My build (low TO realm? ish?)

[Immabozo]

First, I have to establish the template, please follow along.

Take a cheetah, throw on Paragon, Mage bred and War beast templates onto it. Sure, it is a unique monster now. But, it's diet is not changed, it is still an animal and a carnivore, which fits into the catagory of ANY carnivore.

Now, before I continue, I can already hear the responses "paragon gives +15 int, making it not an animal, but a magical beast!" Well, you would have a good point, except for two things. Every other template where that is the case, says "type: unchanged, animals become magical beasts". Not only does this one NOT say that, but it specifies "type: unchanged" and specific trumps general.

Now, we take that animal, and use it as a base for the afflicted (very important) Lycanthrope template, because, as I said, it fits into the broad category of any carnivore, and it is still an animal, so eligible to be the animal part of the template.

What is the LA and RHD of this creature? LA 2 and RHD 2. The LA for the templates placed on the cheetah is not transferred to the lycanthrope and RHD was only increased by 1!

Now, true, you could never take animal form because "Alter self cannot be used to assume the shape of a templated creature". But that is where the afflicted part comes in. Get hit enough to trigger a controled shape check. Voluntarily fail this check and you are forced into your animal form. Again, specific trumps general.

Now, you have the speed of the animal for, which looks like this:

Base speed: 50, Magebred +10, warbeast +10, paragon x3 = 210 + the cheetah's EX ability, which is retained through the template, to run at 10x base land speed = 2,100

Sandals of the light step grant +10 enhancement bonus to land speed, crystal of alacrity grants +5 horale bonus to movement speed, quickness psionic item enhancement +5 untyped bonus to movement, . A level in Barbarian grants +10 untyped bonus to movement speed, a 14 level Monk grants +40 movement speed (if we were just building for speed, wouldn't stack with Sandals of the light step), finally, the Quick trait adds +10 movement speed

So, maximum speed would be base 50, Magebred +10, warbeast +10, quick +10, paragon x3 = 240 + 10 ft barbarian, +40 ft monk, +5 crystal of alacrity, quickness +5, =300 + the cheetah's 10x ability = 3,000

This is much slower than my claims in another post, and in typing this out, I remember what my error in math was, I believe pointed out by Flickerdart, as memory serves, that I was multiplying all of the class and item bonuses by the Paragon's x3 speed modifier. I also think I was adding a "x2 for a full round movement action", but on second thought, I do believe that is replaced by the cheetah's 10x modifier, feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

So, the speed is about mach .5, but it is still fast!! I could be forgetting something, though.

Stats wise, the physical ability scores of the cheetah are:

Str 39, 16 base +15 paragon, +4 magebred, +3 war beast
Dex 36, 19 base, +15 paragon, +2 magebred
Con 35, 15 base, +15 paragon, +2 magebred, +3 war beast
NA 7 and paragon grants +12 insight and +12 luck bonus to AC, the template is unclear if these are retained, because this is a very strange use of the template.

Now, if I were to make a build of this, it would look something like this.

Human Warblade 17 Magebred Warbeast paragon cheetah Lycanthrope LA 2, RHD 2, ECL 21

Feats: speed of thought (+10 movement speed while psionically focused)

Stats (32 point buy)
Str 42, 14 base, +28 lycanthrope
Dex 34, 8 base, +26 lycanthrope
Con 32, 8 base, +24 lycanthrope
Int 23, 18 +5 level
Wis 16, 14 +2 lycanthrope
Cha 12

Items:
Sandals of the light step, +10 enhancement bonus to land speed,
crystal of alacrity in a helm, +5 morale bonus to movement speed,
quickness on a shield, +5 untyped bonus to movement speed,

speed: 300

+72 jump modifier

Maneuver Swooping Dragon Strike DC between 73 and 92 fort save or stun (and can stun lock someone)
Maneuver Feral Death blow Fort save DC 35 or die (that's not very TO worthy at all! I am afraid it is strength based, not based on jump check)

[Karl Aegis]

Small nitpick: the cheetah's ability only works on a charge and a charge needs line of sight. I assume you have some way of spotting something at least 2000 feet away.

[Immabozo]

Small nitpick: the cheetah's ability only works on a charge and a charge needs line of sight. I assume you have some way of spotting something at least 2000 feet away.

There certainly are ways of doing that, I think? There is a lot in the build left open, perhaps just obsurd spot modifiers?

[AvatarVecna]

Firstly, your argument for how you get into your animal form is debatable at best; you're assuming that a rule applying to literally all lycanthropes (if you fail the check, you're forced into your animal form) is more specific than a rule that only applies to lycanthropes with animal forms that have templates (that you can't ever turn into your animal form). The debate is definitely there.

I'm not entirely sure how relevant it is, but the Paragon template would have to be updated to 3.5 to be used (it's 3.0, making it legal, but there's rules for using 3.0 rules in 3.5 that don't have LA, which basically amount to "give it LA". Once you do that, it's ECL is going to skyrocket; since you're using it as the lycanthrope animal form, I'm not sure what effect this should have on the final build. At the very least, even if you can essentially get the paragon template for free, you shouldn't.

[Swaoeaeieu]

not familiar with lycantrope, but can you still wear items when you turn into a cheetah?

Also, it seems weird to me you can turn into a templated beast when attacked but not at will. All in all, using a templated lycantrope seems a bit cheezy, but i don't know the rules on this

[Immabozo]

Firstly, your argument for how you get into your animal form is debatable at best; you're assuming that a rule applying to literally all lycanthropes (if you fail the check, you're forced into your animal form) is more specific than a rule that only applies to lycanthropes with animal forms that have templates (that you can't ever turn into your animal form). The debate is definitely there.

I'm not entirely sure how relevant it is, but the Paragon template would have to be updated to 3.5 to be used (it's 3.0, making it legal, but there's rules for using 3.0 rules in 3.5 that don't have LA, which basically amount to "give it LA". Once you do that, it's ECL is going to skyrocket; since you're using it as the lycanthrope animal form, I'm not sure what effect this should have on the final build. At the very least, even if you can essentially get the paragon template for free, you shouldn't.

The specific is that when you take damage, you have to make a controlled shape check check or be forced into your animal form. That is pretty specific. More specific than "Alter Self cannot be used to assume a templated creature", which is very generalized.

As far as LA, it does have LA, Paragon confers a +15 LA. Lycanthrope template does not confer that LA through to the character, only the RHD, which are unaffected by the template.

And what part of TO is "this is over powered and you shouldn't do it"> that is not a valid argument for TO.


not familiar with lycantrope, but can you still wear items when you turn into a cheetah?

Also, it seems weird to me you can turn into a templated beast when attacked but not at will. All in all, using a templated lycantrope seems a bit cheezy, but i don't know the rules on this

a wilding clasp can easily be gotten for each piece of equipment, to keep it through shapeshifting.

The rules say what they say. You cannot use the ability to turn into a templated creature, but if you take damage, you are forced to make a check or be forced into the animal form.

RAW can be very silly and unintuitive. But that is RAW for you.

EDIT: Is it cheesy? yes. But it is rules legal.

[ben-zayb]

a wilding clasp can easily be gotten for each piece of equipment, to keep it through shapeshifting.

RAW can be very silly and unintuitive. But that is RAW for you.

EDIT: Is it cheesy? yes. But it is rules legal.Wilding Clasp specifically works only on Wild Shape.

As to the validity, I'll leave the rest of the nitty gritty details to the playground's less lazy posters, but I can see a problem concerning:
1. The logic where Dominate effects can also be used if this is a valid reading
2. Even if the reading was valid, you have a dilemma on how the [proto [afflicted [were-[cheetah paragon]]]] got afflicted in the first place, because the means of acquiring Lycanthrope are limited to two very specific circumstance and the first category can't ever afflict their curse due to not being capable of making involuntary transformations.

EDIT: inb4 "pun pun makes the first afflicted were cheetah paragon", because if we use that as a standard, you might as well ditch all known RAW and play the game however you see fit.

[AvatarVecna]

The specific is that when you take damage, you have to make a controlled shape check check or be forced into your animal form. That is pretty specific. More specific than "Alter Self cannot be used to assume a templated creature", which is very generalized.

As far as LA, it does have LA, Paragon confers a +15 LA. Lycanthrope template does not confer that LA through to the character, only the RHD, which are unaffected by the template.

And what part of TO is "this is over powered and you shouldn't do it"> that is not a valid argument for TO.Is it cheesy? yes. But it is rules legal.

1. Once again, I'm not saying that one rule or the other is more specific, only that there's too much room for a debate on the subject to just declare that this works; you say that the situational nature of the forced transformation is more specific a rule than not being able to transform into a templated creature, I say that a rule governing all lycanthropes (the "forced change" rule) is less specific than the rule that only applies to some lycanthropes (the "no templated creatures" rule). My point is that this isn't particularly clear-cut, and there's room for debate...and when the RAW only debatably supports TO, the TO is flawed. For example, Chain-Gating Solars or Efreeti is clearly rules-legal, with no wiggle room and no real argument other than "it shouldn't work", and the nature of its iron-clad RAW is what makes it TO. This case has an argument about general vs. specific rules.

2. I never said that the LA transfers through by RAW, but that's because RAW assumes that there's no need to say it transfers through, since animals don't have LA, and you can't turn into templated creatures. It's dependent on the argument above, as is most everything else about this idea. If it works the way you're insisting it works, then it's definitely TO; if it's not, then it's not.

[Uncle Pine]

- build -
First of all, the lycanthrope template doesn't work like that: a lycanthrope cannot assume a templated form. That's an absolute sentence. If being delt damage would force an afflicted lycanthrope to assume a form that is not available to her, she doesn't assume that form.

Also, sandals of the light step and the quickness special property both grant enhancement bonus to your speed, so they don't stack.

Anyway, this thing is built to run really fast and stunlock a single opponent? Then it's a bit inefficient: a simple Cleric of Fharlanghn 14/Warblade 6 can run faster than that.
Relevant feats: Reserves of Strength, Elder Giant Magic, Practiced Spellcaster, Dash, Fleet of Foot (PgtF), Extend Spell.
Relevant items: bead of karma (DMG), orange ioun stone (DMG), sandals of the light step (MIC), crystal of alacrity (MIC), rapid wrath (Ghostwalk)
Quick trait.

- Base 40 ft. (nezumi or any other LA +0 race, catfolks have base 50 ft. if LA-buyoff is available).
- +10 ft. (Fleet of Foot), +5 ft. (Dash), +10 ft. (sandals of the light step), +5 ft. (crystal of alacrity), +10 ft. (quick) = base 80 ft.
- With a base CL of 23 (14 base + 4 Practiced Spellcaster + 4 bead of karma + 1 orange ioun stone), the Cleric can cast a Consumptive Field with a CL of 29 (thanks to Reserves of Strength and Elder Giant Magic) to bring his base CL to 43 (29+14) before casting Greater Consumptive Field (using Reserves of Strength and Elder Giant Magic) to bring his base CL to 73 (49+24). Note that she could loop the two spells forever, but let's not do that.
- The Cleric casts an extended Footsteps of the Divine (using Reserves of Strength and Elder Giant Magic as usual) with a total CL of 79. Because she worship Fharlanghn, her base speed is now 130 ft.
- On the next round, she discharges the remaining 157 rounds of Footsteps of the Divine to get +1.570 ft. speed.
- Total speed: 1.800 ft. Rapid wrath doubles that to 3.600 ft (+1428 bonus to her Jump checks).

If you need to do that multiple times in a row to stunlock the opponent, add DMM, Quicken Spell (plus flaws) and nightsticks to taste to cast and discharge FotD in the same round, while you attack with Swooping Dragon Strike.
Note that even then you'd need a way to get an extra standard action or turn/round to recharge Swooping Dragon Strike: without that, the above build can only stun the opponent every other round. Your build has the same problem. Copiosus use of belts of battle and/or White Raven Tactics from a teammate solves the issue.

EDIT: I'm sure there are better ways to optimize speed, this is just an example.

[Urpriest]

The Tauric version of this trick works better.

[ZamielVanWeber]

A paragon animal is typeless. The animal type requires you have int 1-2; if your int is 3 or greater you cannot be an animal. Since paragon boosts your Int over 2 without changing your type the rules implode and you end up being a typeless creature with animal HD.

[Immabozo]

Wilding Clasp specifically works only on Wild Shape.

As to the validity, I'll leave the rest of the nitty gritty details to the playground's less lazy posters, but I can see a problem concerning:
1. The logic where Dominate effects can also be used if this is a valid reading
2. Even if the reading was valid, you have a dilemma on how the [proto [afflicted [were-[cheetah paragon]]]] got afflicted in the first place, because the means of acquiring Lycanthrope are limited to two very specific circumstance and the first category can't ever afflict their curse due to not being capable of making involuntary transformations.

EDIT: inb4 "pun pun makes the first afflicted were cheetah paragon", because if we use that as a standard, you might as well ditch all known RAW and play the game however you see fit.

I am not sure what dominate has to do with this, but you can just create a lycanthrope with the disease already. That is RAW. So your argument, while valid, is not based on RAW.

As far as wilding clasp goes, got it. There are other ways.


1. Once again, I'm not saying that one rule or the other is more specific, only that there's too much room for a debate on the subject to just declare that this works; you say that the situational nature of the forced transformation is more specific a rule than not being able to transform into a templated creature, I say that a rule governing all lycanthropes (the "forced change" rule) is less specific than the rule that only applies to some lycanthropes (the "no templated creatures" rule). My point is that this isn't particularly clear-cut, and there's room for debate...and when the RAW only debatably supports TO, the TO is flawed. For example, Chain-Gating Solars or Efreeti is clearly rules-legal, with no wiggle room and no real argument other than "it shouldn't work", and the nature of its iron-clad RAW is what makes it TO. This case has an argument about general vs. specific rules.

2. I never said that the LA transfers through by RAW, but that's because RAW assumes that there's no need to say it transfers through, since animals don't have LA, and you can't turn into templated creatures. It's dependent on the argument above, as is most everything else about this idea. If it works the way you're insisting it works, then it's definitely TO; if it's not, then it's not.

A rule governing not only all lycanthropes, but all effects, such as polymorph, that are Alter Self based effects, cannot ne used to take the shape of a templated creature. This effects all lycanthropes, the Metaporphasis power, Alter Self, PAO, and several other spells, and I am sure other effects I am not currently aware of. That is a general rule. Saying this is specific is like saying a nuclear blast killed specifically one person just because he was hit with it.

the RAW of the template is the RAW and according to the RAW, LA is +2 for afflicted lycanthropes and +3 for natural and that is it. Your arguement about "There should be RAW in this area, because it is counter intuitive" is flawed in and of itself. Every TO build has that. Every single one.


First of all, the lycanthrope template doesn't work like that: a lycanthrope cannot assume a templated form. That's an absolute sentence. If being delt damage would force an afflicted lycanthrope to assume a form that is not available to her, she doesn't assume that form.

Also, sandals of the light step and the quickness special property both grant enhancement bonus to your speed, so they don't stack.

-your build-

Correct me if I am wrong, but the build you are quoting, is another's TO build that can go NI speed, right? You are right, there are more effective ways to do it, but I like this one because this one is entirely of my invention.

As far as your first argument, you have two rules, a general rule that Alter Self based abilities cannot be used to assume a templated form, and then a very specific rule of "When an afflicted Lycanthrope sustains X damage, they must make a controlled shape check or forced into their animal form." that is more specific, and, there is nothing that says that the paragon magebred warbeat cheetah is NOT the animal form. It is forced into his animal form in this instance.

Because a specific rule to the situation trump general game-state rules. That fact is RAW.


The Tauric version of this trick works better.

You know, you may be absolutely correct, I'd have to read tauric again.

EDIT:
A paragon animal is typeless. The animal type requires you have int 1-2; if your int is 3 or greater you cannot be an animal. Since paragon boosts your Int over 2 without changing your type the rules implode and you end up being a typeless creature with animal HD.

How is this argument based in and RAW at all? You cannot be a typeless creature.

and I posted the counter argument in the OP


Now, before I continue, I can already hear the responses "paragon gives +15 int, making it not an animal, but a magical beast!" Well, you would have a good point, except for two things. Every other template where that is the case, says "type: unchanged, animals become magical beasts". Not only does this one NOT say that, but it specifies "type: unchanged" and specific trumps general.

Since the type is unchanged by the template, and Int above 2 would change the type, as the template says, the type is unchanged, and animals have a max of 2 intelligence. I think it is Magebred, also says that it always has an intelligence of 2, if that makes you feel better about it.

[jiriku]

Let's make an important general point about TO as we look at this. Good theoretical optimization assumes a permissive DM, one who interprets the rules in a reasonable, intelligent way but is not concerned about game balance, does not have house rules, and does not use rule zero. Good TO also understands that RAW is frequently vague or unclear, and prefers intuitive, common-sense interpretations when interpretation is required. Bad theoretical optimization assumes that the DM does not exist or that the player has DM-level authority in the game. Bad theoretical optimization does not mind relying on debatable, non-intuitive or tortured reasoning when interpreting RAW.

Can we all get behind this idea?

[ZamielVanWeber]

How is this argument based in and RAW at all? You cannot be a typeless creature.

and I posted the counter argument in the OP

Since the type is unchanged by the template, and Int above 2 would change the type, as the template says, the type is unchanged, and animals have a max of 2 intelligence. I think it is Magebred, also says that it always has an intelligence of 2, if that makes you feel better about it.

You countered the argument that they become magical beasts. That is correct, they do not. Let us look at the animal type here. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#animal) Notice it says "no creatures with an intelligence score 3 or greater can be an animal." Nothing about paragon bypasses that sentence. Since its type is unchanged and its type cannot be animal, it becomes typeless. This is a known dysfunction.

Also magebred won't fix it. Since templates are applied one at a time, you either apply psuedonatural first at which point you lose animal type and cannot be magebred or you apply magebred first and it loses animal type when it becomes psuedonatural.

[Jormengand]

Since its type is unchanged and its type cannot be animal,

It defaults to being animal (Paragon template, specific) rather than typeless (Animal rules, general).

[ZamielVanWeber]

It defaults to being animal (Paragon template, specific) rather than typeless (Animal rules, general).

The paragon template doesn't say "its type remains animal regardless." There is no specific rule here at all except that paragon doesn't change type. Paragon isn't. Animal changes the type.

[Jormengand]

The paragon template doesn't say "its type remains animal regardless." There is no specific rule here at all except that paragon doesn't change type. Paragon isn't. Animal changes the type.

But paragon is the one adding the 15 INT.

Paragon doesn't change type.
Paragon adds 15 INT.
Therefore adding 15 INT doesn't change type.

[ZamielVanWeber]

But paragon is the one adding the 15 INT.

Paragon doesn't change type.
Paragon adds 15 INT.
Therefore adding 15 INT doesn't change type.

Paragon doesn't change type. So the type remains animal. Then when we are done the rules are going to see an int 16-17 animal. Animal rules say that is impossible and nothing else is saying anything else and it becomes typeless. Paragon does not have a clause to retain animal in perpetuity.

[Jormengand]

Paragon doesn't change type. So the type remains animal. Then when we are done

There is no "When we are done." Either adding the Paragon template changes your type or it doesn't. It specifically doesn't, so nothing done by the Paragon template can ever change your type.

[ZamielVanWeber]

There is no "When we are done." Either adding the Paragon template changes your type or it doesn't. It specifically doesn't, so nothing done by the Paragon template can ever change your type.

Paragon does nothing to ignore the rule "animals cannot have an int of 3 or greater." That is not suddenly gone from existence by applying paragon.

[Honest Tiefling]

I'm new to TO, but wouldn't it be logical to assume that if one's animal form cannot be a creature with a template, when one is forced into that form, it is the unaltered version of the creature? Else it would seem that the character has no animal form to be forced into and would just be forced into...Well, being nothing.

[Jormengand]

Paragon does nothing to ignore the rule "animals cannot have an int of 3 or greater."

Yes it does. It both adds 15 INT, and specifically doesn't change your type. Therefore it allows you to be an animal with a higher int.

[jiriku]

I think there's a more reasonable interpretation here. Paragon can be applied to any creature, but increases Int by 15. Animals must have Int<3. These two rules are mutually incompatible, thus constituting an implicit injunction against creating paragon animals. The paragon template cannot be applied to animals -- not because it explicitly states so, but because applying it would create an illegal combination (an animal with 16-17 Int). Alternatively, a second reasonable interpretation would be to to treat the resulting creature as a magical beast -- nearly all templates and rules that increase the Int of an animal also change its type to magical beast, and it is reasonable to assume that failing to address this situation was an accidental omission of the paragon template description. Note that fixing the perceived omission does take us into houserules territory and therefore out of TO and into PO. However, since a paragon creature is supposed to exemplify its type, not belong to a different type altogether, I think both interpretations are viable. The third option, of getting an animal with a 16 Int, doesn't seem at all reasonable to me, and is venturing much too far into "it doesn't say you can't" territory.

[Jormengand]

The third option, of getting an animal with a 16 Int, doesn't seem at all reasonable to me, and is venturing much too far into "it doesn't say you can't" territory.

No, it's in "It specifies that you can" territory.

There are four possibilities:

You can't apply it. (Unlikely - "“Paragon” is a template that can be added to any creature (referred to hereafter as the base creature").
You get a paragon animal. (Likely - "The base creature’s type remains unchanged. The paragon creature uses all the base creature’s statistics and special abilities except as noted here.")
You get a paragon magical beast. (Possible - "no creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher can be an animal" but "The base creature’s type remains unchanged. The paragon creature uses all the base creature’s statistics and special abilities except as noted here. "
You get a paragon missingno with animal HD. (Unlikely - "The size and type line continues with the creature’s type. Type determines how magic affects a creature. Type determines certain features, such as Hit Dice size, base attack bonus, base saving throw bonuses, and skill points. ")

This is why I assume that paragonning it doesn't change its type.

[jiriku]

You get a paragon animal. (Likely - "The base creature’s type remains unchanged. The paragon creature uses all the base creature’s statistics and special abilities except as noted here.")

I see where you're coming from. But you're getting there by assuming that the text in the paragon template matters while the text in the animal type doesn't. That's no bueno. You absolutely can apply the paragon template to an animal, and you absolutely cannot have a paragon animal because its Int is too high. There's a contradiction here, and we must resolve it in order to have a paragon animal. If we can't resolve it, then we do not have a paragon animal -- we have a dysfunctional rule which requires a house rule.

Now, to resolve it, we can use a general versus specific argument or a sourcebook primacy argument. To my eye, neither of those arguments looks especially compelling for or against. We can also use the "choose the interpretation that doesn't break the game" argument, and that's definitely a strong argument against. Do you have a better argument to put forward than any of those three?

[Jormengand]

I see where you're coming from. But you're getting there by assuming that the text in the paragon template matters while the text in the animal type doesn't. That's no bueno. You absolutely can apply the paragon template to an animal, and you absolutely cannot have a paragon animal because its Int is too high. There's a contradiction here, and we must resolve it in order to have a paragon animal. If we can't resolve it, then we do not have a paragon animal -- we have a dysfunctional rule which requires a house rule.

Now, to resolve it, we can use a general versus specific argument or a sourcebook primacy argument. To my eye, neither of those arguments looks especially compelling for or against. We can also use the "choose the interpretation that doesn't break the game" argument, and that's definitely a strong argument against. Do you have a better argument to put forward than any of those three?

Why is the general (Animals) vs specific (Animals that have the paragon creature subtype) argument not convincing?

And how are animals with high INT values any more dysfunctional than Negative Energy Affinity (which causes you to be a humanoid (or whatever) that is healed by negative energy, even though humanoids don't normally do that? Or, I believe there's a way of getting the inverse on an undead, is that dysfunctional because it contradicts rules on being an undead?

[ben-zayb]

I am not sure what dominate has to do with this, but you can just create a lycanthrope with the disease already. That is RAW. So your argument, while valid, is not based on RAW.It's very much based on RAW, because the rules-valid means of acquiring templates are cut and dry. So unless you can prove by RAW how every single part of your build are RAW-valid, which in this case is how are you getting an afflicted lycanthrope to bite you in the first place, then what you have is a RAW illegal build that relies on a houserule/handwave/DM fiat that afflicted were-paragons already exist without RAW backing the fact up.


As to the point of Dominate, at the caster's will, it could be used to force the lycanthrope [were <animal> paragon] into using a standard action to change form. And voila, you get involuntary change! Those are dictionary definitions, of course, unless you can direct me to an official involuntary or trigger terminology in D&D, in which case those'll be the one we'll use.
Changing form is a standard action. If the change is involuntary, the character performs the change on his next turn following the triggering event. An afflicted character who is not aware of his condition remains in animal form until the next dawn. An afflicted character who is aware of his or her condition (see above) can try to resume humanoid form following a change (voluntary or involuntary) with a Control Shape check, but if he fails his check, he remains in animal (or hybrid) form until the following dawn.No apparent distinction on "different kinds of involuntary action" here. RAW is fun like that.

[jiriku]

Why is the general (Animals) vs specific (Animals that have the paragon creature subtype) argument not convincing?

As I see it, we have general (definition of an animal, with no consideration for interaction with templates) and general (description of a template, with no consideration for interaction with specific creature types). Both seem equally general to me, and neither anticipates or acknowledges the contradiction at hand. Specific would be something that like the text in the fiendish templates, which specifically considers the special case of a fiendish animal and provides guidance for how the rules work in that specific circumstance. Observe that the fiendish template does resolve the contradiction.

Really, my take on this is simply that the writer of the paragon template wasn't thinking about rules minutiae when he wrote the template, and probably didn't even realize that the contradiction existed. I think inferring the need to change the templated creature's type to magical beast is the most reasonable solution to the paradox, but by doing this I'm inserting house rules to fix a rules discontinuity.

[Immabozo]

Let's make an important general point about TO as we look at this. Good theoretical optimization assumes a permissive DM, one who interprets the rules in a reasonable, intelligent way but is not concerned about game balance, does not have house rules, and does not use rule zero. Good TO also understands that RAW is frequently vague or unclear, and prefers intuitive, common-sense interpretations when interpretation is required. Bad theoretical optimization assumes that the DM does not exist or that the player has DM-level authority in the game. Bad theoretical optimization does not mind relying on debatable, non-intuitive or tortured reasoning when interpreting RAW.

Can we all get behind this idea?

TO assumes strict RAW, or at least that is my understanding. Am I wrong? Perhaps I am. What is the term for a theoretical, strictly RAW build?


You countered the argument that they become magical beasts. That is correct, they do not. Let us look at the animal type here. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#animal) Notice it says "no creatures with an intelligence score 3 or greater can be an animal." Nothing about paragon bypasses that sentence. Since its type is unchanged and its type cannot be animal, it becomes typeless. This is a known dysfunction.

Also magebred won't fix it. Since templates are applied one at a time, you either apply psuedonatural first at which point you lose animal type and cannot be magebred or you apply magebred first and it loses animal type when it becomes psuedonatural.

You are correct, it may indeed be a dysfunction.

But if you apply Magebred, the creature now has a static rule line saying "A magebred animal always has an Intelligence score of 2" and then the paragon template is add, and it's int cannot be raised above 2 because of the above. I also took a, perhaps incorrect, view point of Paragon does not change type, raising int above 2 would change type, since type is not unchanged, due to game rules, int cannot be raised above 2. It may be wrong, but that was my thought process.

Also, I am not using pseudonatural, since it without a doubt, changes type. Paragon is a very different template.


There is no "When we are done." Either adding the Paragon template changes your type or it doesn't. It specifically doesn't, so nothing done by the Paragon template can ever change your type.

please see above


I'm new to TO, but wouldn't it be logical to assume that if one's animal form cannot be a creature with a template, when one is forced into that form, it is the unaltered version of the creature? Else it would seem that the character has no animal form to be forced into and would just be forced into...Well, being nothing.

The thing is, the animal is, unarguably, templated. That is just who the animal form is. If it forces you into the animal form, it does just that, anything else is DM fiat.


It's very much based on RAW, because the rules-valid means of acquiring templates are cut and dry. So unless you can prove by RAW how every single part of your build are RAW-valid, which in this case is how are you getting an afflicted lycanthrope to bite you in the first place, then what you have is a RAW illegal build that relies on a houserule/handwave/DM fiat that afflicted were-paragons already exist without RAW backing the fact up.

As to the point of Dominate, at the caster's will, it could be used to force the lycanthrope [were <animal> paragon] into using a standard action to change form. And voila, you get involuntary change! Those are dictionary definitions, of course, unless you can direct me to an official involuntary or trigger terminology in D&D, in which case those'll be the one we'll use.No apparent distinction on "different kinds of involuntary action" here. RAW is fun like that.

no, you are confusing fluff with RAW. Although, yes, it depends on the circumstances somewhat, but there is RAW for creating a character as an afflicted lycanthrope and is afflicted from level 1 before the game start. So the story of how that came to pass, suddenly becomes fluff. This is not a house rule, it is not DM fiat, it is not a "handwave" it is page 175 of MM I under "creating a lycanthrope" and it contains no such caveat.

And I am thoroughly capable of writing such a story.

As for as dominate goes, I am now picking up what you are putting down, I am smelling what you are stepping in, I am reaping what you are sowing, I am catching what you are throwing, I am eating what you're serving. I look at forced afflicted controlled shape checks because it contains the very specific line for being forced into your animal form. Not that other sources of achieving the same effect can work or are not as effective, or lack thereof, but this method also does not rely on the help of another.

EDIT:


As I see it, we have general (definition of an animal, with no consideration for interaction with templates) and general (description of a template, with no consideration for interaction with specific creature types). Both seem equally general to me, and neither anticipates or acknowledges the contradiction at hand. Specific would be something that like the text in the fiendish templates, which specifically considers the special case of a fiendish animal and provides guidance for how the rules work in that specific circumstance. Observe that the fiendish template does resolve the contradiction.

Really, my take on this is simply that the writer of the paragon template wasn't thinking about rules minutiae when he wrote the template, and probably didn't even realize that the contradiction existed. I think inferring the need to change the templated creature's type to magical beast is the most reasonable solution to the paradox, but by doing this I'm inserting house rules to fix a rules discontinuity.

Animal cannot have an int greater than 2, this is a general rule.
Paragon can be applied to any creature and type remains unchanged, this is a general rule.
Paragon raises int higher than 2, that is rather specific
but paragon does not change type, which raising the int would do. Yes, specific trumps general, but I have more to say.
As I said before, Magebred says "a magebred animal always has an Intelligence score of 2" that is rather specific and a rule applied to the creature before paragon
Since animal type cannot have greater than 2 int, magebred cannot have an int value different than 2 AND adding paragon specifies that type remains unchanged, the animals int is 2 any type is unchanged.

in many, many other templates, under type, it will have an entry "Type: unchanged, animals become magical beasts" these few templates were specifically picked because they are among a ver few templates that leave an animal, an animal in type

Edit #2: jiriku, your house rule is just that, a house rule, and not valid in a RAW discussion

[Karl Aegis]

The magical beast type did not exist when the paragon template was printed.

Now I'm wondering what exactly happened to the beast type somewhere between Monster Manual II and the Epic Level Handbook.

[Immabozo]

The magical beast type did not exist when the paragon template was printed.

The entry in ELH immediately after the Paragon template is a magical beast. So I dont think that is so.

[jiriku]

TO assumes strict RAW, or at least that is my understanding. Am I wrong? Perhaps I am. What is the term for a theoretical, strictly RAW build?

I don't know that there is a term better than "theoretical strictly RAW build". If you want to confine yourself to that conception, ok, but IMO such a restraint hamstrings your idea even worse: the moment RAW becomes unclear or conflicted, you hit a dead stop and cannot continue, because you aren't permitting yourself any wiggle room to apply even a very reasonable interpretation to clarify ambiguities.


Animal cannot have an int greater than 2, this is a general rule.
Paragon can be applied to any creature and type remains unchanged, this is a general rule.


Paragon raises int higher than 2, that is rather specific

I disagree, and I feel that you're conflating "exact" with "specific". By way of example: The paragon template is a general set of rules for creating a paragon creature. "Gains +15 to all ability scores" is exact, but it is still general -- it is part of the general instruction set for creating a paragon creature. The example creature, a paragon mind flayer, is specific -- it shows what a particular application of the template would look like. The rules for how fiendish animals change type are also specific -- they indicate what happens in the instance where "fiendish template" interacts with "animal type". "Maximum Int of 2" in the animal definition is also exact, but general.

Moreover, if we're having to vigorously debate the usage of common English words in order to come to a consensus, that should be a big red warning sign that we're on very shaky ground. Elegant, well-substantiated builds are the sort that reasonable people will look at and immediately say "oh how clever". If you have to parse your words like an election-year politician to win support for your build, then the build might benefit from some more refinement.


As I said before, Magebred says "a magebred animal always has an Intelligence score of 2" that is rather specific and a rule applied to the creature before paragon
Since animal type cannot have greater than 2 int, magebred cannot have an int value different than 2 AND adding paragon specifies that type remains unchanged, the animals int is 2 any type is unchanged.

This just leads you down a rabbit hole, though. Animal says "maximum of 2", Magebred says "set to 2", and Paragon says "gains +15". Now you must explain why Magebred overrides Paragon and not the other way around. I'm not sure that doing so is going to be any easier to sell than your original argument.


in many, many other templates, under type, it will have an entry "Type: unchanged, animals become magical beasts" these few templates were specifically picked because they are among a ver few templates that leave an animal, an animal in type

Before Karl posted, I probably would have conceded this point to you. Karl had a great point, though -- paragon is a 3.0 template and the magical beast type originated in 3.5; many templates in 3.0 were revised in 3.5 to change type from animal to magical beast. Again, I'm not saying you don't have a build. I'm saying you have a very shaky build that depends on dubious interpretations of 3.0 material that wasn't adequately revised to the 3.5 standard. And here, we're only looking at this one point of applying the paragon template. There are other worms in the build that others are debating with you. I just have a feeling that someone with comprehensive rules mastery like yourself could find a more elegant and less contentious method for getting from point A to point B.

You make a good point about magical beasts being present in the ELH so I'll retract my first statement here. I still stand by the belief, however, that you can make a cleaner build than this.


Edit #2: jiriku, your house rule is just that, a house rule, and not valid in a RAW discussion

You are correct and that was my point.


The magical beast type did not exist when the paragon template was printed.

Ding ding ding ding ding! WE HAVE A WINNER. Very good point. This explains the lack of correction for the contradiction. With this in mind, I'd double down on the "converts to magical beast" interpretation.

[ben-zayb]

no, you are confusing fluff with RAW. Although, yes, it depends on the circumstances somewhat, but there is RAW for creating a character as an afflicted lycanthrope and is afflicted from level 1 before the game start. So the story of how that came to pass, suddenly becomes fluff. This is not a house rule, it is not DM fiat, it is not a "handwave" it is page 175 of MM I under "creating a lycanthrope" and it contains no such caveat.Yup, the trick doesn't work because exactly of the "Creating a lycanthrope" rule coupled with the "Lycanthropy As An Affliction". Here, kindly read what's the RAW:
Curse of Lycanthropy (Su)
Any humanoid or giant hit by a natural lycanthrope’s bite attack in animal or hybrid form must succeed on a DC 15 Fortitude save or contract lycanthropy. If the victim’s size is not within one size category of the lycanthrope the victim cannot contract lycanthropy from that lycanthrope. Afflicted lycanthropes cannot pass on the curse of lycanthropy.

When a character contracts lycanthropy through a lycanthrope’s bite (see above)
What we have here, as cut and dry RAW, is the fact that you're only chance of acquiring lycanthropy is if a natural lycanthrope managed to assume its Hybrid Form or Animal Form to bite you. Unfortunately, the RAW also clearly states that only afflicted lycanthropes go bananas, and then transform, under the full moon or whenever hurt. Ergo, the proposed method is illegal based on RAW.

But as I said, feel free to houserule or fiat were-paragons if that's makes the players in your table enjoy the game more.

[AvatarVecna]

The entry in ELH immediately after the Paragon template is a magical beast. So I dont think that is so.

I think this is less "the designers intended for paragon animals to remain animals" and more "the designers forgot to include the usual line on becoming magical beasts". It's sort of RAI (unless there's some errata), but it would be the kind of correction of intentions that isn't so much the designers trying to stop a trick from working as much as fixing their editing errors.

Also, ben-zayb's point is legit: even if this was legal once you had the template, it's still illegal by RAW to become afflicted with paragon-lycanthropy.

[Immabozo]

I don't know that there is a term better than "theoretical strictly RAW build". If you want to confine yourself to that conception, ok, but IMO such a restraint hamstrings your idea even worse: the moment RAW becomes unclear or conflicted, you hit a dead stop and cannot continue, because you aren't permitting yourself any wiggle room to apply even a very reasonable interpretation to clarify ambiguities.

very well, I concede that you may be right here.


I disagree, and I feel that you're conflating "exact" with "specific". By way of example: The paragon template is a general set of rules for creating a paragon creature. "Gains +15 to all ability scores" is exact, but it is still general -- it is part of the general instruction set for creating a paragon creature. The example creature, a paragon mind flayer, is specific -- it shows what a particular application of the template would look like. The rules for how fiendish animals change type are also specific-- they indicate what happens in the instance where "fiendish template" interacts with "animal type". "Maximum Int of 2" in the animal definition is also exact, but general.

Moreover, if we're having to vigorously debate the usage of common English words in order to come to a consensus, that should be a big red warning sign that we're on very shaky ground. Elegant, well-substantiated builds are the sort that reasonable people will look at and immediately say "oh how clever". If you have to parse your words like an election-year politician to win support for your build, then the build might benefit from some more refinement.

While=e you are correct, relying on using a large dictionary to say "LOOS AT THIS DEFINITION!" is a good sign of shakey ground, I do not think that is the case here.

And you are confusing English language terms with the terms of the game. Exact, as you use it, has no rules based definition. It is either general, or specific. "All of X can/cannot do Y" is general. "If X put in Z condition, he is forced to make a save of be forced into Y" is specific and trumps "X cannot do Y" rule.

"This template does not change type" is specific to that template. Very specific. Does that mean it has to be a unique case it is talking about? No. But it is none the less specific, in game terms.


This just leads you down a rabbit hole, though. Animal says "maximum of 2", Magebred says "set to 2", and Paragon says "gains +15". Now you must explain why Magebred overrides Paragon and not the other way around. I'm not sure that doing so is going to be any easier to sell than your original argument.

Animals cannot have more than 2 int
This animal's int is always 2
This template does not change type
gain + 15 Int
These rules do not contradict each other like you suggest. They actually play just fine together. The first three mesh just fine. Now, if you add 15, to 2, with a cap of 2, your int remains 2, even after the addition of the int. There is no clash in those rules. The cap was put in place before the +15 int.


I just have a feeling that someone with comprehensive rules mastery like yourself could find a more elegant and less contentious method for getting from point A to point B.


You make a good point about magical beasts being present in the ELH so I'll retract my first statement here. I still stand by the belief, however, that you can make a cleaner build than this.

While I absolutely could make a more effective character, I feel this method of "super speed" is the only original idea on the topic I have thus far come up with. That doesn't mean it can't be done better, I only am attached to this one because I have never seen anything like it that another has come up with.

And thank you. I certainly have a few more effective builds I have been toying with. But none have a printed on the character sheet land speed anything close to this one. And the whole point of this one was simply speed. Although I could try to build it cleaner.

[QUOTE=jiriku;19460358]You are correct and that was my point.

touche


Yup, the trick doesn't work because exactly of the "Creating a lycanthrope" rule coupled with the "Lycanthropy As An Affliction". Here, kindly read what's the RAW:

What we have here, as cut and dry RAW, is the fact that you're only chance of acquiring lycanthropy is if a natural lycanthrope managed to assume its Hybrid Form or Animal Form to bite you. Unfortunately, the RAW also clearly states that only afflicted lycanthropes go bananas, and then transform, under the full moon or whenever hurt. Ergo, the proposed method is illegal based on RAW.

But as I said, feel free to houserule or fiat were-paragons if that's makes the players in your table enjoy the game more.

There is nothing in that that says a character cannot be created to already have been bitten. RAW says a character that is already afflicted can be created. And if your point is that the natural form could never take animal form to bite me, you are correct. But it could take hibrid form.

(even though all lycanthropes are templated and thus could never assume either animal or hybrid, but that is just a funny dysfunction)


I think this is less "the designers intended for paragon animals to remain animals" and more "the designers forgot to include the usual line on becoming magical beasts". It's sort of RAI (unless there's some errata), but it would be the kind of correction of intentions that isn't so much the designers trying to stop a trick from working as much as fixing their editing errors.

Also, ben-zayb's point is legit: even if this was legal once you had the template, it's still illegal by RAW to become afflicted with paragon-lycanthropy.

RAI, maybe. But I could argue that it was intentional to make it possible to make a paragon tiger that is still just a tiger, albeit a better tiger. I look at the flavor of the template and think about a paragon animal, or even a spider, etc and I don't think making them super smart to the point of being about 1.5 times the intelligence of the average human (average being 8-10, IIRC)

And as I said in response to his post, there is no rule preventing the creation of an already bitten character.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Sorry I cannot quote but:
An acquired template requires that it is applied after race is chosen and after any inherited templates are assigned and must be legal when assigned. While his lycanthrope is fluff wise absurd (I am sure I can find worse) his gaining the template is clean RAW. I challenge that that lycanthrope can exist by RAW but, ignoring that, his gaining the template follows all rules.

[AvatarVecna]

RAI, maybe. But I could argue that it was intentional to make it possible to make a paragon tiger that is still just a tiger, albeit a better tiger. I look at the flavor of the template and think about a paragon animal, or even a spider, etc and I don't think making them super smart to the point of being about 1.5 times the intelligence of the average human (average being 8-10, IIRC)

And as I said in response to his post, there is no rule preventing the creation of an already bitten character.

It's possible that paragon was intended to allow tigers to remain tigers, just be better, but then there's also the legendary animal template from the same book that has a very similar fluff for animals only. RAI, it's debatable, but that's irrelevant here.

As for the point about creating an already bitten character, while I agree that an acquired template can be acquired in your backstory, it still has to make sense that you could acquire it; for a normal lycanthrope, that's not a problem, but your templated one definitely has issues ever coming about. The hybrid form is still a function of the Alternate Form special ability; since your hybrid form would also bear the template, you can't transform into it unless forced via damage...but only afflicted weres can be forced into form via damage, and they can't afflict others with lycanthropy.

You can't be infected by an afflicted lycanthrope, only a natural one, and only an afflicted lycanthrope can transform into the templated form necessary to infect you. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. About the only way I can think of that's even remotely RAW to have a templated lycan form is if Wish/Miracle gets involved to let you flip double birds to the rules; even then, that kind of Wish/Miracle abuse is heavily DM dependent, since it's not a defined effect (and will likely come with severe downsides). Beyond that, if you're abusing Wish/Miracle, there's better ways to abuse them than making sure your character can uber-pounce any creature within a half mile

[Immabozo]

Sorry I cannot quote but:
An acquired template requires that it is applied after race is chosen and after any inherited templates are assigned and must be legal when assigned. While his lycanthrope is fluff wise absurd (I am sure I can find worse) his gaining the template is clean RAW. I challenge that that lycanthrope can exist by RAW but, ignoring that, his gaining the template follows all rules.

Do you mean the lycanthrope cannot exist by RAW? Please state your reasoning. I know of no reason it cannot. For fluff, please see below


It's possible that paragon was intended to allow tigers to remain tigers, just be better, but then there's also the legendary animal template from the same book that has a very similar fluff for animals only. RAI, it's debatable, but that's irrelevant here.

True, there is the Legendary animal template. But there are no stats for it, there is no definition of what that template is. Who's to say that both templates cannot work together? But there are no stats spelled out for it, or any details for it.


As for the point about creating an already bitten character, while I agree that an acquired template can be acquired in your backstory, it still has to make sense that you could acquire it; for a normal lycanthrope, that's not a problem, but your templated one definitely has issues ever coming about. The hybrid form is still a function of the Alternate Form special ability; since your hybrid form would also bear the template, you can't transform into it unless forced via damage...but only afflicted weres can be forced into form via damage, and they can't afflict others with lycanthropy.

You can't be infected by an afflicted lycanthrope, only a natural one, and only an afflicted lycanthrope can transform into the templated form necessary to infect you. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. About the only way I can think of that's even remotely RAW to have a templated lycan form is if Wish/Miracle gets involved to let you flip double birds to the rules; even then, that kind of Wish/Miracle abuse is heavily DM dependent, since it's not a defined effect (and will likely come with severe downsides). Beyond that, if you're abusing Wish/Miracle, there's better ways to abuse them than making sure your character can uber-pounce any creature within a half mile

Not quite right. While yes, the natural lycanthrope cannot shift into it's animal form, it can into hybrid. The hybrid is not a template (at least beyond the template of lycanthropy that all lycanthropes share, and that is just a dysfunction of all lycanthropes). I mean to say, a hybrid is not it's own creature. There are no stats for a hybrid. It is a newly created creature just for the purposes of a lycanthrope shifting into and cannot be a form taken by anyone but that brand of lycan.

So, what are this creature's stats? Is there an entry in a book for it? No. But there is one to calculate the stats. So now we have the stats of the form vanilla, untemplated form (except for the lycanthrope template, which again, is a dysfunction with all lycanthropes). So, since this untemplated (again....) form is defined, it can be assumed.

There are no stats augmented by a template, there is no ability, there is no enhancement granted by a template (...again, except lycanthropy) and is, therefore, not a templated creature

Now, for fluff reasons, I disagree, it is magebred after all, some mad tinkering mage experiment got loose. My, that was a particularly difficult story to come up with. You are right

[ZamielVanWeber]

Do you mean the lycanthrope cannot exist by RAW? Please state your reasoning. I know of no reason it cannot. For fluff, please see below

To clarify what I was saying since I am not on a phone:
As I stated before: paragon cheetahs are not animals and not applicable for lycanthropy. Since they are not animals you may not apply magebred to make them animals again. No matter how you apply the templates you end up with paragon mucking everything up.
If you ignore that by RAW you may take the paragon cheetah template. Magic can explicitly inflict lycanthropy so you just need to say "a wizard did it for giggles" and you will be good to go.

[torrasque666]

Not quite right. While yes, the natural lycanthrope cannot shift into it's animal form, it can into hybrid. The hybrid is not a template (at least beyond the template of lycanthropy that all lycanthropes share, and that is just a dysfunction of all lycanthropes). I mean to say, a hybrid is not it's own creature. There are no stats for a hybrid. It is a newly created creature just for the purposes of a lycanthrope shifting into and cannot be a form taken by anyone but that brand of lycan.

So, what are this creature's stats? Is there an entry in a book for it? No. But there is one to calculate the stats. So now we have the stats of the form vanilla, untemplated form (except for the lycanthrope template, which again, is a dysfunction with all lycanthropes). So, since this untemplated (again....) form is defined, it can be assumed.

There are no stats augmented by a template, there is no ability, there is no enhancement granted by a template (...again, except lycanthropy) and is, therefore, not a templated creature

All of the hybrid forms for the example lycanthropes are statted. All of them give the same natural attacks as the base animal plus claws and/or a bite(given the requisites for validity, few base animals are going to lack one or both), the size of the base animal, the stat modifiers of the base animal, the damage reduction of the animal form, etc. The only things they don't gain are the special attacks like Pounce and Rake. For all intents and purposes, they are the same as the base animal, but bipedal.

[AvatarVecna]

Fair enough, having a mad mage be reponsible for creating a "natural" paragon magebred were-creature isn't entirely implausible, but it also highlights one of the other points that hasn't yet been addressed: namely that, no matter how many arguments we make about this method's legality, it doesn't change the fact that it is still incredibly high PO at best, and not even low TO. TO is when the end-point is ridiculously powerful and the journey to get there is an example of extremely odd rule combos. Your build, even if it does work the way you say it does, ultimately is just a high-speed, long-range ubercharger who's using template abuse to achieve speed and attributes than should normally be possible. But that means jack all against an opponent who can throw a functionally infinite army of mage-clones at you from their undetectable, impregnable personal demiplane, where they've wished themselves to Pun-Pun.

Madness Tarrasquekiller (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?365674-Madness-Tarrasquekiller-Slaying-the-Tarrasque-as-a-1st-level-commoner), the Commoner 1 who is guaranteed to bring about the Tarrasque's demise, is TO, because he's optimizing his own frikkin' name to kill the Tarrasque as a Commoner 1.

The Muscle Wizard (http://ihititwithmyaxe.tumblr.com/post/46007651740/breaking-d-d-3-5-the-muscle-wizard-or-how-to), who uses an obscure race to base their casting off of Strength, and then contracts Festering Anger to get infinite casting stats for infinite fun, is TO.

Khepri (see my sig) is TO because she uses nested Thought Bottles and chain-gating to summon an untold number of universes worth of wasps to make part of her hivemind, granting her one of the fastest "technically finite but functionally infinite" loops I've seen outside of Pun-Pun (with her swarms Int, Cha, Sorcerer casting, bonus spells, skill points per level, feats per level, and HP measured in billions of googol by the time I got bored with continuing the chain).

These guys are all TO because they push the game beyond anything it was ever meant to be in double-digit levels before they've even hit Epic, and they're not even the best combos out there (Pun-Pun, Omniscifier, The Wish and The Word, etc.). Your ubercharger idea is neat, but it's not even on the same level of cheesy B.S. as Madness.

[ZamielVanWeber]

I forgot to mention this but the cheetah's sprint ability does not change your move speed; it lets you move 10x your speed. Your jump check would be based off the 300 speed, not the 3000, since jump check looks at your move speed.

[Urpriest]

Fair enough, having a mad mage be reponsible for creating a "natural" paragon magebred were-creature isn't entirely implausible, but it also highlights one of the other points that hasn't yet been addressed: namely that, no matter how many arguments we make about this method's legality, it doesn't change the fact that it is still incredibly high PO at best, and not even low TO. TO is when the end-point is ridiculously powerful and the journey to get there is an example of extremely odd rule combos. Your build, even if it does work the way you say it does, ultimately is just a high-speed, long-range ubercharger who's using template abuse to achieve speed and attributes than should normally be possible. But that means jack all against an opponent who can throw a functionally infinite army of mage-clones at you from their undetectable, impregnable personal demiplane, where they've wished themselves to Pun-Pun.

Madness Tarrasquekiller (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?365674-Madness-Tarrasquekiller-Slaying-the-Tarrasque-as-a-1st-level-commoner), the Commoner 1 who is guaranteed to bring about the Tarrasque's demise, is TO, because he's optimizing his own frikkin' name to kill the Tarrasque as a Commoner 1.

The Muscle Wizard (http://ihititwithmyaxe.tumblr.com/post/46007651740/breaking-d-d-3-5-the-muscle-wizard-or-how-to), who uses an obscure race to base their casting off of Strength, and then contracts Festering Anger to get infinite casting stats for infinite fun, is TO.

Khepri (see my sig) is TO because she uses nested Thought Bottles and chain-gating to summon an untold number of universes worth of wasps to make part of her hivemind, granting her one of the fastest "technically finite but functionally infinite" loops I've seen outside of Pun-Pun (with her swarms Int, Cha, Sorcerer casting, bonus spells, skill points per level, feats per level, and HP measured in billions of googol by the time I got bored with continuing the chain).

These guys are all TO because they push the game beyond anything it was ever meant to be in double-digit levels before they've even hit Epic, and they're not even the best combos out there (Pun-Pun, Omniscifier, The Wish and The Word, etc.). Your ubercharger idea is neat, but it's not even on the same level of cheesy B.S. as Madness.

TO isn't about power, it's about whether or not the build is a theoretical exercise. Nup-Nup is TO.

[Immabozo]

To clarify what I was saying since I am not on a phone:
As I stated before: paragon cheetahs are not animals and not applicable for lycanthropy. Since they are not animals you may not apply magebred to make them animals again. No matter how you apply the templates you end up with paragon mucking everything up.
If you ignore that by RAW you may take the paragon cheetah template. Magic can explicitly inflict lycanthropy so you just need to say "a wizard did it for giggles" and you will be good to go.

And what makes your think that? All of the templates, including paragon, specify "type: unchanged" and for the int +, please see previous arguments about how this in capped at 2 and does not change the animal type. Nothing changes the animal type.


All of the hybrid forms for the example lycanthropes are statted. All of them give the same natural attacks as the base animal plus claws and/or a bite(given the requisites for validity, few base animals are going to lack one or both), the size of the base animal, the stat modifiers of the base animal, the damage reduction of the animal form, etc. The only things they don't gain are the special attacks like Pounce and Rake. For all intents and purposes, they are the same as the base animal, but bipedal.

While yes, some of the most common forms are statted, but not nearly all of them are. Were-cheetah is not statted, for example. But how to arrive at the stats, is explained. And no, they are not simply bipedal versions of the base animal. There are a very definite set of rules on how it is calculate.


Fair enough, having a mad mage be reponsible for creating a "natural" paragon magebred were-creature isn't entirely implausible, - wall of text about TO -

As far as TO, no DM would allow it at their tables, which is likely the line of TO, and TO is theoretical optimization, after all. But this argument is a moot point. What bearing does the label have on the build? None. After all, one man's TO, over powered, unplayably amazing character is another man's par for the course. Are there more effective builds? Undoubtedly. Can I make a more effective build? Undoubtedly. Are there a small handful of mage spells that get to X faster, and have no-save just die spells? yes. That is more effective at the same game already there.


I forgot to mention this but the cheetah's sprint ability does not change your move speed; it lets you move 10x your speed. Your jump check would be based off the 300 speed, not the 3000, since jump check looks at your move speed.

This is correct and already figured into my original math


TO isn't about power, it's about whether or not the build is a theoretical exercise. Nup-Nup is TO.

I was wondering about that. Who is nup-nup?

I guess there is TO about how bad you can be. unoptimization? Optimised to be bad?

[Jormengand]

guess there is TO about how bad you can be. unoptimization? Optimised to be bad?

There's always Jon Vulcan, who uses a TO trick with truenamers to lodge his soul permanently in an active volcano just for giggles.

[Immabozo]

There's always Jon Vulcan, who uses a TO trick with truenamers to lodge his soul permanently in an active volcano just for giggles.

hahaha, cute

[Jormengand]

hahaha, cute

Jon Vulcan, 15th level truenamer.
Colossal Volcano
Hit Dice: No (15,000,000,000,000 HP)
Initiative No
Speed 0 ft (0 squares)
Armour Class 12 (20 natural -8 size -5 dex -5 inanimate), touch -8 flat-footed 12
Base Attack/Grapple: No/Don't even think about it
Attack: Erupt +500 20d6 fire
Full attack: Erupt +500/+495/+490/+485 20d6 fire.
Space/Reach: 300 ft/10 miles
Special Attacks: Being a volcano.
Special Qualities: I'm a volcano.
Saves: No.
Abilities: No
Skills: Probably some truespeak.
Feats: No.
Environment: Volcano.
Organisation: Solitary.
Challenge Rating: Lots.
Treasure: None
Alignment: Neutral
Advancement: By volcano.
Level Adjustment: -

:smalltongue:

[Urpriest]

I was wondering about that. Who is nup-nup?

I guess there is TO about how bad you can be. unoptimization? Optimised to be bad?

That's precisely what nup-nup is. IIRC it's a kobold build that uses flaws to start the game at 0hp.

[Immabozo]

Jon Vulcan, 15th level truenamer.
Colossal Volcano
Hit Dice: No (15,000,000,000,000 HP)
Initiative No
Speed 0 ft (0 squares)
Armour Class 12 (20 natural -8 size -5 dex -5 inanimate), touch -8 flat-footed 12
Base Attack/Grapple: No/Don't even think about it
Attack: Erupt +500 20d6 fire
Full attack: Erupt +500/+495/+490/+485 20d6 fire.
Space/Reach: 300 ft/10 miles
Special Attacks: Being a volcano.
Special Qualities: I'm a volcano.
Saves: No.
Abilities: No
Skills: Probably some truespeak.
Feats: No.
Environment: Volcano.
Organisation: Solitary.
Challenge Rating: Lots.
Treasure: None
Alignment: Neutral
Advancement: By volcano.
Level Adjustment: -

:smalltongue:

haha, this is amazing! Do you know where I can read the full build?


That's precisely what nup-nup is. IIRC it's a kobold build that uses flaws to start the game at 0hp.

This again, is cute, and I would love to see the full build

[Jormengand]

haha, this is amazing! Do you know where I can read the full build?

It's not even a build. It's just abusing Transmute Weapon, Thinaun, and a called creature of your choice to dump a sword containing your soul (but from which your soul can't be released by breaking it) into an active volcano.

[Immabozo]

It's not even a build. It's just abusing Transmute Weapon, Thinaun, and a called creature of your choice to dump a sword containing your soul (but from which your soul can't be released by breaking it) into an active volcano.

Where can I read transmute weapon?

[Jormengand]

Where can I read transmute weapon?

In the Tome of Magic. The trick works because it temporarily changes the special material of the weapon to thinaun, and it turns back when the duration expires. When it's a steel sword, it can't be broken to release the sword. Therefore, your summoned creature drops it in a volcano.

[Immabozo]

In the Tome of Magic. The trick works because it temporarily changes the special material of the weapon to thinaun, and it turns back when the duration expires. When it's a steel sword, it can't be broken to release the sword. Therefore, your summoned creature drops it in a volcano.

That's cute, but how do you become this volcano?

[Jormengand]

That's cute, but how do you become this volcano?

Well, your soul is permanently resident in the volcano, so you clearly are the volcano. :smalltongue:

(It was never meant as a serious exercise in becoming a volcano, mind you).

[rweird]

I'm afraid that the argument that animals can't have an Int over 2 doesn't really fly.


An animal possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s entry).

Intelligence score of 1 or 2 (no creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher can be an animal).

- http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#animalType

A Template increasing an animal's Int beyond 2 would put an Int over 2 in the creature's entry, and therefore the trait wouldn't apply. How the types are worded, the almost always say at the end of any statement before the list of features or traits "(unless noted otherwise in the creature's entry)"

I think it would be reasonable to see them as guidelines, or essentially acknowledging that anything more specific trumps it, and if an otherwise rules-legal thing would cause one of those features to no longer apply.

With the right Ioun stone, a humanoid wouldn't need to breathe, with a ring of sustenance it wouldn't need to sleep, but I don't think anyone would argue that the wearer would cease to be a humanoid because of it.

[Immabozo]

Well, your soul is permanently resident in the volcano, so you clearly are the volcano. :smalltongue:

(It was never meant as a serious exercise in becoming a volcano, mind you).

I see. It's entirely silly.


I'm afraid that the argument that animals can't have an Int over 2 doesn't really fly.

- reasons -

Have you read this thread? This question has come up and answered it at least 2 or 3 times

[Menzath]

I won't join the arguing semantics about creature type, but I will say this isn't TO.
For a simple reason.
Tippy for who this form of optimization is named after has explained what exactly his "builds" can do. The lowest power if those builds are by normal definition world changing. And this is in rounds of course. Higher end being rewriting the planes to suit your needs on a whim.

And really the whole creature type thing...

[KingSmitty]

Honestly I'm interested more in that cheetah as a mount for my Halfling Outrider's Supermount!

[OldTrees1]

I won't join the arguing semantics about creature type, but I will say this isn't TO.
For a simple reason.
Tippy for who this form of optimization is named after has explained what exactly his "builds" can do. The lowest power if those builds are by normal definition world changing. And this is in rounds of course. Higher end being rewriting the planes to suit your needs on a whim.

And really the whole creature type thing...

Question: Is this PO(practical optimization)?
Answer: Not at my table, therefore it is TO(theoretical optimization) even if it is a terribly weak example of TO.

Don't use Tippy as a measure of TO since Tippy's table uses things that most tables would label as TO. So something being PO to Tippy usually implies it is TO for everyone else.

[Flickerdart]

Tippy for who this form of optimization is named after...
u wot m8?

TO stands for Theoretical Optimization. Tippy wasn't the first - or even the best - 3e optimizer.

[Segev]

It's TO. TO isn't about power, per se. It often involves overpowered things because it's often the broken nature of it which makes it strictly theoretical, but TO is about thought experiments. This is a thought experiment.

Something is only PO if you honestly expect to play it at a table. PO discussions are more characterized by "do you think this is reasonable?" and "would you allow this as a DM?" or "Is the DM you're going to play with going to allow this?/talk to your DM about allowing..." than they are by "but the RAW say this here and this additional thing there and, read together, we can come out with that net result."

We seem to be having a lot of that last bit, and ignoring a lot of the question as to whether a DM would allow this at his table.

That makes this TO.

[Menzath]

My bad, I see a capital T and ignore the rest. As for theoretical, if the templates can't properly stack (and that's the basis of the build) what's so TO about it?

Also it has large burst move speed, but overall isn't insane. At a low OP table(read: none what-so-ever) I could see this as TO, but at my table it would just be seen as a really fast melee, mid to high PO.
I mean really it moves fast is it's Jimmick. And not insanely at that. In any normal dungeon this build is only slightly stronger than a normal one.

P.S. tippy is our god.

[Flickerdart]

A failed experiment is still an experiment, I'd say. The build doesn't work (just like it didn't work the last three times it was posted by the OP), but it was an attempt at TO and not PO.

[rweird]

Have you read this thread? This question has come up and answered it at least 2 or 3 times

Yes, but I never saw the point I made be brought up, so I felt like bringing it up. I was adding on to the discussion (which people didn't really ever agree on).

[Immabozo]

And really the whole creature type thing...

The cheetah remains an animal, not a magical beast. It's Int remains 2, as capped by 2 or 3 factors


Question: Is this PO(practical optimization)?
Answer: Not at my table, therefore it is TO(theoretical optimization) even if it is a terribly weak example of TO.

Is it weak compared to many TO builds? Yes, but there are many worse builds. There are builds TO'ed to be bad


Honestly I'm interested more in that cheetah as a mount for my Halfling Outrider's Supermount!


As for theoretical, if the templates can't properly stack (and that's the basis of the build) what's so TO about it?

How do they not stack?


A failed experiment is still an experiment, I'd say. The build doesn't work (just like it didn't work the last three times it was posted by the OP), but it was an attempt at TO and not PO.

You are correct, an experiment is still an experiment regardless of outcome.

As far as the post count on this topic, I was asked to post it, so I did. I also corrected some math in the calculations, so it was worthwhile.

And, You and I have argued the point of it working before, I do not know what can be said that hasn't. I stand by the idea that it does. Granted, the methods are a little out there. But I say it walks the line without falling into unworkable territory.

[Immabozo]

Yes, but I never saw the point I made be brought up, so I felt like bringing it up. I was adding on to the discussion (which people didn't really ever agree on).

Oh, I misunderstood your original post! You bring up a solid point!

[OldTrees1]

Is it weak compared to many TO builds? Yes, but there are many worse builds. There are builds TO'ed to be bad

My post labeled your build as TO. Please don't misrepresent my posts in future.

[Immabozo]

My post labeled your build as TO. Please don't misrepresent my posts in future.

Please do not misinterpret mine. I never said you did not, we are talking about the effectiveness of builds compared to mine. My point is that it is weak, yes, but there are many weaker. Infact, there are many made to be as weak as possible

[OldTrees1]

Please do not misinterpret mine. I never said you did not, we are talking about the effectiveness of builds compared to mine. My point is that it is weak, yes, but there are many weaker. Infact, there are many made to be as weak as possible

That does not seem relevant to my post. In my rebuke to the counter argument to my post I conceded your build is comparatively weak in order to strike down comparative strength as irrelevant to the thread's question.

PS: The forum rules prohibit claims of "misinterpret/misread"

[Immabozo]

That does not seem relevant to my post. In my rebuke to the counter argument to my post I conceded your build is comparatively weak in order to strike down comparative strength as irrelevant to the thread's question.

PS: The forum rules prohibit claims of "misinterpret/misread"

I understand the PS, and that is good to know, but you have lost me, haha.

OH, I understand, after reading it like 4 times (I really need sleep, haha) I am now picking up what you are putting down. I am smelling what you are stepping in.

[OldTrees1]

I understand the PS, and that is good to know, but you have lost me, haha.

OH, I understand, after reading it like 4 times (I really need sleep, haha) I am now picking up what you are putting down. I am smelling what you are stepping in.

Interesting turn of phrase. I am glad I looked it up since it kinda sounds like the opposite of its meaning(kinda sounds like a reference to BS when it is just another way of saying you understand).

While this doesn't compare very well with similar kinds of TO builds(although it breaks less verisimilitude), it is a very neat index of bonuses to movement speed.

PS: As for rereading multiple times, my concise style of prose is influenced by Philosophy papers(we students are encouraged to reread a lot) so you must have been wide awake to get it in 4. :smallsmile:

[Immabozo]

Interesting turn of phrase. I am glad I looked it up since it kinda sounds like the opposite of its meaning(kinda sounds like a reference to BS when it is just another way of saying you understand).

While this doesn't compare very well with similar kinds of TO builds(although it breaks less verisimilitude), it is a very neat index of bonuses to movement speed.

PS: As for rereading multiple times, my concise style of prose is influenced by Philosophy papers(we students are encouraged to reread a lot) so you must have been wide awake to get it in 4. :smallsmile:

Oh, this was a reread, after I initially read and re-read it! haha!

Please, don't forget my screen name!! haha. Yeah, I am just being ridiculous, although I can certainly see your first interpretation!

and thank you