 20), and this makes sense from an OOC perspective. However, IC, how did a "mage-slayer" such as this come about? Even assuming that he really is invincible against mages at his capstone of 20, surely he would be able to be defeated at lower levels. Did he simply wait until he was level 20 to start hunting mages? What did he do to gain experience up to that point? Did mages just sit back and wait for him to come to power?

I never understood high-level mundane anti-mage builds. Unless the character is part of some sort of (magical) organization and used specifically to counter other threats, such as an Inquisitor or some such, it doesn't make sense to me. Only in low-level, low-optimization campaigns does a mundane "mage-slayer" make any sense, and even then it would be against budding, lower level magic users.

Somensjev

2014-07-18, 12:01 PM

SethoMarkus

2014-07-18, 12:03 PM

you've just given me exactly the way to defeat him :smallamused:

eschew materials + teleport through time :smallwink:

the wizard scry's you, thinks you're a threat, TTT's to the day of your birth, scry's you again, teleports to you, and throws a fireball at you. i don't think babies can take 10d6 damage and survive

Exactly. Even without such drastic measures, wizards tend to value their lives. They also tend to be able to warp the fabric of space and time on a whim.

I only bring any of this up since the thread is tagged as "Roleplaying," so I assume there should be some level of internal consistency. Also, others were bringing up the viability of a magic-user's communication network...

Seppo87

2014-07-18, 12:05 PM

I never understood high-level mundane anti-mage builds. Unless the character is part of some sort of (magical) organization and used specifically to counter other threats, such as an Inquisitor or some such, it doesn't make sense to me. Only in low-level, low-optimization campaigns does a mundane "mage-slayer" make any sense, and even then it would be against budding, lower level magic users.
And why do you assume this character is not immune to divinations?

Somensjev

2014-07-18, 12:06 PM

actually, the wizard doesn't even have to go to your birth, he could go to any time you had less than 60 health, and throw a maximised fire ball at you

Seppo87

2014-07-18, 12:09 PM

the wizard scry's you
Have you ever scryed for potential mage slayers just because you imagined it would be possible they existed when playing a wizard in your actual gaming sessions?
Has anybody, ever?
I don't think so.

dascarletm

2014-07-18, 12:16 PM

Excuse me, but are you imply high level wizards don't all make items of at will quickened sending, aka Twitter? I can elaborate it when I get home, but it involves a golem server.

Gah! Why do I bother and put things like this to show my intent if it is ignored!:smallwink:

I've not seen one anywhere close to the scope in a published campaign setting.
I mean, show me where it's done. I'm in no way saying it can't be done. I'm merely saying it shouldn't necessarily be assumed.

on the not so anti-joke-dascarletm that's awesome. I want to know more.

Word of mouth travels faster than you do.

I'm not really arguing that it does/doesn't

Doesn't Eberron have a house that specifically facilitates this?

I don't know, but we've seen organizations in various settings that definitely sat up and took notice, often proactively policing certain issues.

Going back to the council of 8, this wasn't just 8 people, it was 8 people who commanded massive power and respective organizations. Likewise if your small gathering is Elminster, Mordenkain and Raistlin, well, at least the first two definitely had connections and get things done (M's even on that council).

Also, sending stones.

You don't need this in every setting or game, but its kinda there.

Well, I'm not super well versed on Eberron, but in that world I believe there is very very few high level individuals anyway. (I could be wrong).

The council of 8 could pose a problem. I'm not too familiar with their information sharing/distribution capabilities.

To sending stones:
That's really my point. You could have such a network, but as you said you don't need it in every setting, and it's not specifically said to be assumed. So, that's why I always question why it is assumed every time a character like this comes up.

Vaz

2014-07-18, 12:21 PM

A 7th level Wizard is still better than a 7th level... well, non wizard, pretty much.

The Insanity

2014-07-18, 12:22 PM

Somensjev

2014-07-18, 12:36 PM

Have you ever scryed for potential mage slayers just because you imagined it would be possible they existed when playing a wizard in your actual gaming sessions?
Has anybody, ever?
I don't think so.

possibilities

the wizard finds out that there's an immortal, powerful, mage slayer. he then scry's said mage slayer
the wizard gets killed by the mage slayer, his clone awakens, then TTT's to the mage slayers birth
the wizard finds said mage slayer, disjunctions him from up to 220ft away, stops time, mindrapes him into being a loyal, mindless servant
the wizard is in a party with the mage slayer and doesnt like him, he goes into a ropetrick, pulls up the rope, then TTT's to kill the mage slayer. he's no longer in a party with him

SethoMarkus

2014-07-18, 12:41 PM

And why do you assume this character is not immune to divinations?

It doesn't require divination. Although magic users use, well, magic, they are not banned from doing things the mundane way. Gather Information, idle gossip and rumors, local fame, etc. If someone is training to be an anti-mage, to be someone focused on killing magic users (specifically Arcane magic users), word would spread out. Think about it. They would either have to train in private, at a monastery or some other specialized school/location, or they would train in the open. If they train in the open, casual observers would watch and spread the word to their friends and family. Soon the whole town would know, and after that it is only a matter of time before that gossip reaches a city. Now, that does not guarantee that a magic user would discover him, but level 1 to level 20 takes a bit of time. He would undoubtedly be known of before reaching level 20.

Let's assume he trains in secret, not making an outward move until he reaches level 20. That would make it more difficult for magic users to discern that he existed, but once he started killing magic users, word would spread quickly. Even if wizards lived as hermits with no mass communication networks, they must still have friends. Those friends have friends. And those friends have yet more friends. If Bobby, a high level Wizard, is killed, surely Susie and Timmy, his close friends, will know about it, and possibly know the details. Susie tells Richter and Joseph, other mages, warning them to be careful. Timmy tells Mary and Peter, also warning them. Richter, Joseph, Mary, and Peter tell their friends, and so on. Soon, you have a network of wizards all looking for this mage-slayer independently, and possibly grouping together with friends. It's only a matter of time before some deity-level divination, some Gather Information/gossip, or other type of information gathering that bypasses an immunity to divination locates the mundane mage slayer, after which a task force is sent to neutralize the threat.

It is a cool concept. It works as a gimmick. If the OP was determined to use this character concept as a force aligned with the party to fight outside magic users, I'd be all for it. However, as his motivation seems to be to use an in game method to send an out of game message, namely "I don't like it when you use magic. No more magic users allowed in the game", it just becomes petty and has no in-game reason to exist. This is not roleplaying, this is trying to use fluff to justify a build specifically meant to cause a bad day for the other players.

Vaz

2014-07-18, 12:43 PM

Question; how does said Mage Slayer get to the Wizard's demiplane?

Somensjev

2014-07-18, 12:47 PM

Question; how does said Mage Slayer get to the Wizard's demiplane?

see, i was trying to avoid genesis, so the mage slayer at least had a chance of meeting the wizard, or an astral projection of the wizard, or an ice assassin of (an aleax) of the wizard, or one of the wizards minions, or anyone who knew the wizard :smallwink:

Brookshw

2014-07-18, 12:54 PM

To sending stones:
That's really my point. You could have such a network, but as you said you don't need it in every setting, and it's not specifically said to be assumed. So, that's why I always question why it is assumed every time a character like this comes up.

So I was wrong, the name was the circle of 8 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_Eight), not the council. Can't trust the ol' memory some days. That link doesn't do justice to the whole thing though, you'd need to really dig into the Greyhawk canon if you want a full picture (you could also check out http://www.canonfire.com/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page but you'd have to keep digging if you wanted further info. Or probably just ask Afro). I certainly can agree that they're not necessary, but such groups are fairly steeped in the canon, media and novels, BG2 for example has an instant assault from an order that controls magic as soon as you leave the first dungeon. Blackstaff and Elminster are in regular contact with one another in the novels and the Simbul tends to show up just at the right time more often than not. Planescape had the mercykillers. The power of any organization varies in particular settings, but it's pretty common in many that there's some group keeping a watchful eye on things so I can understand why people expect there to be something. It's kind of the real life parallel of there being a swat team really I guess, the assumption there's a group prepared to deal with the more powerful threats. Sometimes they're even called adventurers!

EugeneVoid

2014-07-18, 12:56 PM

OP has already left this thread. top kek

Elderand

2014-07-18, 03:06 PM

This is common in fiction, but how is it even possible?

You need to stop and rest. Pass the message along and someone else keep traveling while you sleep.

Vogonjeltz

2014-07-18, 04:24 PM

Excuse me, I don't see Iron Heart Surge in your build. How do you deal with forcecages or repel metal?

IHS works on spells affecting the character.

Force Cage doesn't affect the character, it creates an object.
Repel Metal or Stone, same deal, it affects objects in an area, not people.

I'm less concerned about the build and more concerned that you respond to a threat with killing another character.

I think it'd kind of concerning that this guy is listed as Lawful Neutral. The party behavior sounds more like a Chaotic Evil/Neutral Evil power struggle.

SimonMoon6

2014-07-18, 04:45 PM

You need to stop and rest. Pass the message along and someone else keep traveling while you sleep.

Or... since talking is a free action... line up enough commoners and have them ready an action to tell the person on their left anything the person on their right tells them. Then tell the right-most person whatever information you want to spread.

You can easily get sound traveling faster than the speed of sound this way, I'm sure.

Vhaidara

2014-07-18, 04:46 PM

Or... since talking is a free action... line up enough commoners and have them ready an action to tell the person on their left anything the person on their right tells them. Then tell the right-most person whatever information you want to spread.

You can easily get sound traveling faster than the speed of sound this way, I'm sure.

Is there any problem that can't be solved with enough commoners?

Vaz

2014-07-18, 05:12 PM

Faster than SoundLight Chinese Whispers? I like it.

Necroticplague

2014-07-18, 09:20 PM

Just looking at the character,, it looks like it has no answer for most mage tricks. For one, its mostly melee. Since any mage with half a brain is staying away from the pointy jams anyway, this is a big issue. Second off, is its lack of responsiveness. A simple Solid Fog or Evards Black Tentacles can stop you in your tracks. Your helpless against a forcecage. Simply having a greenbound monster grapple you can beat you. You can't fly, so any caster flying can simply plink you from out of range. It doesn't take much to counter you. Your AC is also a bit low at this level. Its in now way the ultimate, I'm not even sure its decent.

Werephilosopher

2014-07-18, 09:28 PM

This guy's got nothing to save him from being wished to Nessus. Not connected to either the ethereal or the astral, so no ethereal jaunts or plane shifting out.

eggynack

2014-07-18, 11:53 PM

Force Cage doesn't affect the character, it creates an object.
Repel Metal or Stone, same deal, it affects objects in an area, not people.
Both affect the character, because they stop the character from doing the thing they would do were there not this spell in place.

In any case, no, you have not made the ultimate anti-mage. You have some minor resources that work against casters, but it's not nearly enough to work against one that's even moderately optimized, especially at your level. You've said that you have some DM fiat immortality. By this point in the game, a well built wizard has actual immortality, coming directly from his own abilities, and it's likely in a far more useful form.

Vogonjeltz

2014-07-19, 01:09 AM

Both affect the character, because they stop the character from doing the thing they would do were there not this spell in place.

In any case, no, you have not made the ultimate anti-mage. You have some minor resources that work against casters, but it's not nearly enough to work against one that's even moderately optimized, especially at your level. You've said that you have some DM fiat immortality. By this point in the game, a well built wizard has actual immortality, coming directly from his own abilities, and it's likely in a far more useful form.

No they do not.

eggynack

2014-07-19, 01:20 AM

No they do not.
Which one are we talking about here? This, more than a non-argument, is a rather unclearly directed non-argument. On the being affected count, the forcecage and repel metal absolutely act on the fighting guy, and they produce an effect or change in him, because they alter the actions he would be able to take. As for immortality, wizards at that level are fully capable of acquiring immunity to just about anything, including HP damage, and are able to astrally project from a private demiplane with a contingent raise dead effect on. There are also ways to acquire actual everlasting life, if you want.

Somensjev

2014-07-19, 01:23 AM

No they do not.

anything can be said to be affecting the player, hence the famous line "i IHS the Sun"

affect: have an effect on; make a difference to.

"this forcecage is affecting my movement, therefore it's affecting me, therefore IHS works"
"this wizard is affecting my health with his fireballs, therefore he's affecting me, therefore IHS works"

all you need is the right thought process and suddenly IHS works on everything

Esprit15

2014-07-19, 02:16 AM

Thankfully, IHS stops the effect, not the cause.

eggynack

2014-07-19, 02:20 AM

Thankfully, IHS stops the effect, not the cause.
Well, yes, it wouldn't kill the wizard. It would, however, remove the existence of the forcecage. I suppose you could semantics your way into wizard-splosion, but it's a bit of a stretch.

Zanos

2014-07-19, 02:26 AM

Well, yes, it wouldn't kill the wizard. It would, however, remove the existence of the forcecage. I suppose you could semantics your way into wizard-splosion, but it's a bit of a stretch.
Even the forcecage is a stretch.

Somensjev

2014-07-19, 02:27 AM

Thankfully, IHS stops the effect, not the cause.

someone smarter than i will probably tell you how to word it so the wizard goes poof

eggynack

2014-07-19, 02:38 AM

Even the forcecage is a stretch.
A little bit, but it's a spell, and that makes it a lot easier to argue. I mean, once we've established that this is the spell we're working with, then it definitely follows that that's what's getting removed, because that's just how IHS is phrased. Getting to the point where it's the spell we're working with is marginally more difficult, but I think we're at the point where it fits the definitions. The wizard is obviously somewhat more difficult, because you have that additional step of proving that the wizard is either an effect or a condition. It's not impossible to argue for, but it's not really a fun side to take on. The sun thing is actually probably even more difficult to prove, on every level, so wizard poofing might be easier to support than it sounds.

Emperor Tippy

2014-07-19, 02:50 AM

No they do not.

Hide Life + Ice Assassin of self + Order Ice Assassin to cast Kissed by the Ages on you.

Congrats, you are now immune to death. Do it using Soul Crystals from a Psion who has gotten the spells as powers and there is literally no way in the entire game to kill you short of time-traveling to before you use the powers.

Somensjev

2014-07-19, 03:30 AM

Hide Life + Ice Assassin of self + Order Ice Assassin to cast Kissed by the Ages on you.

Congrats, you are now immune to death. Do it using Soul Crystals from a Psion who has gotten the spells as powers and there is literally no way in the entire game to kill you short of time-traveling to before you use the powers.

tippy's posted, thread's over now

facelessminion

2014-07-19, 04:13 AM

Vaz

2014-07-19, 06:32 AM

someone smarter than i will probably tell you how to word it so the wizard goes poof

'The wizard is affecting me, he calls me mean names and bullied me as a child, this what made me into a psychosocio pathic killer today'

IHS, the nonquack psychiatrist of d&d.

Somensjev

2014-07-19, 06:41 AM

'The wizard is affecting me, he calls me mean names and bullied me as a child, this what made me into a psychosocio pathic killer today'

IHS, the nonquack psychiatrist of d&d.

i'm really worried that there are DM's out there that'd allow that :smalleek:

: a way of living or existing

: the state in which something exists : the physical state of something

: the physical or mental state of a person or animal

i think my favourite is "mortality is a condition, therefore i IHS it, i am now no longer bound by mortality"

Eldariel

2014-07-19, 07:16 AM

Vhaidara

2014-07-19, 09:54 AM

You scrub, I don't even see Blink Dagger in your inventory. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLOlGkipXyU)

But seriously, this build doesn't have a way to handle its target just up and flying away, so how is it supposed to kill any level 20 mages?

I'm disappointed at how long it took that video to get posted.

i'm really worried that there are DM's out there that'd allow that :smalleek:

i think my favourite is "mortality is a condition, therefore i IHS it, i am now no longer bound by mortality"

"I'm not crazy! I IHSed the crazy away!"

Vaz

2014-07-19, 10:42 AM

But honestly, killing characters on those levels is pretty useless anyways since revival is so trivially available. It's much more efficient try and trap the character in suspended animation anyways, since those won't be coming back (though copies can of course be made). If you gotta kill someone, at least Unname them since Truenaming is kinda out there so it might actually stick.

http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=14176.0

Maximise your DC as best as you can, and just keep spamming Linked Power Synchronicity to knock him out of the timestream for hours at a time. Immune to death? So what? You cannot act if you're not in the timestream (and you're a Wizard, Wisdom is hardly stellar with you). And if by some manner the Wizard does have a chance to escape being taken out of the timesteam, and you kill him, then as soon as the Psicrystal Returns to reality, and doesn't get an answer, it reverts back in time to before - and congratulations, the Ardent now knows how to beat you. Not to mention having infinite wealth due to the ability to hop back a day.

If you want to really abuse it, give him a Flaw, rearrange things until you can get Quick Draw, and load yourself up with Manifester Ammunition (bullets are the easiest).

THAT'S how you beat a caster.

Alleine

2014-07-19, 11:03 AM

The character in question does have considerable magic-negation in the two lavender and green ioun stones that together will negate 100 levels of 8th level spells or lower. This would be very handy if you never fought a spellcaster above 16th level, but retains some usefulness nevertheless. They are, however, limited in that after 100 levels of spells being thrown at you they become useless. If a wizard opens up with Mage's Disjunction there is an exceedingly good chance that the majority of your magical items are now useless. If the wizard is level 20, they can do this from just outside the range of your blindsense. If they don't open with a 9th level spell, then they may proceed to blow a lot of spells against you with little to no direct effect. If they survive the encounter and come back to fight you the next day your ioun stones are either going to be dead or nearly so, thus giving you only the limited protection of spell turning which will not turn a great deal of spells that are quite lethal.

The largest problem I see is that you have absolutely no way of getting at a flying target, nor stopping a target from flying if they cast a fly spell on themselves. From there they could simply drop very large rocks on your head until you died.

My only question about the character is based on your immortality and the existence of a Divine Salient Ability. Does this mean you have an actual divine rank? If so, your survivability just got bumped up quite a bit, but your offensive capacity hasn't really changed at all.

AmberVael

2014-07-19, 11:15 AM

The character in question does have considerable magic-negation in the two lavender and green ioun stones that together will negate 100 levels of 8th level spells or lower.
The ioun stones are really not all that great.
1) They only work against single target or ray spells. So there is still a good amount of stuff that a spellcaster can do against someone using one of these- like summon creatures, area spells, or other spells that don't directly target their opponent.
2) You have to ready an action to use them. This is the real problem, because its going to eat up all your actions using it... and it means you only get to absorb one spell per round. So you get to do nothing, while they may use a spell that the item doesn't absorb, or use multiple spells (quicken or twin would do the trick) and thus bypass your defenses.

Alleine

2014-07-19, 11:59 AM

The ioun stones are really not all that great.
1) They only work against single target or ray spells. So there is still a good amount of stuff that a spellcaster can do against someone using one of these- like summon creatures, area spells, or other spells that don't directly target their opponent.
2) You have to ready an action to use them. This is the real problem, because its going to eat up all your actions using it... and it means you only get to absorb one spell per round. So you get to do nothing, while they may use a spell that the item doesn't absorb, or use multiple spells (quicken or twin would do the trick) and thus bypass your defenses.

Ah, indeed. I had not noticed that line in the SRD. That makes them slightly less useful than his spell turning powers, since those can at least be activated ahead of time. I've never really like defenses that are not consistently on for long periods of time. So much for all that.

Threadnaught

2014-07-19, 12:17 PM

Your Darkvision is useless thanks to you being unable to see at all, even if it were Xamnim the Determinator would be invisible to it thanks to his Item Familiar, a Ring of the Darkhidden.

Your Fortitude Save is low enough that Xamnim could with Spells that target your Fortitude Save, instantly end the fight, assuming he manages to overcome the Ring of Spell Turning. This is Xamnim's greatest threat from your character, you pretending to be him in response to his attack. Flesh to Stone would have a DC of 28, requiring a roll of 14 or higher, giving your character a 65% chance to fail the save. However, the Ring you have is a problem.

I am confused as to how you'd have Supreme Initiative, with a base Dexterity lower than 29 and no listed Divine Ranks. Either you are a god, or you do not qualify for it based on it being a Divine Feat.
And no, Magic Items do not allow you to qualify for a Feat, at least not unless you lose said Feats when you lose those Magic Items, which leaves you extremely vulnerable to Disjunction.

At 20th level, Xamnim would have +5 Wis to Spot, +5 or more Ranks and a modifier from the Item Familiar, that's at least +15, which negates a range penalty of 150ft, which is further than you can sense using any of your special senses, you could make a DC45 Listen check though, provided you put at least 6 Ranks in Listen.

If I have any knowledge of your abilities, then I make sure to cast my prepared Superior Invisibility, Complete Arcane version (why wouldn't I cast it in the morning?), then I attempt to Disjoin all your Magic Items and throw some Flesh to Stones at you. Maybe a Cloudkill before Flesh to Stone, just to lower your Fortitude Save.

Killer Angel

2014-07-19, 01:48 PM

err...
Guys, do you realize that the opening of this thread is the only one post made by the OP and he's not answering in its "own" thread? (not that the thread belongs to him, but you understand the point)
The character is not even a distant cousin of a mage slayer, but the player certainly knows how to bluff...

all you need is the right thought process and suddenly IHS works on everything

I could hate ToB, just for the horrible way they wrote IHS...

Dalebert

2014-07-19, 03:03 PM

err...
Guys, do you realize that the opening of this thread is the only one post made by the OP and he's not answering in its "own" thread?

Yeah. A while back, after so many responses and no reply from the OP, I checked his posts and realized this was his only one. We'll probably never hear from him again. I think we done been trolled.

Esprit15

2014-07-19, 04:10 PM

Yeah. A while back, after so many responses and no reply from the OP, I checked his posts and realized this was his only one. We'll probably never hear from him again. I think we done been trolled.

Eh, I came from a place where trolls were fed to the point of bursting.

Threadnaught

2014-07-19, 06:59 PM

Eh, I came from a place where trolls were fed to the point of bursting.

You mean youtube?

Vhaidara

2014-07-19, 07:10 PM

You mean youtube?

no, everywhere on the internet.

Seppo87

2014-07-19, 07:17 PM

Vhaidara

2014-07-19, 07:18 PM

It's pretty fun that if a spellcaster has a spell that entirely disables a noncaster without a save that's all fine and dandy but when a nonspellcaster has an effect that disables an effect designed to disable him, that's a good reason to argue over and over .
IHS is fine as it is

What we argue about is silly things like a 5th level character being able to explode the sun. Or remove gravity from existence. Even wizards need to wait until like 7th level to do that.

Vogonjeltz

2014-07-19, 07:20 PM

Which one are we talking about here? This, more than a non-argument, is a rather unclearly directed non-argument. On the being affected count, the forcecage and repel metal absolutely act on the fighting guy, and they produce an effect or change in him, because they alter the actions he would be able to take. As for immortality, wizards at that level are fully capable of acquiring immunity to just about anything, including HP damage, and are able to astrally project from a private demiplane with a contingent raise dead effect on. There are also ways to acquire actual everlasting life, if you want.

Forcecage creates a cage. *affecting nothing.
Repel metal affects metal.

Neither is affecting the character.

*chaotic stupid, IHS works on only 3 specific things, none of which is the sun.

eggynack

2014-07-19, 07:23 PM

Forcecage creates a cage.
Repel metal affects metal.

Neither is affecting the character.
Well, if neither is affecting the character, then I guess he can just walk right on through it/not be repelled. IHS is unnecessary.

Vogonjeltz

2014-07-19, 07:26 PM

Well, if neither is affecting the character, then I guess he can just walk right on through it/not be repelled. IHS is unnecessary.

A door isn't affecting you, but you can't walk through it.

eggynack

2014-07-19, 07:27 PM

A door isn't affecting you, but you can't walk through it.
By stopping you from walking through it, it is in fact affecting you. After that, you just have to prove that it's a condition or effect, and poof, door gone.

Seppo87

2014-07-19, 07:28 PM

"imprisoned" is a condition

ArqArturo

2014-07-19, 07:29 PM

Sorry.

The build is good, but... In my opinion, the most effective Anti-mage is a CoDzilla.

Vogonjeltz

2014-07-19, 07:32 PM

By stopping you from walking through it, it is in fact affecting you. After that, you just have to prove that it's a condition or effect, and poof, door gone.

Objects aren't conditions or effects.

Isn't there a list of conditions in the DMG somewhere?

eggynack

2014-07-19, 07:35 PM

Objects aren't conditions or effects.

Isn't there a list of conditions in the DMG somewhere?
That is indeed the challenge here. Fortunately, forcecages don't suffer from this issue, as they're a spell. On the condition list thing, it is in no way encompassing of all conditions, and it in no way defines the term.

Vogonjeltz

2014-07-19, 07:44 PM

That is indeed the challenge here. Fortunately, forcecages don't suffer from this issue, as they're a spell. On the condition list thing, it is in no way encompassing of all conditions, and it in no way defines the term.

A spell that isn't affecting anything.

Enchantment and Transmutation spells are more likely to be affecting a character.

eggynack

2014-07-19, 07:47 PM

A spell that isn't affecting anything.

It's affecting the character. By making him unable to walk beyond the forcecage. So too, repel metal is affecting the character by pushing him away.

DMVerdandi

2014-07-19, 09:55 PM

Sorry.

The build is good, but... In my opinion, the most effective Anti-mage is a CoDzilla.

I wouldn't even call it good, BUT you are absolutely right.
The best way to oppose WIZARDS, is through using the other tier 1[and specialized high tier 2] classes, and out prepping them.
Lock down their ability to escape, generally have more than one entity on the table so that you can make best use of micromanagement and action economy, Have some good metamagic going on so you can make optimal use of your resources, and generally shut down their ability to shut you down.

A cleric can be used, a druid can be used, psions can be used, archivists can be used, and so on.

Druid and cleric probably enjoy the most usefulness, as they have access to their whole lists, and they have really big, really awesome lists.

eggynack

2014-07-19, 10:12 PM

I wouldn't even call it good, BUT you are absolutely right.
The best way to oppose WIZARDS, is through using the other tier 1[and specialized high tier 2] classes, and out prepping them.
Lock down their ability to escape, generally have more than one entity on the table so that you can make best use of micromanagement and action economy, Have some good metamagic going on so you can make optimal use of your resources, and generally shut down their ability to shut you down.

A cleric can be used, a druid can be used, psions can be used, archivists can be used, and so on.

Druid and cleric probably enjoy the most usefulness, as they have access to their whole lists, and they have really big, really awesome lists.
Also, druids can do the whole aberration wild shape for will-o'-wisp form thing, and get immunity to magic. I'm coming nowhere close to saying that immunity to magic is a perfect caster defense, but it's at least a really good one, especially when you have some offensive might, which a druid does. Very fancy business. Clerics tend more towards the cheater of mystra or crazy dispel magic side of things in their anti-magic techniques. Alternatively, there's always a second wizard.

eternal

2014-07-20, 06:22 AM

Clerics tend more towards the cheater of mystra or crazy dispel magic side of things in their anti-magic techniques.

As someone who is getting into clerics a little I'm going to ask what is a cheater of mystra and how does that work?

edit
I know the persisted anti-magic field with extraordinary spell aim but mystra is new to me.

eggynack

2014-07-20, 06:27 AM

As someone who is getting into clerics a little I'm going to ask what is a cheater of mystra and how does that work?

edit
I know the persisted anti-magic field with extraordinary spell aim but mystra is new to me.
It's the informal term for the feat initiate of mystra, from player's guide to faerun, which enables a cleric to cast in dead magic zones and anti-magic fields with a caster level check. Pretty crazy stuff, which is the derivation of the name.

eternal

2014-07-20, 06:31 AM

It's the informal term for the feat initiate of mystra, from player's guide to faerun, which enables a cleric to cast in dead magic zones and anti-magic fields with a caster level check. Pretty crazy stuff, which is the derivation of the name.

Correct me if I'm wrong then wouldn't that be better than extraordinary spell aim? I mean with extraordinary spell aim you can still be targeted but if you could cast in any dead zone with a check..... That is pretty crazy.

Edit:
wouldn't you lose your pre buffed spells unless you used extraordinary spell aim? well... even still your able to cast with a check which is still insane.

eggynack

2014-07-20, 06:37 AM

Correct me if I'm wrong then wouldn't that be better than extraordinary spell aim? I mean with extraordinary spell aim you can still be targeted but if you could cast in any dead zone with a check..... That is pretty crazy.
Well, I'm pretty sure that you still get your buffs turned off with initiate of mystra, while you don't with extraordinary spell aim depending on interpretation, and you don't need a high caster level. Initiate of mystra is pretty crazy though, especially when you consider the fact that it adds awesome spells to your list, including anyspell and its greater counterpart.

eternal

2014-07-20, 06:40 AM

Well, I'm pretty sure that you still get your buffs turned off with initiate of mystra, while you don't with extraordinary spell aim depending on interpretation, and you don't need a high caster level. Initiate of mystra is pretty crazy though, especially when you consider the fact that it adds awesome spells to your list, including anyspell and its greater counterpart.

It's worth taking both then. I'm looking at that spell list now. Nice stuff. Def worth taking both feats. I'll add that to the list of must haves for my current build I'm playing. Thanks for that nugget.

edit:
Like I said in my other post this is why I love this forum.

Vogonjeltz

2014-07-20, 10:09 AM

It's affecting the character. By making him unable to walk beyond the forcecage. So too, repel metal is affecting the character by pushing him away.

I don't agree with your reasoning, with repel metal the metal (if any) is being affected, not the character.

With force cage there is just a cage present that the PC is trying to push. No affecting going on there.

Darkweave31

2014-07-20, 10:12 AM

Sorry.

The build is good, but... In my opinion, the most effective Anti-mage is a CoDzilla.

I'm personally a fan of a cheater of mystra using divine defiance and inquisition domain to counterspell as an immediate action while sporting a wide range of countermagic and dweomerkeeper shenanigans as well.

Vaz

2014-07-20, 10:35 AM

I don't agree with your reasoning, with repel metal the metal (if any) is being affected, not the character.

With force cage there is just a cage present that the PC is trying to push. No affecting going on there.

Can you define an effect then? If you really want to banal about it, we are all made up of atoms which are 99.9% empty space (explains many people in high school tbh), which by the RAW means we are capable of passing through anything.

But that way lies madness. If you are being affected by something, as a result of somethings effect (ie gravity), you can change that. I suppose you could even IHS the lack of something - our bodies are used to operating in a full gravity atmosphere, no gravity means our bodies are being affected by the effects of a gravityless environment, IHS to end that, congratulations you just created gravity in the astral plane.

Somensjev

2014-07-20, 10:38 AM

I don't agree with your reasoning, with repel metal the metal (if any) is being affected, not the character.

With force cage there is just a cage present that the PC is trying to push. No affecting going on there.

all you've got to do is take the definitions of effect and condition, and twist the english language until whatever you want fits under those definitions

effect
: a change that results when something is done or happens : an event, condition, or state of affairs that is produced by a cause

: a particular feeling or mood created by something

: an image or a sound that is created in television, radio, or movies to imitate something real

condition
: a way of living or existing

: the state in which something exists : the physical state of something

: the physical or mental state of a person or animal

using any of these definitions, or any of the others you can find for the two words, you have to figure out how to apply it to your current situation

for example: i am trapped, is that an effect or condition? yes, one of the meanings of condition is "a way of living or existing" and that would include trapped, would it not? therefore i can IHS the condition of being trapped, i am no longer trapped

eggynack

2014-07-20, 04:12 PM

I don't agree with your reasoning, with repel metal the metal (if any) is being affected, not the character.

With force cage there is just a cage present that the PC is trying to push. No affecting going on there.
There's nothing in the definition for affect that says that the change has to be produced directly. Both of these spells produce a change in the fighter, by producing a change in his circumstances.

Esprit15

2014-07-20, 05:18 PM

Why not just IHS damage then?

Snowbluff

2014-07-20, 05:22 PM

Excuse me, I don't see Iron Heart Surge in your build. How do you deal with forcecages or repel metal?

Force Cage doesn't have a target or subjects. An effect has to affect a target to affect them.

EDIT: Wow, ninjaed.

Somensjev

2014-07-20, 05:22 PM

Why not just IHS damage then?

down that path is things like the sun, or gravity, or existence. do you really want to go that way?

eggynack

2014-07-20, 05:22 PM

Why not just IHS damage then?
I don't know. Why not just IHS damage? Reductio ad absurdium isn't going to work here, because my argument is somewhat rooted in the idea that the ability is absurd. There might be some argument against IHS working on damage. I'm not really in the mood to come up with it.

Edit: However, do note that your example is somewhat flawed by the fact that we're not working with a spell here. That's one of the big benefits of the forcecage argument, that I don't need to prove that forcecage is an effect or condition. If you want to show that you can't IHS damage, I'd start there, but it's a path that has a good chance of not working.

Snowbluff

2014-07-20, 05:24 PM

*ahem* Damaged isn't a listed condition or otherwise described as such in the game.

Vhaidara

2014-07-20, 05:24 PM

Why not just IHS damage then?

One of my players once tried to IHS me. When I ruled that he couldn't do that, he IHSed the rule that stopped him from doing that. I still haven't fully returned to existence.

eggynack

2014-07-20, 05:27 PM

*ahem* Damaged isn't a listed condition or otherwise described as such in the game.
Doesn't technically mean that damaged cannot be a condition. Y'know, blah blah blah, no listed definition, blooh blee blim, default to English, semantics semantics semantics, and there ya go. Counter argument.

Somensjev

2014-07-20, 05:28 PM

*ahem* Damaged isn't a listed condition or otherwise described as such in the game.

ah, but can it be classed as an effect? i didn't believe there was a proper game term for effect (i didn't think there was one for condition either, but you seem to be implying otherwise), so we had to default to english definitions, which is why the ability is absurd

edit:

Doesn't technically mean that damaged cannot be a condition. Y'know, blah blah blah, no listed definition, blooh blee blim, default to English, semantics semantics semantics, and there ya go. Counter argument.

poor eggy, look how tired and bored he is. don't worry, i'll try to pick up the argument for you :smalltongue:

Snowbluff

2014-07-20, 06:39 PM

ah, but can it be classed as an effect? i didn't believe there was a proper game term for effect (i didn't think there was one for condition either, but you seem to be implying otherwise), so we had to default to english definitions, which is why the ability is absurd

Actually, we know to an extent what an effect entails. All spells are effects, for example. Typically, anything persisting past instantaneous is under the Conditions Summary. By RAW, these are most of the things recognized as valid targets of IHS. So I don't think we default to English at this point, as much as I prefer that method of argument.

eggynack

2014-07-20, 07:52 PM

poor eggy, look how tired and bored he is. don't worry, i'll try to pick up the argument for you :smalltongue:
I dunno. I feel like I got most of it in there.

Actually, we know to an extent what an effect entails. All spells are effects, for example. Typically, anything persisting past instantaneous is under the Conditions Summary. By RAW, these are most of the things recognized as valid targets of IHS. So I don't think we default to English at this point, as much as I prefer that method of argument.
Typically and most are meaningless, and the term isn't defined. We pretty much have to default to English. There's no other choice.

Snowbluff

2014-07-20, 08:01 PM

Typically and most are meaningless, and the term isn't defined. We pretty much have to default to English. There's no other choice.

"Does the game say this is an effect?" or "Does the game call this a condition?" Y/N. The terms aren't defined, but the abilities they ascribe to are labeled. Anything past that is "the rules don't say I can't."

I used the word typically here to refer to abilities that don't do either. I can't name any of the top of my head that aren't a spell, or don't inflict a condition, but also can be applied to a PC. Probably a supernatural ability that makes daisies or whatever.

Rubik

2014-07-20, 08:17 PM

Divine magic is the power of the gods, a righteous magic given power by their holiness.I think you mean, "Power leached off of believers like blood by some spiritual parasite and then fed back to them like they're doing them a favor."

Arcane magic is an abomination against nature, man subjugating the power that should be the gods' for personal gain.Or possibly, "Scientifically identified means of tapping the latent power of the universe, showing the ultimate triumph and beauty of the mind."

Snowbluff

2014-07-20, 08:20 PM

I think you mean, "Power leached off of believers like blood by some spiritual parasite and then fed back to them like they're doing them a favor." Nah, that's how they used to do things, if the term "Urpriest" means anything. :smalltongue:

eggynack

2014-07-20, 08:41 PM

"Does the game say this is an effect?" or "Does the game call this a condition?" Y/N. The terms aren't defined, but the abilities they ascribe to are labeled. Anything past that is "the rules don't say I can't."
The terms are defined. In the dictionary. Such is the nature of my point. The list of conditions is utterly meaningless, as it's not even implicitly a complete list. This isn't the rules not saying I can't. It's the rules saying I can, and you failing to point out the place where that argument is contradicted. You could probably reasonably argue that this isn't definitionally a condition, or something like that, but man, there's a reason I just wrote semantics instead of actually providing a solid semantic argument. It doesn't help that the theoretical flaw in the forcecage argument is in the affecting the character prong, rather than in the spell/effect/condition prong.

CrazyYanmega

2014-07-20, 09:32 PM

Iron Heart Surge gives me some ideas for a Jack Rakan build. Actually, Iron Heart Surge really explains a lot about him and the rediculous feats he's pulled.

The Insanity

2014-07-20, 11:18 PM

Where does it say you default to English when there's no official definition for a word in the game?

eggynack

2014-07-20, 11:22 PM

Where does it say you default to English when there's no official definition for a word in the game?
It's just how the game works. You don't need a rule for it. Otherwise, every time you see the word "And", you'd have to say, "What does this word mean? What the hell does this word mean? Oh god, it's not in the glossary. We're all doomed." You see the issue. Similarly, if we're not using the English definition of condition, what the hell other definition are we using? Are we to just assume that it's an undefined nonsense word? Words mean what words mean. The game sometimes defines words in a particular way, as is its right, but in the absence of such a definition, we must default to English, lest the game fall to anarchy.

The Insanity

2014-07-21, 08:52 AM

Oh, so you don't actually have rules quotes supporting your argument. Okay.

Somensjev

2014-07-21, 09:02 AM

Oh, so you don't actually have rules quotes supporting your argument. Okay.

the game also doesnt define what a day is (as far as i'm aware), so how do you work out what it means when ever it says the word "day"
it gets even worse than that if you actually start looking, i dont think it ever explicitly mentions how long a minute/hour it is. we assume a minute is ten rounds, since a round is 6 seconds, but i don't believe the game ever explicitly tells you that there are 60 seconds in a minutes, so for all we know one minute could be a thousand rounds. unless we refer to the english language for a definition for "minute"

tl:dr if we didnt default to english definitions when we found a word the book never defines, then it would be literally unreadable

Elderand

2014-07-21, 09:08 AM

tl:dr if we didnt default to english definitions when we found a word the book never defines, then it would be literally unreadable

It's worse than that, see The Insanity is asking for a rules that say we default to english, but the thing is, such a rule cannot be construed in intelligible manner using only the term in the glossary. So to understand such a rule you'd have to default to english.

So you'd end up defaulting to english because a rule you read by defaulting to english tell you to default to english.
Circular logic being a fallacy you can't do that.

Therefore the book would always be unreadable. Even with a rule.

Somensjev

2014-07-21, 09:11 AM

It's worse than that, see The Insanity is asking for a rules that say we default to english, but the thing is, such a rule cannot be construed in intelligible manner using only the term in the glossary. So to understand such a rule you'd have to default to english.

So you'd end up defaulting to english because a rule you read by defaulting to english tell you to default to english.
Circular logic being a fallacy you can't do that.

Therefore the book would always be unreadable. Even with a rule.

we'd need rules to define the rules to define the rules to define the rules to define the rules... continuing ad infinitum

we'd need a glossary for our glossary's glossary

:smallwink:

Elderand

2014-07-21, 09:20 AM

we'd need rules to define the rules to define the rules to define the rules to define the rules... continuing ad infinitum

we'd need a glossary for our glossary's glossary

:smallwink:

And all the terms in the glossary are defined in english, often with words that aren't in the glossary, so you can't read the glossary.

COMMUNICATION IS IMPOSSIBLE !

eggynack

2014-07-21, 09:21 AM

Oh, so you don't actually have rules quotes supporting your argument. Okay.
Supporting which argument? That we're supposed to read stuff in English in English? No, I don't have a rules citation for that, and I don't need one. This is just how the game works, on a fundamental level. Seriously, the game only defines so many words. If we're just assuming that the words aren't defined by the dictionary English definitions, then how are they being defined?

Vaz

2014-07-21, 10:07 AM

On the other hand, what it comes down to in game is the DM's say so, which is dependent on his idea of "are you breaking stuff here?" If the answer to that question is yes, he looks to the next question on his flow chart, which is "do I want my game broken?" The usual answer to that is "no". And, like I said, there's not much that the Fighter can do to kill the Wizard that the Wizard cannot do back to the fighter.

Brookshw

2014-07-21, 10:21 AM

No way, I'd rather IHS logic as its preventing me from doing what I want. Just for good measure I'll get the rules as well, ya know, just in case.

lytokk

2014-07-21, 03:01 PM

The rules state IHS can't do that.

The rules are affecting my character so now I can IHS the rules.

I know someone's had to of said this before. I just wanted to this time

Vhaidara

2014-07-21, 03:33 PM

The rules state IHS can't do that.

The rules are affecting my character so now I can IHS the rules.

I know someone's had to of said this before. I just wanted to this time

I said that one of my players went a step further and said that I, as the GM, was affecting him, so he could IHS me. Because of vagueness, I couldn't refute him.

Vogonjeltz

2014-07-21, 05:56 PM

Can you define an effect then? If you really want to banal about it, we are all made up of atoms which are 99.9% empty space (explains many people in high school tbh), which by the RAW means we are capable of passing through anything.

But that way lies madness. If you are being affected by something, as a result of somethings effect (ie gravity), you can change that. I suppose you could even IHS the lack of something - our bodies are used to operating in a full gravity atmosphere, no gravity means our bodies are being affected by the effects of a gravityless environment, IHS to end that, congratulations you just created gravity in the astral plane.

The definition is on page 175 of the PHB according to the index. Funny things indices, they often tell you where to find information about games. The Glossary has other useful information.

Conditions are listed on pages 300-301 of the DMG.

Spells are listed in various books.

Ok great so now we have a two prong test:

Is it one of those 3 defined things affecting the character?
Yes/No?

Does it have a duration listed in rounds of 1+?
Yes/No?

You know what doesn't satisfy one or more of those things? The sun, game rules, doors, objects in general, ideas, and characters.

eggynack

2014-07-21, 06:02 PM

The definition is on page 175 of the PHB according to the index. Funny things indices, they often tell you where to find information about games. The Glossary has other useful information.
That's not a definition of the general term. It's merely a definition of the effect line of spells. It's completely irrelevant for this purpose.

Conditions are listed on pages 300-301 of the DMG.
Some conditions are listed on pages 300-301 of the DMG. The list makes no claim to having all conditions that exist.

You know what doesn't satisfy one or more of those things? The sun, game rules, doors, objects in general, ideas, and characters.
Except you haven't really proved that, given that the things that you think are defined in a certain way aren't really defined that way at all. Effect doesn't seem to have an in game definition, and I know for a fact that condition doesn't have one. You're cool on spells, though. Those things are very much defined and listed.

Vaz

2014-07-21, 06:40 PM

I IHS Vogonjeltz.

Snowbluff

2014-07-21, 06:49 PM

Except you haven't really proved that, given that the things that you think are defined in a certain way aren't really defined that way at all. Effect doesn't seem to have an in game definition, and I know for a fact that condition doesn't have one. You're cool on spells, though. Those things are very much defined and listed.

You're running on absence of evidence, and he's saying it has to have a set duration. I think that part is ambiguous, but if you were to make Punnett squares of the arguments, the absurdist ruling "this does everything! I IHS the condition of not being level 20!" isn't the genetically viable one.

Vogonjeltz

2014-07-21, 07:29 PM

I IHS Vogonjeltz.

I was worried until I applied what shall be forthwith known as the Vogon test.

eggynack

2014-07-21, 07:47 PM

You're running on absence of evidence, and he's saying it has to have a set duration..
Except, in this case, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. This is because, as I've noted, absence of evidence means that we must default to English, and I suspect that I can win on that front. I mean, I suppose there could theoretically be some definition out there, but we're working off of a limited pool of information, so I'm honestly pretty doubtful.

Edit: Incidentally, the test would likely be better off with three prongs, splitting the first off into
1. Condition, effect, or spell
and
2. Affecting the character.

Those are really the two prongs that are actually argued about, and a thing can generally be one and not the other.

Snowbluff

2014-07-21, 08:29 PM

Which is incorrect.

Here are 3 questions with arguments that could be considered equally valid.
The example problem: "The sun is hurting my eyes." An orc gets dazzled in the sunlight, and he wishes to correct that. Will it blot out the sun?

1) Is this a condition?
In this case, the answer is yes. The game says it is. Sometimes the game doesn't say it counts.

2) Does it need to be measured it rounds?
The English is ambiguous here. If the answer is yes, then you can't. If it is no, then you can stop this condition.

EDIT: I actuallt reread the ability. It's not an Oxford comma or anything. It simply doesn't apply to anything without a measured duration. It could be read that anything instantaneous (Seething Eyebite) or otherwise without an in-game duration (living) isn't affected, Like how Touch isn't a fixed range.
3) What does it do to change the problem?
It puts out the sun, or it fixes your eyes. One is less ridiculous than the other. Never being the dazzled by the sun again is pretty nice, but that's different from potential ending life on Earth. In fact, the problem can be solved so many ways in game (sun is slightly less bright, player remembers that his character can't even make the spot check, character goes blind), that I should point out that the absurd option is only 1 out of hundreds. It's up to DM fiat to produce an effect outside of the rules, which is well outside the scope of a RAW discussion.

This is a whole other argument, too. Applying real-world logic to this gaming situation says something as tiny as an orc wouldn't have an effect on the sun. In the storytelling sense, something so easily done (5th level) would have been done in a destroy-the-world plot. In-universe, it would have happened already if it could happen.

All three of these have to be true for you to You have (AT BEST!) a 1/9 chance of remotely being correct. You can't prove one. This is insipid. Splitting it into prongs is wrong, because this is actually a system of poor reasoning and bad arguments.

eggynack

2014-07-21, 08:39 PM

All three of these have to be true for you to You have (AT BEST!) a 1/9 chance of remotely being correct. You can't prove one. This is insipid. Splitting it into prongs is wrong, because this is actually a system of poor reasoning and bad arguments.
I don't see how you arrived at any of this stuff. There is no probability in rules whatsoever, and the maneuver is, itself, fundamentally split into prongs. If a given thing fits all of the parameters that the maneuver states, then what is stopping you from ending it? I just don't see where you're arriving at any of the logic you're putting forth. There is no punnet square of logical conclusions here. There is only what happens, as determined by the rules.

Snowbluff

2014-07-21, 08:43 PM

Except:
1) Nothing you said is in the rules. Your predicate is not extant to the point that you're contradicting yourself.

2) 2 equally valid options have an equal change of happening. I've been up since 4, so I think I actually did my math wrong for that, though. For you to be right about this, the minimum would be winning those three arguments with your "The rules don't say that I can't, guys."

eggynack

2014-07-21, 08:48 PM

Except:
1) Nothing you said is in the rules. Your predicate is not extant to the point that you're contradicting yourself.
What part of what I said isn't in the rules? IHS says that if there is a condition affecting you, lasting more than one round, you can end that effect. Condition isn't defined in the rules, so we default to standard English, and that definition effectively becomes a component of the rules. In a sense, you can theoretically append the definition into the rules, as a replacement for the word, for such is the nature of things. I'm not really sure what I'm talking about that isn't in the rules.

2) 2 equally valid options have an equal change of happening. I've been up since 4, so I think I actually did my math wrong for that, though.
In the sun case? Maybe. This case isn't that case, though. Really, the prongs only determine if IHS can be used, and then you consider other things to determine outcome. However, the effect on things like a forcecage is pretty clear.

Snowbluff

2014-07-21, 08:59 PM

What part of what I said isn't in the rules? IHS says that if there is a condition affecting you, lasting more than one round, you can end that effect. Condition isn't defined in the rules, so we default to standard English, and that definition effectively becomes a component of the rules. In a sense, you can theoretically append the definition into the rules, as a replacement for the word, for such is the nature of things. I'm not really sure what I'm talking about that isn't in the rules.
All of that. You're applying terms when they aren't necessarily correct. It's like call a laptop magic. Heck, it's like calling an alchemist flask a spell.

I looked into further, and it has to be an effect. Using English. That means it has to have happened to you. The sun burning isn't a change for you. Getting a sunburn is. I would say you cure your sunburn.

What we may glean is that conditions (the statuses described as such) are considered effects as well.

In the sun case? Maybe. This case isn't that case, though. Really, the prongs only determine if IHS can be used, and then you consider other things to determine outcome. However, the effect on things like a forcecage is pretty clear.
Well, whether or not it will do anything is unfathomable for most cases outside of what is described in the game. Which is why the rules are written. We can say that the sun does something to you, but we sure as hell can't tell you what.

I think the best parallel in the rules is the Wish spell when making an unsafe wish. We know IHS definitely works on certain, non-instaneous spell effects and conditions. Doing anything else is an unsafe wish.

eggynack

2014-07-21, 09:12 PM

All of that. You're applying terms when they aren't necessarily correct. It's like call a laptop magic. Heck, it's like calling an alchemist flask a spell.
I can't see anywhere where I applied a term incorrectly. It's all pretty much just taken right from the maneuver. If we can't trust the maneuver to tell us what the maneuver does, then what can we trust?

I looked into further, and it has to be an effect. Using English. That means it has to have happened to you. The sun burning isn't a change for you. Getting a sunburn is. I would say you cure your sunburn.

What we may glean is that conditions (the statuses described as such) are considered effects as well.
You could argue for effect, but condition works reasonably also. I tend to like using the condition of, "I am in the Sun," as opposed to something like dazzling. Still, this is just working out one of the prongs, rather than something out of scope.

Well, whether or not it will do anything is unfathomable for most cases outside of what is described in the game. Which is why the rules are written. We can say that the sun does something to you, but we sure as hell can't tell you what.
If you define what the effect is, then the maneuver removes the effect. That's just what the maneuver says. The Sun situation is admittedly a trickier one than usual to figure out the method of removal for, but it's really all a matter of phrasing. It's like semantics: the maneuver.

I think the best parallel in the rules is the Wish spell when making an unsafe wish. We know IHS definitely works on certain, non-instaneous spell effects and conditions. Doing anything else is an unsafe wish.
Well, we know how this step works in this case, at least. Things've primarily gone off track because of attacks on irrelevant prongs, if you will, which is really the point of the prongs in the first place. I mean, it can be reasonably argued that IHS works on the Sun. So says the prongs. However, how it works on the Sun is marginally less certain. I think you're reading more into the prongs than the prongs prong. Prong.

Yael

2014-07-21, 10:06 PM

Maybe a bit late, but that build won't help you against an even-leveled straight wizard, straight cleric, straight druid, archivist, not even a sorcerer, favored soul, or else. Your immunities go on from 1d20+15, their caster level comes from 1d20+higher than 20. Your vision range could be a problem, in fact, it is.

I am not saying this is useless against a wiz, I mean it hits like hard against casting foes, but if they are far FAR away, flying and dispelling your abilities, you would be in trouble.

Gate a Rust Dragon, BSDragon, whichever kind of dragon, profit?

If not, simply flying far away from your range/vision range wins. Mage’s Disjunction is a thing tho. Wings of Cover are another thing tho. Planar Shepherd is a thing tho, Beholder Mage Ur Priest Theurge Elan is a thing tho, StPErudite is a thing tho, I could go on.

Nessa Ellenesse

2014-07-21, 10:48 PM

Not any mage. I'm playing an ultimate magus started out as a wizard evocer. That's right buddy she is wearing armor +1 twilight mithril chain shirt and carrying a mithril buckler. With flight of the dragon she has the mobility to stay out of our reach. She may not have a 9th level spell slot when she hits level 20 but she will still be able to cast off a scroll. Target you with Mordenkainens disjunction then when your cool stuff is gone cast somkey confinement on your character. No character is unbeatable. As for being immortal your DM should have never allowed that

Oh btw I love playing mages. Not everyone who plays a mage acts like they are the party. I did once upon a time get really peeved when the fighters would rush into the room before I could lob off any of my spells this meant I either had to handicap myself or risk hurting someone. I spent 10 whole levels avoiding area effects because of this while the DM constantly dropping hints every games session that I need to start picking up area effects spell. Thankfullly our party mix has changed and all the front liners have evasion. I admit I have probally stepped on the toes of my fellow players once or twice, but it sh ould not matter who come up with a solution as long as it works. There have been a few times I have had my character of take matters in her own hands because it was obvious if she didn't we would spend the rest game session listening to the ranger, the cleric summoner and the monk argue about which course of action to take.

Yael

2014-07-21, 11:05 PM

Melcar

2014-07-22, 03:06 AM

tippy's posted, thread's over now

I like this...

The Insanity

2014-07-22, 03:15 AM

Thillidan

2014-07-22, 03:40 AM

well as far as i understand, your character is only the ultimate mage slayer because your immortal. otherwise most lvl 20 mages with any sort of optimisation would win hands down.

if you get reach spell sequestered they are long gone.

if its a conjuration specialist they abrupt jaunt and then teleport on their turn.

if not they celerity when you charge and dim door or teleport.

So as a heads up, any spell, level 8 or lower, does not work near me. And I can ethereal Jaunt, and portal to your position, (ie. solarity doesnt work either).

Summons dont work, only level 9 spells. also anything targetting me, I can reflect back at you... spell turning.
Also, Im only Immortal age wise. I can be killed.

Thillidan

2014-07-22, 03:41 AM

Thillidan

2014-07-22, 03:46 AM

So i need to post something for EVERYONE to read... The important thing, isnt that Im saying this guy is untouchable... Im saying, our DM and mages cannot find a way to beat him.

If the method uses spellcasting, it doesnt work, because I can be in another plane, and can jump to your location instantly. also, If you use magic to target my gear, is it a magic effect? dispelled....
Is it a level 9 spell? oh good, Dispell...

Oh, you brought a fighter? Rod of negation, "why does he have mundane gear? lol"

I've been reading and many people are clearly not aware of the Planar Champion's abilities...
and If someone scry's me, I can see the scry tell (the thing that floats above your head) and the scry aura. So i jump to a different plane... oops, there goes your spell

Somensjev

2014-07-22, 03:56 AM

how do you deal with a wizard deciding that he's sick of you, and permanently fusing himself with an ice assassin of an aleax of himself, so he has the ability singular enemy (himself)?

because until you can deal with something like that, you can't say you're the ultimate anti-mage (and there's much more powerful things than that, such as fusing with an ice assassin of a black pudding. you thought your mage was bad)

TheDarkDM

2014-07-22, 04:23 AM

So i need to post something for EVERYONE to read... The important thing, isnt that Im saying this guy is untouchable... Im saying, our DM and mages cannot find a way to beat him.

And what everyone else was saying, before they started to assume you were a troll, is that this isn't because your build is especially powerful. It's because your DM doesn't have experience playing decently optimized casters.

If the method uses spellcasting, it doesnt work, because I can be in another plane, and can jump to your location instantly. also, If you use magic to target my gear, is it a magic effect? dispelled....
Is it a level 9 spell? oh good, Dispell...

Oh, you brought a fighter? Rod of negation, "why does he have mundane gear? lol"

20th level wizards don't bring fighters. They bring the pair of celestial great wyrm gold dragons they gated in on speed dial. And once your ring of spell turning runs out of its three uses (it won't, because a smart caster will stop trying, but hey), you have to ready actions to stop any more targeted spells. That's ignoring the fact that area spells can hit you and your expensive magic absorbers can't do a damn thing about it.

I've been reading and many people are clearly not aware of the Planar Champion's abilities...
and If someone scry's me, I can see the scry tell (the thing that floats above your head) and the scry aura. So i jump to a different plane... oops, there goes your spell

No, I think it's you who are unaware of the Planar Champion's abilities, at least in the broader sense of optimization outside your game. You can plane shift once per day. That's going to slow down a dedicated hunter for an hour, tops. And when they come for you they'll be astrally projecting anyway, so guess what? You get to fight a war of attrition against an enemy with orders of magnitude more offensive power, defensive power, and mobility options than you.

Brookshw

2014-07-22, 04:43 AM

So as a heads up, any spell, level 8 or lower, does not work near me. And I can ethereal Jaunt, and portal to your position, (ie. solarity doesnt work either).

Summons dont work, only level 9 spells. also anything targetting me, I can reflect back at you... spell turning.
Also, Im only Immortal age wise. I can be killed.

Well that's shifting the goalpost but you're still at a wizards mercy and your toys are of extremely limited value. Anyway, good luck.

As to the IHS conversation I'm rather surprised Eggy that you've attempted this argument.

eggynack

2014-07-22, 04:53 AM

http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/conditions.htm
I can bet you'll argue this, but for me it's what the maneuver means by condition and that's how I'm personally interpreting it. Also, IHS says it ends the effect, not the cause of the effect, so an orc in daylight will simply stop being dazzled, not turn off the sun, IMHO of course.
There's just not much rules support for that interpretation, due to the reasons I've stated elsewhere in this thread.

So as a heads up, any spell, level 8 or lower, does not work near me. And I can ethereal Jaunt, and portal to your position, (ie. solarity doesnt work either).
Spells of 8th level or lower work fine unless they are a single targeted spell, and you continuously ready actions. There are obviously spells that work well and aren't single targeted, or targeted at all. As for popping up where the wizard is, that's impossible if you've never been where he is, and you've never been where he is, because he's located on a private demi-plane of his own design.

Summons dont work, only level 9 spells. also anything targetting me, I can reflect back at you... spell turning.
Also, Im only Immortal age wise. I can be killed.
I can't see any reason why summons wouldn't work. They seem to work fine, unless I'm missing an ability. Really, it seems like something as simple as an area spell bursts all of your defenses.

Our DM does not allow Wish spells or time stop, because it makes casters broken, (also, polymorph)
Seems kinda disingenuous to claim the ultimate anti-mage in a game where mages are nerfed. Still, if those are the only two spells banned, a caster can manage just fine. I wouldn't be surprised if shapechange allowed the caster to simply outfight you. Ultimately, I think your assertion that this character has any ability to beat mages is rooted in a pile of misreadings of abilities. You should consider giving all of your abilities a careful reread, especially the ones that turn off or turn away spells.
Edit:

As to the IHS conversation I'm rather surprised Eggy that you've attempted this argument.
I'm not really sure why. This is the stance I've traditionally adopted in the past, often asserting far more ludicrous outcomes of the maneuver. Personally, I'm mostly surprised, or really not surprised, I guess, that the conversation went off track like that. Whether one can IHS the Sun is irrelevant to whether one can IHS a forcecage, and the latter is much easier to prove.

Necroticplague

2014-07-22, 05:04 AM

Our DM does not allow Wish spells or time stop, because it makes casters broken, (also, polymorph)

Again, lvl 8 or lower doesnt work near me. and I can dispel 9th... So? You're melee, why would a mage be near you anyway? Just fly above you and strangle you under black tentacles, thick fog, cinder cloud, cloudkil, acid fog. After trapping you in a forcecage.

So as a heads up, any spell, level 8 or lower, does not work near me. And I can ethereal Jaunt, and portal to your position, (ie. solarity doesnt work either).

Summons dont work, only level 9 spells. also anything targetting me, I can reflect back at you... spell turning.
Also, Im only Immortal age wise. I can be killed.Why wouldn't summons work? Summons don't target you, they create things. Same goes for all the other area effects. As for spellturning, the most effective spells don't target you (their AoEs, like the ones stated above), so your spell turning does nothing of use.

So i need to post something for EVERYONE to read... The important thing, isnt that Im saying this guy is untouchable... Im saying, our DM and mages cannot find a way to beat him.

If the method uses spellcasting, it doesnt work, because I can be in another plane, and can jump to your location instantly. also, If you use magic to target my gear, is it a magic effect? dispelled....
Is it a level 9 spell? oh good, Dispell...

Oh, you brought a fighter? Rod of negation, "why does he have mundane gear? lol"

I've been reading and many people are clearly not aware of the Planar Champion's abilities...
and If someone scry's me, I can see the scry tell (the thing that floats above your head) and the scry aura. So i jump to a different plane... oops, there goes your spellIf the DM and mage can't find a way to take you out, that's because they clearly don't know what actually effective spells there are. Or how fricking long range most spells are, even the ones labelled "close".Or the potency of buffs. So no, your build isn't very good. Your enemies are just horrible.

Detect scrying is a bit more limited than you make it out to be. They simply place the sensor 45 feet away from you, and you're blind to it. And even if you do see it, unless their close, you don't know where they are. And even if you do slip into the ethereal, there are spells with the force descriptor (like forcecage, manyjaws, summoning ghosts or fiend of possession), or just adding the Transdimensional Spell metamagic. Ignoring the fact we're talking about mages, who can actually cast ethereal juant themselves. or plane shift to the ethereal.

Meanwhile, If I'm feeling merciful enough to be targeting your gear with level 9 spells, I'm probably either Heightened Disintegrating it, or I'm Disjoining it. In either case, the effect is Instantaneous. Which which means you can't dispel the result. Because there's no lasting magic around to remove.

The Insanity

2014-07-22, 05:09 AM

There's just not much rules support for that interpretation, due to the reasons I've stated elsewhere in this thread.
It's more than you showed for your interpretation ("that's how the game works" isn't a rules quote), so I think I'm gonna go with mine being the correct one.

eggynack

2014-07-22, 05:17 AM

It's more than you showed for your interpretation ("that's how the game works" isn't a rules quote), so I think I'm gonna go with mine being the correct one.
I stated the reasons elsewhere pretty clearly. The only paragraph attached to the list does nothing to indicate that it covers every condition that exists, and the term "condition" is nowhere defined in the text. After that, things trivially move on to standard English, and there ya go, rules. There just doesn't seem to be any actual support for your position in the text, is the thing.

Brookshw

2014-07-22, 05:27 AM

Karnith

2014-07-22, 05:29 AM

So as a heads up, any spell, level 8 or lower, does not work near me.
So, other people have touched on this, but if this is in reference to your character's Ioun stones (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#iounStones), here's why this doesn't actually work by the rules:

The pale lavender and lavender and green stones work like a rod of absorption, but absorbing a spell requires a readied action, and these stones cannot be used to empower spells.
(Emphasis mine)

So we know that, for them to actually absorb spells, you need to spend actions readying (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialInitiativeActions.htm#ready) the ioun stones (which means you won't be doing much else, and that you'll only catch one spell per turn). Additionally, the Ioun Stones inherit the restrictions of Rods of Absorption (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/rods.htm#absorption):

This rod acts as a magnet, drawing spells or spell-like abilities into itself. The magic absorbed must be a single-target spell or a ray directed at either the character possessing the rod or her gear. The rod then nullifies the spell’s effect and stores its potential until the wielder releases this energy in the form of spells of her own. She can instantly detect a spell’s level as the rod absorbs that spell’s energy. Absorption requires no action on the part of the user if the rod is in hand at the time.
(Emphasis mine)

So not only do you need to be spending actions to absorb spells with your Ioun stones, they only are able to absorb certain spells. While some spells will be affected (e.g. Disintegration (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/disintegrate.htm), Finger of Death (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fingerOfDeath.htm), or the Orbs of X), many will not (e.g. Bigby's Grasping Hand (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/graspingHand.htm), Disjunction (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magesDisjunction.htm), Forcecage (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/forcecage.htm), or Maw of Chaos). It's not a very reliable defense, and it prevents you from actually doing anything to fight in the meantime.

For future reference, Spell Turning (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/spellTurning.htm) is also limited in what it can protect you from:

Spells and spell-like effects targeted on you are turned back upon the original caster. The abjuration turns only spells that have you as a target. Effect and area spells are not affected. Spell turning also fails to stop touch range spells.
(Emphasis mine)

also, If you use magic to target my gear, is it a magic effect? dispelled....
Is it a level 9 spell? oh good, Dispell...
How are you dispelling things? Are you talking about your character's Rod of Negation (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/rods.htm#negation) (which only works on magic items)? Or do you have some other means of doing so that I couldn't find?

And at this point, I feel compelled to post part of a guide/infopost that I never finished:
Casters on the Defense
Armor Class: Competent, high-level casters are probably going to have high ACs. This may clash with what you're accustomed to from other games and in depictions of casters in other media. 3.5 isn't really about playing fair, though, so here are some common ways that casters can boost their AC:
Dexterity bonus - This is the one you expect casters to have. Dexterity isn't generally a caster dump stat (particularly if they focus on ranged touch attacks). However, at high levels most casters are probably going to have the Dexterity bonuses of their assumed forms, plus whatever bonuses they may get from items that they can wear in their assumed forms. Popular forms at high levels include the Planetar (Monster Manual p. 11; Dex 19), Solar (MM p. 12; Dex 20), Chronotyryn (Fiend Folio p. 33; Dex 21), Pit Fiend (MM p. 57, Dex 27), Greater Air Elemental (MM p. 96; Dex 31) and Titan (MM pp. 242-243; Dex 12).
Conventional armor - If a caster happens to be a divine caster, or certain sorts of arcane casters, then she can just wear armor like anyone else. Pretty simple. Note that, because of spells like Magic Vestment (Player's Handbook, p. 251), they're probably going to have pretty high enhancement bonuses on their armor in addition to a bunch of special properties, like the ever-useful Heavy Fortification (Dungeon Master's Guide p. 219), which would make them immune to critical hits.
Shields - See conventional armor, above. Also note that bucklers are useful for arcane casters of all sorts, as they have minimal arcane spell failure chance that can be reduced to zero fairly easily through, say, being made of mithral (DMG, p. 284).
Other miscellaneous items - The typical AC-boosting items like Rings of Deflection (DMG, p. 232) and Amulets of Natural Armor (DMG, pp. 246-247) are as cheap and easy for casters to buy and use as for anyone else. Also of note is the Monk's Belt (DMG, p. 248), which generally works in place of conventional armor and is extremely effective for Wisdom-based casters like Clerics or Druids.
A level in Monk – Other characters can multiclass, so why can’t casters? A dip in Monk gives casters an unarmored AC bonus equal to their Wisdom bonus, which is pretty good for Wisdom-based casters. The Ascetic Mage (Complete Adventurer, p.105) feat can switch this bonus to Charisma, and Carmendine Monk (Champions of Valor, p. 28) and Kung-Fu Genius (Dragon Magazine #319, p. 71) can switch it to Intelligence, giving most casters the ability to key it off of their main casting stat. Since the bonus is untyped, it will stack with any other AC bonus they have.
Armor Bonuses from Spells - Probably the most basic spells that grant AC bonuses, and the ones that people think about the most. Mage Armor (PHB p. 249; +4 armor bonus) and Greater Mage Armor (Spell Compendium, p. 136; +6 armor bonus) are the classics, and last all day at high levels. Luminous Armor (Book of Exalted Deeds, p. 102; +5 armor bonus) and Greater Luminous Armor (BoED, p. 102; +8 armor bonus) are the standard for good-aligned casters, both because of the large AC bonuses they grant and because they impose an additional -4 penalty to melee attacks made against the caster (making the bonuses effectively +9 and +12 against melee attacks)
Shield Bonuses from Spells - Shield (PHB, p. 274; +4 shield bonus) is another old favorite, though its short duration makes it less useful as an all-day buff. Deflect (Player's Handbook II, p. 109) is an immediate action spell that gives a huge shield bonus to AC against a single attack.
Natural Armor Bonuses from Spells - Barkskin (Player's Handbook p. 203; a scaling enhancement bonus to a creature's natural armor) is the old classic here, and at 10 min./level it can be Extended to effectively last all day at high levels. Most natural armor bonuses at high levels come from changing shape into other creatures, however; popular choices at high levels include the Planetar (MM p. 11; +19 natural), Solar (MM p. 12; +21 natural armor), Chronotyryn (FF p. 33; +22 natural), Pit Fiend (MM p. 57, +23 natural), Dire Tortoise (Sandstorm, p. 151; +19 natural), and Titan (MM pp. 242-243; +19 natural). Note that enhancement bonuses to natural armor (such as from Barkskin, or from Amulets of Natural Armor) apply on top of whatever other sources of natural armor a character may possess, including the bonuses you get from changing shape. When Polymorph-alikes are off the table, expect to see spells like the aforementioned Barkskin, or Aberrate (BoVD, p. 84; note that most PCs will be incapable of providing the Fiend component), the Bite of the Werecreature spells (SpC, pp. 28-29), Dragonskin (SpC, p. 73), or Spiderskin (SpC, p. 202).
Deflection Bonuses from Spells - Protection from Evil and its siblings (PHB, p. 266) are the old standby here, but there are many other ways of getting a deflection bonus; the Magic Circle spells (PHB, pp. 249-250) do something similar, and the Holy Aura (PHB, p. 241) series of spells also grant deflection bonuses to AC. Halo of Sand (Sandstorm, p. 117) gives a scaling deflection bonus that can last effectively all-day with Extend Spell. Lesser Deflect (PHB II, p. 109) gives a scaling deflection bonus to AC against a single attack as an immediate action. A classic way is to take an incorporeal form, whether through Shapechange (PHB, p. 277), Ghostform (SpC, p. 103), or something else, which will get a character her Charisma bonus to AC as a deflection bonus. Shapechanging (or using Assume Supernatural Ability with some other polymorph spell) into a Nymph (MM, pp. 197-198), or another creature with an ability similar to Unearthly Grace, will get a character the same thing without having to go incorporeal. Scintillating Scales (SpC, p. 181) is a short-duration spell that can be Persisted, and will turn the caster’s natural armor bonus into a deflection bonus to AC, which is useful for boosting touch AC.
Other Bonuses from Spells – Suffice to say, there are lots of ways to boost your AC using spells. Abjurant Champion (Complete Mage, p. 50) boosts any AC bonuses from Abjuration spells, for example. Haste (PHB, p. 239) grants a dodge bonus to AC, becoming smaller through Reduce Person (PHB, p. 269), Minute Form (Complete Arcane, p. 115), or what have you grants a size bonus to AC, Foresight (PHB, p. 233) grants an insight bonus, Moment of Prescience (PHB, p. 255) can give a huge insight bonus to AC against a single attack, and so on.
Miss Chances – So, you’ve gotten your attack bonus sky-high, eh? It’s too bad that even that isn’t enough to actually be able to hit a caster – next you’ve got to deal with miss chances, which apply on top of AC. Note that, if you’re using Rules Compendium’s (somewhat nonsensical) rules on miss chances, miss chances overlap (do not stack), so only the best of these will apply. Also note that True Seeing (et al) helps with some, but not all, of these sources of miss chance. See Invisibility helps with even fewer.
Concealment – Multiple sources of concealment overlap (do not stack), probably because it’s incredibly easy to come by. Expect some variation of Blur (PHB, p. 206), invisibility, Gleaming armor (Expanded Psionics Handbook, p. 162), the various fog and cloud spells, and so on. Veil of Shadow (SpC, p. 228) is somewhat notable for being a magical source of concealment in an odd school (and for being persistable).
Blink (PHB, p. 206) and Greater Blink (SpC, p. 32-33) – The caster might miss thanks to the normal Blink spell, but it’s as much as a 50% chance to miss against a blinking opponent. With Greater Blink, the caster doesn’t suffer a chance to miss, while you’re still stuck with it.
Displacement – Another miss chance that isn’t concealment; expect it at either 20% from the Minor Cloak of Displacement (DMG, p. 253), or at 50% from the spell (PHB, p. 223).
Mirror Image (PHB, p. 254) and Greater Mirror Image (PHBII, p. 120) – Not strictly a miss chance, Mirror Image is close enough to include here. The Greater version has an immediate-action casting time and replenishes images as time passes, making it a very effective defense.
Incorporeality – Accessible through Shapechange (PHB, p. 277), Ghostform (SpC, p. 103), and some other things, this is again not actually a miss chance (unless you use Rules Compendium). A 50% chance to ignore most effects is nothing to sneeze at, though force effects, ghost touch weapons (DMG, p. 224-225), and positive and negative energy effects will affect incorporeal creatures normally.
Movement modes – So, you’ve found a way to get a sufficiently high to-hit bonus to be relevant, and a way to get through the caster’s miss chances. That’s cool, but none of it matters if you can’t actually get close enough to hit them, meaning you’ve got to find ways to keep up with:
High speeds – On the most basic level, casters can move really fast. Whether it’s Expeditious Retreat (PHB, p. 228), a Phantom Steed (PHB, pp. 260-261), or the almighty Shapechange (PHB, pp. 277-278), you’re going to need a sufficiently high movement speed to keep up.
Alternate movement modes – Something that seems to slip a lot of people’s minds when talking about fighting a caster is that the “victims” probably aren’t just going to be standing on the ground waiting for you to hit them. Casters have easy access to flight through Fly (PHB, p. 232), Phantom Steed (PHB, pp. 260-261), Air Walk (PHB, pp. 196-197), Overland Flight (PHB, p. 259), shape-changing magic, and many, many other things. They can swim, burrow, and climb if necessary, as well, though flight is likely going to be the most relevant movement mode you need to worry about.
Teleportation – Pretty much every caster from mid-levels on has a way to teleport. Dimension Door (PHB, p. 221) is one of the earliest means, but Teleport (PHB, pp. 292-293), Greater Teleport (PHB, p. 293), Gate (PHB, p. 234), and Word of Recall (PHB, p. 303) are all fairly common at higher levels. On a tactical level, teleportation can keep an enemy constantly out of range of your attacks. On a strategic level, if you don’t have a way to follow a teleporting character, you’re going to have an extremely hard time fighting them; if things aren’t going their way, they can just take a quick trip to somewhere you can’t follow.
Saves – By now, given the previously-listed defenses, you’ve probably had the though that it’d be easier to use some sort of special ability to fight a caster. Unfortunately, casters being casters, they can survive most of those, too, thanks to some excellent saves. (For abilities that don’t require saves, I entreat you to see the next section).
Base Saves – Casters generally have good Will saves. Some have other good saves, either from their base classes or prestige classes. You probably know this already, as you’re capable of reading, but it’s a thing that should be mentioned.
Ability Score Bonuses – Unsurprisingly, casters have ways of boosting their ability scores, most notably through shape-changing magic, but also through bog-standard magic items. Most of the commonly-used forms have Constitution and Dexterity scores of at least 20. Some have higher scores, and more than a few forms will allow ability-enhancing items to work.
Morale Bonuses – A sort-of common save bonus, the spell Conviction (SpC, p. 52) gives a scaling morale bonus on saving throws that can effectively last all day when Extended at high levels. Morale bonuses are also common against mind-affecting or fear effects, such as in the spell Righteous Wrath of the Faithful (SpC, p. 177)
Resistance Bonuses – Probably the most common form of bonus to saves, a caster could most easily get these from Cloaks of Resistance (DMG, p. 253; up to a +5 resistance bonus to saves) and the Resistance line of spells, notably Superior Resistance (SpC, p. 174; +6 resistance bonus for 24 hours).
Divine Grace et al – Divine Grace (PHB, p. 44) is an ability that you’re going to see on Sorcadins, but similar abilities are available through PrCs and some shape-changing magic (notably, Shapechange). Nymphs (MM, pp. 197-198), for example, have an Unearthly Grace ability that gets them their Charisma bonus to their saving throws (and as a deflection bonus to AC, as discussed above).
Evasion – Not too many casters are going to have this ability naturally, but a Ring of Evasion (DMG, p. 232) is pretty cheap. Some creatures also have it, opening it up to access through shape-changing magic.
Foresight (PHB, p. 233) – Yeah, that +2 to Reflex saves isn’t huge, but it’s there, and Foresight is up pretty much all the time once it becomes available.
Moment of Prescience (PHB, p. 255) – So big that it needs its own bullet point, MoP can get an insight bonus equal to a character’s caster level on a saving throw. This doesn’t take an action, so it can be triggered whenever.
Surge of Fortune (Complete Champion, p. 128) – Another spell so silly that it needs its own bullet point, this spell can be discharged to get the next saving throw (among other things) treated as a natural 20.

Resistances and Immunities – If you ever get a chance to hit a caster with something, congrats! That can be quite a feat. Unfortunately, there are quite a few things that casters can do to ignore what you’ve done to them.
Damage Reduction – There are a lot of spells that grant damage reduction. Stoneskin (PHB, p. 284) is the classic to me, but damage reduction from an assumed form is probably going to be the most relevant. Some common Shapechange forms include the Planetar (MM p. 11; DR 10/evil), Solar (MM p. 12; DR 15/epic and evil), Chronotyryn (FF p. 33; DR 15/magic), Pit Fiend (MM p. 57; DR 15/good and silver), and Titan (MM pp. 242-243; DR 15/lawful).
Death Ward – This grants immunity to magical death effects (of which there are a lot), energy drain, and negative energy effects, which is useful against a wide swath of creature abilities, and against a lot of people’s favorite save-or-die spells. The most straightforward way to get access to this is through the spell (PHB, p. 217), but Death Ward armor (CArc, p. 142) and Soulfire armor (BoED, p. 112) can offer similar protection. The spell Veil of Undeath (SpC, p. 229) provides the various Death Ward immunities, and to a wide range of other undead traits.
Energy Resistance or Immunity – Many spells and effects grant immunity or resistance to energy, so you shouldn’t rely too heavily on energy (hello Dragonfire Inspiration) for damage against casters. Resist Energy (PHB, p. 272) and Protection from Energy (PHB, p. 266) are the classic low-level source that can be Extended to last most of the day. Energy Immunity (SpC, p. 80) lasts all day by default. Shape-changing magic can grant these abilities as well, and a huge portion of good forms (particularly Outsiders) possess both resistances and immunities to energy.
Fast Healing and Regeneration – You know all that damage you just dealt? Well, it’s probably going to go away in a few seconds. There are a few spells that give these abilities, notably the Vigor line of spells (SpC, p. 229), but you’re really going to need to worry about casters in assumed forms. Some common Shapechange forms include the Planetar (MM p. 11; regeneration 10, bypassed by evil-aligned weapons and spells and effects with the evil descriptor), Solar (MM p. 12; regeneration 15, bypassed by epci evil-aligned weapons and spells and effects with the evil descriptor), and Pit Fiend (MM p. 57; regeneration 5, bypassed by good-aligned silver weapons, and spells or effects with the good descriptor).
Freedom of Movement – FoM-style effects render a caster immune to grappling and a host of other effects that would restrict her movement. It can be accessed through the namesake spell (PHB, p. 233), but is probably better used via Heart of Water (CM, p. 107) or a Ring (DMG, p. 232).
Friendly Fire (Exemplars of Evil, p. 27) – A spell ridiculous enough to merit its own entry, particularly as it is Persistable. It is, more or less, immunity to ranged attacks. The much more limited Wind Wall (PHB, p. 302) is a weaker counter to ranged attacks, though still very effective against arrows and bolts.
Ironguard (SpC, p. 125) – Another spell that I think is silly enough to deserve its own bullet point. It makes you immune to metal, magical and non-. And, yes, it specifically allows you to ignore attacks made by metal weapons, which is a sizeable portion of weapons.
Mind Blank (PHB, p. 253) – Immunity to mind-affecting effects, full-stop. That is most Enchantment spells and effects, most fear effects (and all fear attacks), and quite a few other things.
Type-based Immunities – Many creature types offer immunities, particularly the Construct (MM, p. 307), Plant (MM, p. 313), and Undead (MM, p. 317) types. Using certain types of shape-changing magic to assume the form of a creature of these types will grant you the immunities. A number of subtypes (especially Outsider subtypes) come with goodies, as well. The spell Vile Death (SpC, p. 229) offers undead traits without actually changing a creature’s type, and lasts for hours by the time it someone is able to cast it.
Immunity to Damage, Immunity to Death from HP Damage, etc. - Yes, this is possible. Not that hard, either, though in actual play it’s unlikely to occur. Probably the most famous example is Delay Death (SpC, p. 63) with Beastland Ferocity (SpC, p. 25).
Finding a Caster – So, you’ve got ways to get up close and personal with a caster, bypass his defenses, and hit him. That’s great! Now you’ve got to find him! Unfortunately for you, that is a serious task in and of itself.
Casters move quickly – We’ve covered this before in the section on movement modes, but it bears repeating for strategic-level discussions – casters can cover a lot of ground, fast. They can fly at prodigious speeds (a Phantom Steed, from PHB p. 260, maxes out at a fly speed of 240 ft.), they can teleport, and they can travel to other planes. Following a caster who doesn’t want to get caught takes more or less equal movement capabilities.
Casters don’t sleep out in the open – A lot of caster-killing plans that I’ve seen rely on sneaking up on a caster when they sleep, but that’s difficult because of the spells that many casters have access to. The best-known of these is the humble Rope Trick (PHB, p. 273), but at higher levels Mordenkainen’s Magnificent Mansion (PHB, p. 256) is a ritzier (and longer-lasting) alternative. Eventually, casters get their grubby mitts on Genesis (Epic Level Handbook, p. 117) and get their own demiplane, which is both difficult to find and difficult to enter if you don’t know what you’re doing.
Nondetection (PHB, p. 257)– This low-level spell protects casters against Divination spells, and lasts for quite a while. Its big brother, Mind Blank (PHB, p. 253), does something similar.
Pinpointing a caster is hard – Once you’ve located a caster’s lair, you still have to actually find them. Superior Invisibility (SpC, p. 125) is the bogeyman here, as it essentially requires True Seeing (PHB, p. 296) as a counter, but all of the Invisibilities, illusions, and wall spells make it hard to close with a caster.
Casters know you’re coming – Thanks to an extensive list of divinations, Contact Other Plane (PHB, pp. 212-213) being the most famous (and argued-about), a caster can have a fairly good idea of what he can expect out of a day, even if he doesn’t know that you’re planning on jumping him while he’s on the john during his 8:30 constitutional.
Casters don’t get surprised – Even aside from predicting the future through divinations, it is extremely difficult to catch a caster with his pants down. The two most common ways casters render themselves unable to be surprised are Foresight (PHB, p. 233) and turning into a Dire Tortoise (Sandstorm, p. 151). Don’t expect the surprise round to save you.
(Greater) Anticipate Teleportation (SpC, p. 13) – These spells bear mentioning because they make teleporting right up to a caster a bad idea. The spells lasts all day at higher levels, she’ll know when you’re coming, and have time to prepare for you (or teleport away, if she doesn’t feel like fighting). It’s worth noting that it also makes tactical teleportation around a caster worse, too.
Sometimes They Come Back – Wow, you actually defeated that caster? I’m impressed. But don’t let your guard down yet; she could be back at any minute. Here are a few things to keep in mind after the fight is over.
Astral Projection (PHB, p. 201) – It’s a pretty common refrain in Wizard v. whoever debates that “even if you manage to beat the Wizard, it was really just an astral projection.” This “it was a Doombot” excuse is kinda lame, but also accurate; Astral Projection is unfair and needs to be taken into account. There are precious few things that can seriously threaten a creature that is astral projecting. Githyanki Silver Swords (MM p. 128 and XPH, p. 167) are the famous counter, but those are rare and only made for high-level Githyanki characters. You’re unlikely to find one without getting into a lot of trouble. Astral Dreadnaughts (Manual of the Planes, p. 159) can also do the trick, but good luck getting one of those to be your lackey.
Cheating Death Through Contingency – This is another one of those unfair tricks, but a Craft Contingent (CAr p. 139) Revivify (SpC, p. 176) will bring a creature back to life, likely some time after you’ve left. There are a number of similar spells that will achieve a similar effect, like a Craft Contingent Last Breath (SpC, p. 130) or a Craft Contingent True Resurrection (PHB, p. 296).
Liches Get All The, Well, You Know – A Lich (MM, pp. 166-168) can rejuvenate itself after a few days if you don’t destroy its phylactery, so be on the lookout for that. Ghosts (MM pp. 116-118) and a number of other creatures can do something similar.
A Special Note on AMFs, or; Why Antimagic Field Matters Less Than You Think It Does – AMFs (PHB, p. 200) are frequently brought up as examples of how to kill casters, as they will suppress caster defenses and leave them vulnerable. While not a terrible idea (particularly in low-op games), they really aren’t that great of an idea in higher-level, higher-op games for several reasons.
AMFs are small – Antimagic Fields are 10-ft. radius emanations, centered on you. You need to be really close to someone for it to take effect.
AMFs turn off your own gear – If you’ve got an AMF active, you probably aren’t going to be approaching a caster who doesn’t want to get touched. You’ll need a nonmagical, natural means of flight (and to move fast) if you want to get close to a caster with the AMF on. If your plan is to turn the AMF on when you get close, you’ve got all the normal problems of approaching a caster and not dying.
A lot of spells go through AMFs – Conjuration spells with an instantaneous duration go right through AMFs (you can’t cast them in AMFs, though). This rule can be found in the spell description (PHB, p. 200). Many of the favored spells (particularly battlefield control and damage-dealing spells) are instantaneous Conjurations for this reason. Here is a partial list of offensive or BFC spells that can be cast into an AMF:
Acid Breath (SpC, p. 7)
Acid Storm (SpC, p. 7)
Arc of Lightning (SpC, p. 15)
Blast of Flame (SpC, p. 31)
Blast of Sand (Sandstorm, p. 112)
Bombardment (SpC, p. 37)
Comefall (SpC, p. 50)
Deadly Lahar (CM, p. 101)
Death By Thorns (BoVD, p. 91)
Deific Vengeance (SpC, p. 62)
Drown and Mass Drown (SpC, p. 74)
Fire and Brimstone (CM, p. 104)
Frostbite (Frostburn, p. 95)
Hail of Stone (SpC, pp. 108-109)
Ice Darts (Frostburn, pp. 98-99)
Ice Knife (Spell Compendium, p. 119)
Icelance (SpC, pp. 119)
Laogzed's Breath (Serpent Kingdoms, p. 156)
Lava Missile (Serpent Kingdoms, p. 156)
Lava Splash (Serpent Kingdoms, p. 156)
Melf's Unicorn Arrow (PHBII, pp. 119-120)
Mudslide (Stormwrack, p. 119)
Nauseating Breath (SpC, p. 146)
Obedient Avalance (SpC, pp. 148-149)
Quill Blast (SpC, p. 164)
Rushing Waters (SpC, p. 178)
Slime Hurl (CoR, p. 35)
Snow Wave (Frostburn, p. 104)
Splinterbolt (SpC, pp. 203-204)
Sudden Stalagmite (SpC, p. 213)
Swamp Lung (SpC, pp. 216-217)
Vitriolic Sphere (SpC, pp. 231-232)
Wall of Iron (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wallOfIron.htm)
Wall of Salt (Sandstorm, p. 127)
Wall of Stone (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wallOfStone.htm)
A few odd dual-school spells (Doom Scarabs, Firestride Exhalation, and Kelgore's Firebolt) may also work when cast into an AMF.
Some magical effects don’t turn off in AMFs – Constructs and corporeal undead don’t stop functioning in AMFs, though some of their abilities may do so, so watch out for a caster’s minions.
Some casters can cast in AMFs – Yes, wacky as it may seem, there are abilities that let casters do things in AMFs. Invoke Magic (Lords of Madness, p. 212) and Initiate of Mystra (Player’s Guide to Faerun, p. 81) are the big ones.
Contingencies – Carefully-worded contingencies, either via the spell (PHB, p. 213) or the items (Complete Arcane, p. 139) can take effect before the AMF takes effect, allowing the caster a get-out-of-jail-free card against AMFs.
The Tinfoil Hat – This is an old trick that revolves around shrinking (via Shrink Item, Polymorph Any Object, or some other similar spell) a large, hollow cone and wearing it as a hat. When the caster is affected by an AMF, the magic shrinking the cone will be suppressed, making it resume its normal size. As it does so, it will expand to encompass the caster’s square and cover her, breaking the AMF’s line of effect. The caster will then be free to cast spells again, likely a teleportation effect to get out of the AMF’s range.

eggynack

2014-07-22, 05:33 AM

@Eggy
Too much to quote from phone: I'm especially surprised that a substantial part of your position is predicated upon that the rules don't say a list is all encompassing of any particular condition which, in so much as there's is a list of conditions, at best puts you into DM adjudication territory rather than a RAW backed position as I see it, and at worst simply indicates other conditions introduced in later books that aren't labeled as such, are not. Also there seems to be a level of conflation between source and effect.

I don't think that puts me in DM adjudication territory at all. If either the term or the list were defined, then that would simply be the way of it. As is though, neither thing has occurred. In fact, if you check the DMG, the exact opposite is the case. The condition list you cite is specifically, "The adverse conditions that weaken, slow, or even kill characters," fully leaving open the possibility of conditions not in those categories. Hell, I'm pretty sure that there actually are game defined conditions that are outside of that list which are in those categories. As for conflation between source and effect, it usually depends on the specific thing being discussed, as well as phrasing. Eliminating the Sun is one of the trickier propositions out there, but lesser tasks can be accomplished with less difficulty.

Brookshw

2014-07-22, 05:41 AM

I don't think that puts me in DM adjudication territory at all. If either the term or the list were defined, then that would simply be the way of it. As is though, neither thing has occurred. In fact, if you check the DMG, the exact opposite is the case. The condition list you cite is specifically, "The adverse conditions that weaken, slow, or even kill characters," fully leaving open the possibility of conditions not in those categories. Hell, I'm pretty sure that there actually are game defined conditions that are outside of that list which are in those categories. As for conflation between source and effect, it usually depends on the specific thing being discussed, as well as phrasing. Eliminating the Sun is one of the trickier propositions out there, but lesser tasks can be accomplished with less difficulty.

Back to conditions I just don't see that helping your position if there are other conditions that are specifically called out as such. It's like saying you get to make up feats because the phb doesn't say the feat list is complete even though all sources will specifically call out when they introduce new feats. It's just not tenable. Also even if lesser effects seem less problematic that's not license to even say they're safe. If the logic is unsound its unsound though potentially you could find alternative justifications perhaps.

eggynack

2014-07-22, 05:49 AM

Back to conditions I just don't see that helping your position if there are other conditions that are specifically called out as such. It's like saying you get to make up feats because the phb doesn't say the feat list is complete even though all sources will specifically call out when they introduce new feats. It's just not tenable. Also even if lesser effects seem less problematic that's not license to even say they're safe. If the logic is unsound its unsound though potentially you could find alternative justifications perhaps.
The other condition thing isn't really a cornerstone point of the argument. The main point is the lack of definition, and the implicit possibility of conditions of other types. I have, in the past, argued for constructing conditions in a positive way, to stand fully outside of the list as presented. It works pretty well.

As for lesser effects, it has less to do with scale and scope difficulty, and more to do with semantic difficulty. Trying to argue that being within the sunshine is a condition, and that you can thus IHS that sunshine away, is a position that demands a great deal of semantic juggling, with the biggest hole being what the actual outcome if you succeed is. With simpler claims, it's more obvious what the effect is, and more obvious how it need be ended, especially because you can make better use of the object itself instead of output of the object, like you usually need to do for the Sun.

Brookshw

2014-07-22, 05:58 AM

The other condition thing isn't really a cornerstone point of the argument. The main point is the lack of definition, and the implicit possibility of conditions of other types. I have, in the past, argued for constructing conditions in a positive way, to stand fully outside of the list as presented. It works pretty well.

As for lesser effects, it has less to do with scale and scope difficulty, and more to do with semantic difficulty. Trying to argue that being within the sunshine is a condition, and that you can thus IHS that sunshine away, is a position that demands a great deal of semantic juggling, with the biggest hole being what the actual outcome if you succeed is. With simpler claims, it's more obvious what the effect is, and more obvious how it need be ended, especially because you can make better use of the object itself instead of output of the object, like you usually need to do for the Sun.

What you've argued for in the past is not in and of itself any justification for, well, anything. You're still left with there is a RAW list of conditions and other things called out by RAW as conditions. That these are game terms defies you the fall back of English usage in so much that if we are going by English usage there's no reason to call out any condition to begin with. Still strikes me that at best your landing into DM adjudication territory.

eggynack

2014-07-22, 06:08 AM

What you've argued for in the past is not in and of itself any justification for, well, anything.
That was really the completion of a different argument, in and of itself. The condition list specifically indicates that it is a list of conditions with negative impact. That means that, even if the existence of a list provides some restriction, it does not restrict away from potential positive conditions.

You're still left with there is a RAW list of conditions and other things called out by RAW as conditions. That these are game terms defies you the fall back of English usage in so much that if we are going by English usage there's no reason to call out any condition to begin with. Still strikes me that at best your landing into DM adjudication territory.
I just don't see any reason why the RAW existence of a list means anything. It's just a list, floating about in the book-ether. There's no indication that the list is a complete one, so other conditions are possible. Hell, we don't even know for certain that IHS is referring to this condition list. In fact, we can say for certain that condition has elsewhere been used in a manner not in keeping with the list, in the sections of complete arcane dealing with crafted contingent spells. In particular, the feat says that the spells activate under certain conditions, and then description elsewhere provides as example several triggers that are not listed conditions. Thus, condition is not even implicitly defined as a game term, to say nothing of the possibility of it being explicitly defined.

Brookshw

2014-07-22, 06:42 AM

That was really the completion of a different argument, in and of itself. The condition list specifically indicates that it is a list of conditions with negative impact. That means that, even if the existence of a list provides some restriction, it does not restrict away from potential positive conditions.

I just don't see any reason why the RAW existence of a list means anything. It's just a list, floating about in the book-ether. There's no indication that the list is a complete one, so other conditions are possible. Hell, we don't even know for certain that IHS is referring to this condition list. In fact, we can say for certain that condition has elsewhere been used in a manner not in keeping with the list, in the sections of complete arcane dealing with crafted contingent spells. In particular, the feat says that the spells activate under certain conditions, and then description elsewhere provides as example several triggers that are not listed conditions. Thus, condition is not even implicitly defined as a game term, to say nothing of the possibility of it being explicitly defined.

I'm rather curious why someone would want to IHS away a positive condition though I suppose there could be circumstances. However the multiuse argument does not negate that the term condition has a basis in a primary source that you must overlook for your position to potentially be valid. That other things may be called as conditions does not make you right, it introduces ambiguity resulting in DM adjudication. In your example I can easily say specific trumps general for that application, especially in so far as its not aligned with usage in primacy material.

thedmring

2014-07-22, 06:45 AM

Brookshw is right. Eggynack your point is mute. Your argument has been weighed, measured, and found incorrect.

eggynack

2014-07-22, 06:49 AM

I'm rather curious why someone would want to IHS away a positive condition though I suppose there could be circumstances.
It's mostly an alternate way to phrase things, for IHS semantic purposes. So, instead of saying, "Oh ye gods, this Sun is bearing down on me like nobody's business. Time to IHS that fiendish Sun," you say either, "Truly I am enjoying this beautiful day in the Sun, and the bright and cheery condition it puts me in. However, I also seek the extinction of all life on the planet, or somesuch. Thus, IHS," or, "I am completely apathetic about the condition the Sun puts me in. However, total extinction again." So it goes. As I've mentioned previously, IHS has a power which scales with how willing and able you are to abuse semantics.

However the multiuse argument does not negate that the term condition has a basis in a primary source that you must overlook for your position to potentially be valid. That other things may be called as conditions does not make you right, it introduces ambiguity resulting in DM adjudication. In your example I can easily say specific trumps general for that application, especially in so far as its not aligned with usage in primacy material.
The point isn't that the term has one game provided definition here, and one game provided definition there, and the DM has to adjudicate between them. The point is that there is no game provided definition, because the term is never defined, and used differently in different places, so we must default to English. Your argument is intrinsically rooted in the idea that this list defines condition as a game term, but it does not.

Edit:
Brookshw is right. Eggynack your point is mute. Your argument has been weighed, measured, and found incorrect.
Alas, truly you, in your infinite wisdom, have shown me the error of my ways with your perfectly formed argument. After all, who could stand up to the weight of your word, and the power it holds?

Vogonjeltz

2014-07-22, 07:13 AM

Brookshw

2014-07-22, 07:50 AM

It's mostly an alternate way to phrase things, for IHS semantic purposes. So, instead of saying, "Oh ye gods, this Sun is bearing down on me like nobody's business. Time to IHS that fiendish Sun," you say either, "Truly I am enjoying this beautiful day in the Sun, and the bright and cheery condition it puts me in. However, I also seek the extinction of all life on the planet, or somesuch. Thus, IHS," or, "I am completely apathetic about the condition the Sun puts me in. However, total extinction again." So it goes. As I've mentioned previously, IHS has a power which scales with how willing and able you are to abuse semantics. At this point the glass being half full or half empty doesn't really have any bearing.

The point isn't that the term has one game provided definition here, and one game provided definition there, and the DM has to adjudicate between them. The point is that there is no game provided definition, because the term is never defined, and used differently in different places, so we must default to English. Your argument is intrinsically rooted in the idea that this list defines condition as a game term, but it does not.

This is indeed the point that is under contention. There exists a category of things collectively labeled as conditions in a primary source. You're argument is that its not all encompassing to which I've already pointed out can be resolved by specific vs. general, which is an established part of the rules. I've also pointed out the feat list doesn't specify its all encompassing though additional feats are labeled as such. I don't believe you've resolved either of the issues regarding primary sourcing or specific vs. general which are both matters of RAW and weaken your argument as I see it.

Tangentially - does the IHS source use condition elsewhere (besides IHS) that lends evidence to your view? This I think has some bearing perhaps.

Seppo87

2014-07-22, 07:59 AM

Guys it is really simple actually.

IHS by RAW ends any condition. This makes it completely broken.

The right fix is to only restrict its use to conditions and effects that are caused by enemies trying to interfere with the character's actions
This is the only fix that makes sense and the one closest to
RAI
(because there is clear reference to vengeance against enemies and the word overcoming is used in the description)

This wouldn't include Gravity, the sun or other natural phenomena.

It's really that easy. Nitpicking words won't get anyone anywhere.

eggynack

2014-07-22, 08:02 AM

At this point the glass being half full or half empty doesn't really have any bearing.
It actually does, for the reason I cited. You don't even really have to move far out of character to work some of these semantic attacks. If you can cite a fashion in which something negative for you is causing a positive condition, then fwashoom, there ya go.

This is indeed the point that is under contention. There exists a category of things collectively labeled as conditions in a primary source. You're argument is that its not all encompassing to which I've already pointed out can be resolved by specific vs. general, which is an established part of the rules. I've also pointed out the feat list doesn't specify its all encompassing though additional feats are labeled as such. I don't believe you've resolved either of the issues regarding primary sourcing or specific vs. general which are both matters of RAW and weaken your argument as I see it.
There doesn't appear to be any sort of specific to override the general here, and the primary source never says anything to override a secondary source. This is simply not a game defined term, specifically or generally, and that's really all I need. As for feats, those things are actually defined in the rules, so they don't really act as a counterexample. I mean, just look at the first three words of the section on feats: "A feat is..." That's how a game defines a term.

Tangentially - does the IHS source use condition elsewhere (besides IHS) that lends evidence to your view? This I think has some bearing perhaps.
It seems so. According to a ctrl-f through a pdf, the word is used four times in the book. The first use on page 10, "Imposes a condition," fits the PHB version, the second on page 43, "Meet certain conditions," does not, the third on page 45, "fulfill a certain condition," also does not, and the fourth is iron heart surge.

Edit:
Guys it is really simple actually.

IHS by RAW ends any condition. This makes it completely broken.

The right fix is to only restrict its use to conditions and effects that are caused by NPCs and monsters trying to interfere with the character's actions
This is the only fix that makes sense and the one closest to RAI

Only people with a positibe bias towards casters (or a negative one towards martial characters) will deny it
I agree with your premise, that it needs to be fixed, and I generally tend towards something akin to the unofficial errata, specifically defining what can and cannot be stopped by IHS. I don't really see why folks with a bias towards casters would deny it though. IHS is a tool of martial characters, and tends to work best against casters. They profit the most from a fix.

Double-edit: Ooh, just found an even better argument than the ToB source for conditions. Apparently, the PHB also uses the word "condition" in ways not linked to the list. It seems that the word is used in the book 108 times, so I'm not going to break all of them down the same way, but big ones are favorable and unfavorable conditions on page 64, and lighting conditions in general.

Seppo87

2014-07-22, 08:12 AM

They profit the most from a fix.They would try to restrict it to status conditions (like stunned, dazed etc) some of which would even prevent a character from using IHS at all.
This is way too far from the original use of the maneuver to be an acceptable fix.

Elderand

2014-07-22, 08:24 AM

Brookshw is right. Eggynack your point is mute. Your argument has been weighed, measured, and found incorrect.

Two things, asserting something does not make it so.
And it's moot, not mute.

Asside from that I have no opinion on anyone's position. Iron heart surge argument are the most boring arguments.

eggynack

2014-07-22, 08:33 AM

. Iron heart surge argument are the most boring arguments.
I've gotta agree, honestly. Really dense semantics all over the place, and claims that circle around each other. However, I think this new thing, finding places where the word condition is used, seems like a pretty cool new route of arguing. For example, check out the spell heal (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/heal.htm). The spell removes a pile of adverse conditions, using the term in the exact same way as the condition summary does. However, the cool thing is that, along with a bunch of conditions that are on the summary, there is also feeblemind (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/feeblemind.htm), which is not on that list in any form, unlike insanity, which basically just inflicts the confused condition. This indicates, better than the rare conditions from non-core books do, that the list in the DMG is neither complete, nor supposed to be complete. Things that aren't on the list can still be conditions, almost as an aside. Seems pretty convincing to me. Now, off to check the DMG for weird stuff, cause I probably should have started there.

Edit: Nothing as direct as the feeblemind thing so far, mostly terrain and weather, but I did see some places on 148 which mentioned aging as a condition. That could lead to some silliness.

Vogonjeltz

2014-07-22, 08:51 AM

Stella

2014-07-22, 09:02 AM

I always find it odd when someone proclaims hatred for magic and then proceeds to wear and use magical items. But maybe that's just me. I know some of this could be crafted via divine means but still. Hating one form of magic yet embracing another.I always find it odd when people take what other people say so far out of context that it isn't even relevant to what they said in the first place. But maybe that's just me. It's like you're having a completely different conversation.

OP: I don't like dogs.
You: If you don't like dog collars then why do you own a dog bowl?
OP: I own a cat. It's a cat bowl...

Here's the OPs first sentence for your reference. He didn't even bury this in his post somewhere you might have missed it.

So, due to previous campaigns, I detest people who play Mages, and think they ARE the party. They control every choice we make, because "I can destroy you if you disagree."
There's nothing in there about hating magic at all. He just hates player Wizards who use threats of death to get what they want within the gaming group. Quite understandable in my view, even if I disagree with the route he took to try to solve that problem, and find the result to be a bit preposterous as well.

Several other people have responded to this, with one of them going so far as to call the OP a douche and a hypocrite (oh, wait. It's just his character who is the douche and hypocrite. Nothing personal there...) based on a complete failure to understand the OPs first sentence.

Let me try to clear this up: The OP never claimed to hate magic or Wizards. He never claimed to have made a character who walks around looking to kill Wizards. Here is what he actually said, and it's so brief and succinct that I'm baffled at how so many people could read so much into it:

So I made a 20th Level Character who can WRECK any mage hes against, including party members.
Please note the "hes against" (sic) qualifier. This doesn't imply a Mage Killer looking to rid the world of all Wizards. It doesn't imply a hypocrite who loads himself down with magic items created by Wizards specifically to kill those same Wizards. It implies a character who is trying to be strong against DM encounters who are arcane casters while also being able to push back against the Wizard players at his table who have in the past used their superior power level to dominate play by intimidating the other players.

And yet many of you crew are vilifying him and proposing coalitions of Wizards who will come and put him in his place. All based on what appears to be a massive mischaracterization of the OP.

I'm less concerned about the build and more concerned that you respond to a threat with killing another character.It's clearly a dysfunctional group. The OP said that the Wizards push the party around by flexing their "I'm so much more powerful than you" muscles, and he got tired of it and tried to make a character who could push back, hard.

That said even at low optimization(which this group seems like), many very basic spells have a range of 400+40ft/CL.The OP said he attacked in response to a threat. Which I assume was made at conversational range, so something like adjacent to maybe 30'. Which of course does not counter Contingency or any number of other methods for the Wizard to get to a range where he is effectively invisible (just as is the rest of the universe to this supposed "Mage Slayer" and then raining the terror down.

Yeah. A while back, after so many responses and no reply from the OP, I checked his posts and realized this was his only one. We'll probably never hear from him again. I think we done been trolled.
Please point to a single element of the OP which even hints at it being a trolling post.

I'm going to suggest that instead of the OP being a troll, that he was chased off by a pack of wild dogs. His first post received such an overwhelmingly negative response, and so full of mischaracterizations and personal insults, that I wouldn't be surprised if he never posted again.

eggynack

2014-07-22, 09:11 AM

Please point to a single element of the OP which even hints at it being a trolling post.
I don't particularly hold to the theory myself, as I tend to only think someone is a troll after overwhelming evidence has been presented, but I can kinda see it. It's all like, "View my character in his resplendent glory. He can crush all wizards in existence with these rather weak items from the DMG that everyone else just must have missed. This mage slayer can detect scrying. How can a wizard possibly overcome such an obstacle." It could feasibly work as a joke post, on that basis, or maybe a troll post, if viewed maliciously. Probably isn't one though.

I'm going to suggest that instead of the OP being a troll, that he was chased off by a pack of wild dogs. His first post received such an overwhelmingly negative response, and so full of mischaracterizations and personal insults, that I wouldn't be surprised if he never posted again.
He actually has posted again. Clarified a lot of his position that revealed all of the rules errors, or at least it looks like they're rule errors, that got him to his mage slayer status.

Brookshw

2014-07-22, 10:12 AM

It actually does, for the reason I cited. You don't even really have to move far out of character to work some of these semantic attacks. If you can cite a fashion in which something negative for you is causing a positive condition, then fwashoom, there ya go. Not really, no. It might broaden the pool but that depends on how the pool is established so its not relevant now.

There doesn't appear to be any sort of specific to override the general here, and the primary source never says anything to override a secondary source. This is simply not a game defined term, specifically or generally, and that's really all I need. As for feats, those things are actually defined in the rules, so they don't really act as a counterexample. I mean, just look at the first three words of the section on feats: "A feat is..." That's how a game defines a term. Again though, its a defined category which does provide a basis for specific versus general.

It seems so. According to a ctrl-f through a pdf, the word is used four times in the book. The first use on page 10, "Imposes a condition," fits the PHB version, the second on page 43, "Meet certain conditions," does not, the third on page 45, "fulfill a certain condition," also does not, and the fourth is iron heart surge. Interesting. I'm afb but am curious as to the context.

Double-edit: Ooh, just found an even better argument than the ToB source for conditions. Apparently, the PHB also uses the word "condition" in ways not linked to the list. It seems that the word is used in the book 108 times, so I'm not going to break all of them down the same way, but big ones are favorable and unfavorable conditions on page 64, and lighting conditions in general.

Much more interesting though not definitive. Not sure if the dmg or phb would take primacy though I'm inclined towards the dmg.

eggynack

2014-07-22, 10:23 AM

Not really, no. It might broaden the pool but that depends on how the pool is established so its not relevant now.
The point is that the summary itself establishes that it only lists the negative conditions, leaving positive ones open for use. It's a bit of a different step in the process, but it's a relevant path at that step. Of course, as feeblemind shows, it doesn't even really list all of the negative conditions either.

Again though, its a defined category which does provide a basis for specific versus general.
Except the category isn't really defined, which is the point.

Interesting. I'm afb but am curious as to the context.
The first one is, "By the same token, any other special attack that imposes a condition,such as a medusa’s petrifying gaze, takes immediate effect on you."

The second is, "Some stances give you a beneﬁt only when you meet certain conditions."

And the third is, "This duration indicates that the ability is a stance, and therefore ends only when you will it to end, when you become helpless, or when you fulﬁll a speciﬁc condition described in the stance’s description."

Not the most meaningful set of quotes, but decent ones.

Much more interesting though not definitive. Not sure if the dmg or phb would take primacy though I'm inclined towards the dmg.
It doesn't matter that much. There's also a bunch of non-summary uses of condition in the DMG. Nothing as damning as feeblemind, but you get favorable conditions, lighting conditions, weather conditions, and a whole bunch more. I'm not really sure what would make this stuff not definitive, incidentally. Condition just absolutely isn't a game defined term at all, and the list obviously doesn't make it one.

Nessa Ellenesse

2014-07-22, 11:14 AM

Your DM disallows spells out of the players handbook. Alright Morgan Ironwolf Apprently your DM is as antimage as you are and you are clearly twisting some rules like a bunch of pretzles. No charater should be ubeatable. Properly prepared a mage is one of the most versitle charaters in the game as it should be. But the crux of playing any spell cater is you have to know what you need before you need it. So many times I have gone into the dungeon and needed a spell and did not memorize it. I have learned to coordinate with the party clerics as to what to memorize. Epecally with light of Venya. Often we either had it memorized by three people and no one used it or no one memorized it and we desperately needed it. Some times it may seem like the mage is trying to take over the party when she is just trying to plan her spell selection.

Elderand

2014-07-22, 11:41 AM

Your DM disallows spells out of the players handbook. Alright Morgan Ironwolf Apprently your DM is as antimage as you are and you are clearly twisting some rules like a bunch of pretzles.

Given that the worst spell in term of balance are mostly found in the player handbook I don't see how banning some of the worst offender makes you antimage.

Nessa Ellenesse

2014-07-22, 02:05 PM

I can point to several that make your character over powered

1 being unaffected by all spells except 9th
2 being able to turn everything back at the casting up to and including 8th level spells

What the heck is giving your character these abblieties further more mage's disjunction is an AOE not subject to spell turning and a 9th level spell's

5 levels of occult slayer gives you the abilty to do spell turning twice per day only spell turninging has its limits

http://dndtools.eu/spells/players-handbook-v35--6/spell-turning--2368/

it won't toss everything back at the person even a ring of spell turning has it's limits

spell turning will not stop AOEs spells with ranged touch attacks or melee touch attacks

fire ball and mage's disjunction are AOEs and smokey confinement is is a melee touch spell.

you are streching the rules like silly putty and twisting them like pretezs

Nessa Ellenesse

2014-07-22, 02:09 PM

Given that the worst spell in term of balance are mostly found in the player handbook I don't see how banning some of the worst offender makes you antimage.

I disagree with that. Wish has a huge xp cost to it and a handle with caution tag that makes most sane players reultiant to use it.

dascarletm

2014-07-22, 02:12 PM

I disagree with that. Wish has a huge xp cost to it and a handle with caution tag that makes most sane players reultiant to use it.

There are other (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/planarBinding.htm) spells besides wish.

eggynack

2014-07-22, 02:13 PM

I disagree with that. Wish has a huge xp cost to it and a handle with caution tag that makes most sane players reultiant to use it.
That's not really the point. The point is that the worst offenders in general are in core, and they are. I mean, you don't have to travel that far away from wish to get to shapechange, and that spell is crazy, especially if you also have access to other books. I've never really taken to 9th based arguments though, so the real issue is mostly based in stuff like silent image, alter self, polymorph, entangle, planar binding, and contingency. Core is the almost certainly the most unbalanced book in the game, with druids hanging out only pages away from monks.

lord_khaine

2014-07-22, 02:38 PM

To instead do something constructive, should we not try and build the OP a true ultimate anti-mage, for when his current one bites the dust after the DM reads up on the relevant rules..?

And perhaps make it something besides another spellcaster? :P

dextercorvia

2014-07-22, 02:42 PM

Why do you think 8th level and below spells don't work near you?

Occult Slayer only grants spell turning 2/day.

Rip Portal can put you withing 500 miles of your intended destination. (This off course business includes up as a possibility, so I hope you can fly) Nothing stops the Wizard from following you through there.

Ethereal Jaunt? Congratulations, you can go ethereal until the start of your next turn. CL13-12(Mage Slayer Line) = 1 up to 3 times per day, by giving up your standard action. That must save you from a lot of hassle.

You are not immune to divination/scrying. Nondetection can be overcome with a CL check of (at your absolute best) 20. Since you are level 20, I assume you can face a level 20 caster , who will be rolling a minimum of 21 on the CL check. So, I guess that helps keep about half the level 10 casters from scrying on you, but that is about it.

So, playgrounders, NEW GAME. What is the lowest level/Tier caster you can build to take out this character as outlined?

TheDarkDM

2014-07-22, 02:58 PM

So, playgrounders, NEW GAME. What is the lowest level/Tier caster you can build to take out this character as outlined?

A Dread Necro could just beat him to death with minions. Though I can't remember if they get Plane Shift, so the chase could be a problem.

Vhaidara

2014-07-22, 03:00 PM

Couldn't you use ShneekeyTheLost's Samurai and Intimidate spam him with a T6?

dextercorvia

2014-07-22, 03:02 PM

Couldn't you use ShneekeyTheLost's Samurai and Intimidate spam him with a T6?

Nah, Occult Slayer leaves him legitimately immune to mind-affecting.

Vhaidara

2014-07-22, 03:05 PM

Is Intimidate mind affecting? If not, then that does nothing to help him.

Esprit15

2014-07-22, 03:16 PM

Sorcerer with Fly Anything with a total BAB of at least +7, a +1 crossbow and a bag of holding full of crossbow bolts (or a +1 (whatever level of Mighty you need) composite longbow with arrows if you have an STR bonus) could get the job done with a few hours. As long as you're firing from outside of his vision range, he can't even see where he's being attacked from.

Edited due to forgetting range increment rules.

Zanos

2014-07-22, 04:11 PM

Is Intimidate mind affecting? If not, then that does nothing to help him.
Intimidate is a fear effect, which are automatically mind affecting as I recall.

Vhaidara

2014-07-22, 04:19 PM

Intimidate is a fear effect, which are automatically mind affecting as I recall.

It applies a fear condition, but Fear is actually a descriptor, like Mind Affecting and Fire. So, arguably, it still works through immunity to mind-affecting.
Support: Undead are blanket immune to mind-affecting, but Turn Undead, which says nothing about being a fear effect, can apply the cowering condition to them. Therefore, as long as the Fear descriptor never comes up, creatures immune to mind-affecting abilities are vulnerable to the fear-based conditions.

Imperious Command applies the cowering condition and says nothing about being a fear effect.

Aerris

2014-07-22, 04:28 PM

Have I missed it, or no one posted this (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=517.0) yet?

eggynack

2014-07-22, 04:32 PM

Have I missed it, or no one posted this (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=517.0) yet?
I believe it's gone unmentioned. Really, people tend to just not reference it apart from the first and fifth commandments.

Deadline

2014-07-22, 04:40 PM

Aerris

2014-07-22, 04:43 PM

I believe it's gone unmentioned. Really, people tend to just not reference it apart from the first and fifth commandments.

Such a shame, the third one is most useful of the lot.

Karnith

2014-07-22, 04:44 PM

Have I missed it, or no one posted this (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=517.0) yet?
You missed it; it was in post number 16 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=17789460&postcount=16).

eggynack

2014-07-22, 04:47 PM

Such a shame, the third one is most useful of the lot.
Can't say I disagree with that. A lot less catchy though.

You missed it; it was in post number 16 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=17789460&postcount=16).
True enough.

dextercorvia

2014-07-22, 04:50 PM

It applies a fear condition, but Fear is actually a descriptor, like Mind Affecting and Fire. So, arguably, it still works through immunity to mind-affecting.
Support: Undead are blanket immune to mind-affecting, but Turn Undead, which says nothing about being a fear effect, can apply the cowering condition to them. Therefore, as long as the Fear descriptor never comes up, creatures immune to mind-affecting abilities are vulnerable to the fear-based conditions.

Imperious Command applies the cowering condition and says nothing about being a fear effect.

A character immune to fear can’t be intimidated, nor can nonintelligent creatures.

All fear attacks are mind-affecting fear effects.

Creatures immune to mind-affecting are therefore immune to fear attacks, and therefore immune to Intimidate.

If you successfully demoralize a foe in combat, the foe cowers in fear for 1 round and is shaken in the following
round.

Even if you ignore the word fear in the feat description, you have to successfully demoralize (intimidate) first, which doesn't work on a creature immune to fear.

That is one thing his build does well.

Aerris

2014-07-22, 04:50 PM

You missed it; it was in post number 16 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=17789460&postcount=16).

Darn, the spoiler distracted me.:smallredface: Thanks for pointing that out

Vhaidara

2014-07-22, 04:52 PM

Shaken and Frightened are fear affects, and all fear affects are mind-affecting (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialabilities.htm#fear).

First off, your link is broken.

Shaken and frightened are conditions normally imposed by fear effects.

Cowering is also a fear effect. Turn Undead says nothing about bypassing normal undead immunity to mind affecting, but it applies the cowering condition to undead. Imperious Command likewise applies the cowering effect.

Deadline

2014-07-22, 05:15 PM

First off, your link is broken.

Shaken and frightened are conditions normally imposed by fear effects.

Cowering is also a fear effect. Turn Undead says nothing about bypassing normal undead immunity to mind affecting, but it applies the cowering condition to undead. Imperious Command likewise applies the cowering effect.

Huh, not sure why the link isn't working. But see dextercorvia's post above for the correct citations.

dextercorvia

2014-07-22, 06:09 PM

First off, your link is broken.

Shaken and frightened are conditions normally imposed by fear effects.

Cowering is also a fear effect. Turn Undead says nothing about bypassing normal undead immunity to mind affecting, but it applies the cowering condition to undead. Imperious Command likewise applies the cowering effect.

Only if you successfully demoralize, which is an application of Intimidate. You can't intimidate something with immunity to mind-affecting. See above.

Vhaidara

2014-07-22, 06:20 PM

You actually ninjaed me on that. The way I read it:

Fear attack specifically refer to abilities with the fear descriptor, as well as the abilities listed here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#fear). The only mentions of fear in the Intimidate description are adding bonuses to saves against fear to your level check, and that immunity to fear makes you immune to intimidation.

Immunity to fear is different from immunity to mind-affecting (see paladin Aura of Courage). As Turn Undead proves, creatures that have immunity to mind-affecting are not fundamentally immune to the conditions imposed by fear effects, otherwise cowering could not be applied to undead, since Turn Undead says nothing about bypassing their immunity.

So, we know that the cowering condition can be applied to creatures that are immune to mind-affecting abilities without the need for special exception.

Essence of my argument: Intimidate at no point is made an actual [Fear] effect, and therefore Immunity to Mind-Affecting does not make you immune to being intimidated

dextercorvia

2014-07-22, 06:29 PM

Demoralize doesn't have to be a [fear] effect. It is a fear attack*, and therefore a mind affecting fear effect.

Cowering is a condition, not a fear effect (check it out, it isn't listed under fear with shaken, frightened, or panicked). Cowering can happen independent of fear (in the case of Turn Undead).

*attack because it attempts to cause harm, fear because it causes shaken, which is listed as a fear effect.

Bit Fiend

2014-07-22, 06:43 PM

Vhaidara

2014-07-22, 06:45 PM

Cowering is a condition, not a fear effect (check it out, it isn't listed under fear with shaken, frightened, or panicked). Cowering can happen independent of fear (in the case of Turn Undead).

*attack because it attempts to cause harm, fear because it causes shaken, which is listed as a fear effect.

Okay, so you say that because it imposes Shaken it becomes a fear attack. But with Imperious Command, it is imposing Cowering, which, as you pointed out, is independent of fear.

On an alternate option, Cowering is listed under Panicked, in which case it is a fear effect, in which case the Turn Undead exception applies.

dextercorvia

2014-07-22, 07:32 PM

Okay, so you say that because it imposes Shaken it becomes a fear attack. But with Imperious Command, it is imposing Cowering, which, as you pointed out, is independent of fear.

On an alternate option, Cowering is listed under Panicked, in which case it is a fear effect, in which case the Turn Undead exception applies.

Imperious doesn't remove the shaken condition, it supersedes it, but the demoralize has to work first, and that can only work if the creature can be shaken.

Cowering is not in the list under fear, however. Panicked is one way to get to Cowering, but Cowering is its own thing.

Vaz

2014-07-22, 08:07 PM

So, playgrounders, NEW GAME. What is the lowest level/Tier caster you can build to take out this character as outlined?

Good Will Save Class A 2/Good Will Save Class B 1

Int 15, Cha 15. Anything else is good. Pick up Dark Speech feat. Pick up Survival to locate an ant nest, then use Dark Speech to turn it into a Hivemind (average size of harvester ant colonies is about 4000 - so basically, it has a CL in the range of 70). "as if from a suggestion spell" suggests that you're not actually using the spell, so it doesn't have the mind affecting tag, so you can then give the 20th level Sorcerer with 82 Charisma the command to kill the OP's character.

Failing the need for ants, Starling flocks or their analogue work just as well - with RW examples being from 5000 to 50000, even up to a million.

dextercorvia

2014-07-22, 08:53 PM

Good Will Save Class A 2/Good Will Save Class B 1

Int 15, Cha 15. Anything else is good. Pick up Dark Speech feat. Pick up Survival to locate an ant nest, then use Dark Speech to turn it into a Hivemind (average size of harvester ant colonies is about 4000 - so basically, it has a CL in the range of 70). "as if from a suggestion spell" suggests that you're not actually using the spell, so it doesn't have the mind affecting tag, so you can then give the 20th level Sorcerer with 82 Charisma the command to kill the OP's character.

Failing the need for ants, Starling flocks or their analogue work just as well - with RW examples being from 5000 to 50000, even up to a million.

While hilarious, lets restrict this to builds that can do the deed themselves.

Vaz

2014-07-22, 10:15 PM

http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=14176.0

It's not exactly low level, but it's stylish. I did work out the ML wrong - that ML is actually an effective Ardent level, instead, so is the level I actually get the power, but the maximum level is sorted by my ML which is full. Spam Garryl's Disconcern, and proceed to use your 140ish standard actions to attack him.

thedmring

2014-07-22, 11:29 PM

Two things, asserting something does not make it so.
And it's moot, not mute.

Asside from that I have no opinion on anyone's position. Iron heart surge argument are the most boring arguments.

it was not my words that made the point moot. I was agreeing with a few posts above and I simply can't be bothered to quote everyone else who was right. BTW it's aside not asside. You might want to check your own crap if you're going to critique my stuff.

eggynack

2014-07-22, 11:38 PM

it was not my words that made the point moot. I was agreeing with a few posts above and I simply can't be bothered to quote everyone else who was right. BTW it's aside not asside. You might want to check your own crap if you're going to critique my stuff.
It's somewhat irrelevant at this point, I think, as I believe I have currently won, or am at least winning, this little game of IHS semantics warfare (like global thermonuclear warfare, except with fewer winners). It appears that you have backed the wrong rhetorical horse, as it were.

thedmring

2014-07-23, 12:06 AM

eggynack

2014-07-23, 12:15 AM

I get that you don't like me, however; I still stand by my original statement.
You haven't stated any grounds for doing so, and my position seems extremely solid at the moment.

I thought these discussions were about the correct answer... Not winning.
Eh, I can make an exception. I mean, the folks who actually stated their case and participated in the argument, with them folk, it's about seeking truth. You insult folks a lot though, and that makes things a whole lot more personal. You could actually put forth a stake in this argument, state a case that you think makes sense, and then you'd maybe get a truth seeking seal of approval, but as is, your only place in the argument is as the person who was wrong.

GoodbyeSoberDay

2014-07-23, 12:21 AM

So, playgrounders, NEW GAME. What is the lowest level/Tier caster you can build to take out this character as outlined?Anyone with 10 levels of sorcerer casting and a bunch of jade can use the Sanctum Arcane Fusion trick with Hail of Stone, but that's relatively high level, and it costs money.

Similar idea, but lower level: Psion 5 with an appropriate craft skill, Psionic Glyph of Warding, Swarm of Crystals, and Astral Construct (or a really gullible hireling). First he constructs a Matryoshka doll-like (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matryoshka_doll) set of containers, connected by a string so that if you open the outer layer you open the inner layers as well. Each individual container has its own psionic glyph of warding, with a max-augmented Swarm of Crystals in it. Use a level 1 Astral Construct (or higher if need be) to carry the container, move over to the mage slayer, and open the container, setting off all of the glyphs at once, dealing no-save, no-SR area slashing damage.

Alternatively, a regular mundane damage dealer could just full attack this dude to death.

adriana

2014-07-23, 12:36 AM

You haven't stated any grounds for doing so, and my position seems extremely solid at the moment.

Eh, I can make an exception. I mean, the folks who actually stated their case and participated in the argument, with them folk, it's about seeking truth. You insult folks a lot though, and that makes things a whole lot more personal. You could actually put forth a stake in this argument, state a case that you think makes sense, and then you'd maybe get a truth seeking seal of approval, but as is, your only place in the argument is as the person who was wrong.

You just put a smile on my face.:smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

eggynack

2014-07-23, 12:48 AM

You just put a smile on my face.:smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:
Glad to hear it. It's pretty fun putting those posts together, almost to the point where I'm hoping she doesn't get banned into the dust for flaming all the time.

thedmring

2014-07-23, 01:21 AM

Glad to hear it. It's pretty fun putting those posts together, almost to the point where I'm hoping she doesn't get banned into the dust for flaming all the time.

I don't get banned.

however; look here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=17797591&postcount=20) Looks like one of your friends got edited for being rude to me.

adriana

2014-07-23, 01:24 AM

I don't get banned.

however; look here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=17797591&postcount=20) Looks like one of your friends got edited for being rude to me.

That's just a little mean don't you think?

eggynack

2014-07-23, 01:31 AM

I don't get banned.
Well, not yet anyway. People have been banned for far less. I could probably take some form of action to make that outcome more likely, but as I mentioned, I don't even know that it's the outcome I desire.

however; look here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=17797591&postcount=20) Looks like one of your friends got edited for being rude to me.
Yeah, I figured that would happen. If I recall correctly, it was specifically for asking you to leave the thread, which is against board rules. Don't know what you expect me to take from that though.

eternal

2014-07-23, 01:46 AM

adriana

2014-07-23, 01:57 AM

Yes I made a mistake and learned from it. What is the point in bringing it up?

Let it slide and pay her no mid is what I say. There is a saying "give someone enough rope....."

Brookshw

2014-07-23, 06:15 AM

It's somewhat irrelevant at this point, I think, as I believe I have currently won, or am at least winning, this little game of IHS semantics warfare (like global thermonuclear warfare, except with fewer winners). It appears that you have backed the wrong rhetorical horse, as it were.

Zips back to podium Sorry about that, got busy with work and let down my side and then thought the thread was moving in a different direction so I'd let it go. Let's see how this morning's coffee deprived brain carries on.

The point is that the summary itself establishes that it only lists the negative conditions, leaving positive ones open for use. It's a bit of a different step in the process, but it's a relevant path at that step. Of course, as feeblemind shows, it doesn't even really list all of the negative conditions either.

Irrelevant! Great, we can jujitsu positives and negatives into negatives and positives. Neither however removes the kernel of there being a negative element. It's a long stupid philosophical argument down that path, are you sure you want to take it? It doesn't much help your position that regardless as I do not believe you've proven that the common English definition wins the day.That's in fact one of the major areas under review. No proving your point by referencing your point Eggy :smalltongue:

Now Feeblemind is much more interesting but that's not something that really helps your position as much as you've proposed, it explicitly labels something as a condition so it's a condition under the category established. The harder cases are "weather conditions" or "Planar Conditions" (at least if I recall offhand correctly that latter term is used in either the MoTP or Planar HB).

Except the category isn't really defined, which is the point. You're right, it's not well defined, but it does contain a list and other things, such as Feeblemind apparently, explicitly add the Condition tag to other, well, I don't know, Status? Are you familiar with W.T. Stace and his arguments for Compatabilism? Some great points of his and I think there's a bit of a relevance to our conversation in that if the logic following a scenario leads to ludicrous ends go check your definitions. I'm pretty sure the Sun being destroyed is a ludicrous end so we probably have a problem with the definitions.

The first one is, "By the same token, any other special attack that imposes a condition,such as a medusa’s petrifying gaze, takes immediate effect on you." Ah, that's actually very interesting, petrification being on the Condition list and all that if memory serves. So there's a higher than otherwise chance that the ToB means "condition" in the sense of what's listed on the "condition" table.

The second is, "Some stances give you a beneﬁt only when you meet certain conditions."

And the third is, "This duration indicates that the ability is a stance, and therefore ends only when you will it to end, when you become helpless, or when you fulﬁll a speciﬁc condition described in the stance’s description."

Not the most meaningful set of quotes, but decent ones. Hmmm....not sure what to make of the other two honestly, seems like they could fall under the specific v. general parameter. Kind of like how contingency allows specific labelings of things as conditions for it's specific purposes.

It doesn't matter that much. There's also a bunch of non-summary uses of condition in the DMG. Nothing as damning as feeblemind, but you get favorable conditions, lighting conditions, weather conditions, and a whole bunch more. I'm not really sure what would make this stuff not definitive, incidentally. Condition just absolutely isn't a game defined term at all, and the list obviously doesn't make it one. ToB seems to use the phrase in accordance with both the general category listing in the DMG with a few specific exceptions comparable to other applications perfectly explained by specific v. general.

Well, there's my "I have a long commute to work" coffee deprived argument, how'd I do? :smalltongue:

Elderand

2014-07-23, 06:54 AM

You might want to check your own crap if you're going to critique my stuff.

First off, I offered a correction to a misuse of word I see quite often.
Second, your "rebuttal" makes no sense. Pointing out a mistake can be made independently of mistakes of my own. I don't need to be perfect before I can offer a correction. It would only be innapropriate were I mocking you for your mistake, which I didn't.

There is nothing wrong with correcting someone's when they use the wrong word entirely. Especialy when it is a common mistake.

it was not my words that made the point moot. I was agreeing with a few posts above and I simply can't be bothered to quote everyone else who was right.

I contest that you made nothing but assertion.

Brookshw is right.

You didn't say you agreed with Brookshw position, you outright called it right without offering any support for why it is right. There is a difference between thinking someone is right and someone being right. One is a matter of opinion, the other is a matter of facts.
The discussion was ongoing, therefore the "facts" were still being weighted.

Eggynack your point is mute.
Given that the point was still being discussed, your assertion that the point was moot was wrong.

Your argument has been weighed, measured, and found incorrect.
Weighted, measured and found incorrect by whom ? Last I checked there isn't a final judge of such things. Anyone who would present themselves as judge of such things would need a rather tremendous ego to assert that their opinion was the final one in such matters.

Perhaps it is an judgement of concensus by the majority ? But then the IHS debate has never reached a real concensus asside from everyone agreeing that IHS is very badly worded and in need of heavy adjudication by DMs.

Addendum: I again, make no judgment of Eggy or Brooksw respective position on this matter.

thedmring

2014-07-23, 07:20 AM

First off, I offered a correction to a misuse of word I see quite often.
Second, your "rebuttal" makes no sense. Pointing out a mistake can be made independently of mistakes of my own. I don't need to be perfect before I can offer a correction. It would only be innapropriate were I mocking you for your mistake, which I didn't.

There is nothing wrong with correcting someone's when they use the wrong word entirely. Especialy when it is a common mistake.

I contest that you made nothing but assertion.

You didn't say you agreed with Brookshw position, you outright called it right without offering any support for why it is right. There is a difference between thinking someone is right and someone being right. One is a matter of opinion, the other is a matter of facts.
The discussion was ongoing, therefore the "facts" were still being weighted.

Given that the point was still being discussed, your assertion that the point was moot was wrong.

Weighted, measured and found incorrect by whom ? Last I checked there isn't a final judge of such things. Anyone who would present themselves as judge of such things would need a rather tremendous ego to assert that their opinion was the final one in such matters.

Perhaps it is an judgement of concensus by the majority ? But then the IHS debate has never reached a real concensus asside from everyone agreeing that IHS is very badly worded and in need of heavy adjudication by DMs.

Addendum: I again, make no judgment of Eggy or Brooksw respective position on this matter.

My first point was if you're going to correct someones spelling, make sure you can spell yourself.

It should have been obvious that I agreed with Brookshw when I said he was right. I don't know how you agree with people but I thought that was obvious. I found Eggy's argument to be invalid based on my agreeing with several posts before. So I said his argument was invalid.

Case closed imo.

Somensjev

2014-07-23, 07:27 AM

My first point was if you're going to correct someones spelling, make sure you can spell yourself.

It should have been obvious that I agreed with Brookshw when I said he was right. I don't know how you agree with people but I thought that was obvious. I found Eggy's argument to be invalid based on my agreeing with several posts before. So I said his argument was invalid.

Case closed imo.

But you never said you agreed, you just said that Eggy was wrong and Brookshw was right
You were stating a subjective opinion in an objective manner

Personally i believe the complete opposite of you, i believe that Eggy is correct and Brookkshw is wrong
But, that's very different from me just saying "Eggy is correct, and Brookshw's argument is invalid"

And disagreeing with someone doesn't make their argument invalid, especially when they're taking their time to cite their sources, and explain their argument in as such fine detail as Eggy is

Brookshw

2014-07-23, 07:53 AM

But you never said you agreed, you just said that Eggy was wrong and Brookshw was right
You were stating a subjective opinion in an objective manner

Personally i believe the complete opposite of you, i believe that Eggy is correct and Brookkshw is wrong
But, that's very different from me just saying "Eggy is correct, and Brookshw's argument is invalid"

And disagreeing with someone doesn't make their argument invalid, especially when they're taking their time to cite their sources, and explain their argument in as such fine detail as Eggy is

Woah! Time out. I don't think I'm right but rather that the issue may have a resolution which does not align with Eggy's hence why I'm happy to explore the matter as a friendly discussion. So far I think the treatment of condition in the ToB provides some rather interesting evidence to discuss. This isn't about proving someone wrong.

Also to go back to medusa's gaze for a moment I think some quips might be in order regarding IHS out of petrification. "Remember kids, just say no!".

Somensjev

2014-07-23, 09:29 AM

Woah! Time out. I don't think I'm right but rather that the issue may have a resolution which does not align with Eggy's hence why I'm happy to explore the matter as a friendly discussion. So far I think the treatment of condition in the ToB provides some rather interesting evidence to discuss. This isn't about proving someone wrong.

Also to go back to medusa's gaze for a moment I think some quips might be in order regarding IHS out of petrification. "Remember kids, just say no!".

i'm actually really enjoying watching the 'argument*' on IHS, it's a pretty interesting read, i don't really care that much if one side is right or wrong, if there is a right or wrong, which at this point i'm inclined to say there isn't

*i use the term lightly

Mrc.

2014-07-23, 10:39 AM

We might as well rename this thread: Yet Another Discussion With No Real Answer Due To Poorly Worded Source Books And The English Language Being Irritating.

Why can't we just say "IHS is just yet another one of those abilities that can be interpreted in many different ways and because of how vague the wording is it is indeed possible to interpret it in different ways. Because of how we read things as humans, this will cause friction when we disagree on how best to determine its effects, therefore when used in games it is up to the DM and the players to come to a gentleman's agreement as to exactly what it can do, and the players must be willing to accept the DM's call on how it works. The DM must also agree not to abuse these powers."

Couldn't that have sufficiently replaced the previous three pages or so?

georgie_leech

2014-07-23, 10:53 AM

Brookshw

2014-07-23, 11:23 AM

Rubik

2014-07-23, 11:27 AM

:smalltongue:Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but look at chaotic stupid's alignment. :smallwink:

Mrc.

2014-07-23, 11:28 AM

Vhaidara

2014-07-23, 11:35 AM

I feel punked....... My point being that if we carry on like this someone will say something stupid and get an infraction or maybe even get banned, and I don't think anyone wants that. Almost without exception this forum is full of decent people and it's refreshing to be able to talk to you all as adults instead of assuming you're immature kids. Don't act like immature kids. Simple.

Nah, as long as we keep things civil no one is going to get in trouble. Some of our esteemed posters simply feel the need to blow off steam arguing semantics. If you ever want to see the kind of posting that gets you banned, search Visigani Vow of Poverty or Pickford Monkday.

winter92

2014-07-23, 12:26 PM

Without going into the well-covered specific weaknesses here, the ways I know of to deal with casters fall into three categories:

Magical
Horrific
System-Abusing

The most obvious solution to caster-killing is to hit the books and become something bigger and badder. Go after that wizard with a planar shepherd, take down that cleric with a well made archivist or an Iot7FV. Works just fine, but you have to catch up, and the flavor doesn't match "I hate casters" unless you only hate one type of caster.

The next is to do something which is, in-game, so extreme that it breaks the normal hierarchy of the world. Screw fighting that cleric, go free Pandorym and let him handle it. Cut a deal with Asmodeus to have the wizard taken down. This all works, but it tends to be either world-shattering, soul-killing, or one-time use.

The final option is to break the game until the system goes away. Find some way to catch the caster by surprise and use the 1d2 trick to pump out infinite damage. Whip up a RKV and show him that timestop isn't as good as 75 swift actions in a round. Give IHS it's most generous reading, and make his existence the condition you want to dispel.

The common element here is that no basic non-casting build can deal with serious casters, simply because they always have another option. Whether they hit you with something you didn't resist, recruit other people to deal with you, or simply leave and avoid you for eternity, you can't close down enough options to handle them. You either need the kind of option set that only casting gives you, or you need to completely break the usual options/round mechanic at the heart of 3.5. Regardless of build quality here, the task is very nearly impossible.

Brookshw

2014-07-23, 12:33 PM

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but look at chaotic stupid's alignment. :smallwink:

Oh come now, man's at the most dangerous place ever, if anyone deserves a good time its him.

My point being that if we carry on like this someone will say something stupid

Oh good gods I hope so, that's usually the best part!

Necroticplague

2014-07-23, 01:07 PM

Oh good gods I hope so, that's usually the best part!

This build clearly isn't the ultimate anti-mage, because Monks with Vow of Poverty are. Having no equipment and no magical abilities means that spellcasters can't simply use AMF, dispel, or disjunction to screw with you, while your extra speeed lets you catch up and close distances. SR even means you can just watch all their puny spells bounce off of you while you come at them.

Somensjev

2014-07-23, 01:10 PM

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but look at chaotic stupid's alignment. :smallwink:

i did choose this name for a reason :smallwink:

Vhaidara

2014-07-23, 01:15 PM

This build clearly isn't the ultimate anti-mage, because Monks with Vow of Poverty are. Having no equipment and no magical abilities means that spellcasters can't simply use AMF, dispel, or disjunction to screw with you, while your extra speeed lets you catch up and close distances. SR even means you can just watch all their puny spells bounce off of you while you come at them.

Of course. Didn't you know that when they say the Monk speed bonus applies to all movement modes, it means that a human's fly speed of 0 (perfect mobility) is also increased?

Wait, if that were true, how much would it help monks?

georgie_leech

2014-07-23, 01:26 PM

Of course. Didn't you know that when they say the Monk speed bonus applies to all movement modes, it means that a human's fly speed of 0 (perfect mobility) is also increased?

Wait, if that were true, how much would it help monks?

Total nerf, it makes their capstone ability to use Slow Fall for any distance useless.

Seppo87

2014-07-23, 01:30 PM

[COLOR="#0000FF"]Wait, if that were true, how much would it help monks?It would mek monks tier3

eggynack

2014-07-23, 01:35 PM

Irrelevant! Great, we can jujitsu positives and negatives into negatives and positives. Neither however removes the kernel of there being a negative element. It's a long stupid philosophical argument down that path, are you sure you want to take it? It doesn't much help your position that regardless as I do not believe you've proven that the common English definition wins the day.That's in fact one of the major areas under review. No proving your point by referencing your point Eggy :smalltongue:
The point is that your argument is that this condition list is a full list of all conditions, while the book says that it's just not one. In the only place where it lay claim to anything like completeness, it limited itself to negative conditions, which ruptures its capability as a complete list to apply to the inverse. You say that the list is complete, at least as of the writing of the book. The book says that it's not.

Now Feeblemind is much more interesting but that's not something that really helps your position as much as you've proposed, it explicitly labels something as a condition so it's a condition under the category established. The harder cases are "weather conditions" or "Planar Conditions" (at least if I recall offhand correctly that latter term is used in either the MoTP or Planar HB).
The main point is that we're working off of a core book, which means that the condition list was incomplete from even the moment that it was published. I don't think that's ever really a thing that's happened otherwise.

You're right, it's not well defined, but it does contain a list and other things, such as Feeblemind apparently, explicitly add the Condition tag to other, well, I don't know, Status? Are you familiar with W.T. Stace and his arguments for Compatabilism? Some great points of his and I think there's a bit of a relevance to our conversation in that if the logic following a scenario leads to ludicrous ends go check your definitions. I'm pretty sure the Sun being destroyed is a ludicrous end so we probably have a problem with the definitions.
I can't say that I am all that familiar with his work, but I hold that reductio ad absurdum arguments tend to lose a bit of their hold in rules arguments as this one, if that's the argument being made. I suppose it is feasible that there is another dictionary definition of condition that would disallow this though, so that position could work.

Well, there's my "I have a long commute to work" coffee deprived argument, how'd I do? :smalltongue:
Is alright, but I just don't feel like my main point here has been disproved. As far as I can tell, condition just isn't a game defined term, and there's no evidence that I can see that it is one. From there, I don't see what recourse we have other than the dictionary, especially because ToB doesn't directly reference the condition summary. Hell, I could probably get insanely far with IHS, only using things that are directly referenced as conditions in the books.

Oh, hey, look at that. There are terrain conditions. Now there aren't any. Oh no, my opponent's in a favorable condition as he attempts whatever. Now he isn't. Oh my, the lighting conditions put forth by the Sun are so painful to my eyes, and also impacting of how visible I am or whatever. Goodbye Sun. The process takes a bit more finagling, but you get more solid and difficult to argue against results, which is neat.

Snowbluff

2014-07-23, 01:39 PM

Isn't Feeblemind's duration instantaneous? IHS isn't a valid target.

Also, PRONGS!