Where's the line between high optimization and TO? [Archive]

sorcererlover

2018-03-06, 05:10 AM

I know that Uberchargers are at the peak of high optimization.
DMM:Persist is high optimization.
Using Nightsticks to fuel DMM:Persist is Theoretical optimization
Using lower spell levels from different classes that is not bard/paladin/ranger is Theoretical Optimization. So like Eternal Wand of Charm Monster is high op but Eternal Wand of Lesser Planar Binding is TO.
Using Divine Crusader for level 9 spells at CL 9 for artificer scrolls is Theoretical Optimization.
Versatile Spellcaster to gain early access to spells and PrCs is Theoretical Optimization.
Anything used with Precocious Apprentice is Theoretical Optimizaiton.
Using Inspire Greatness to increase the cap on your skills by 2 ranks is Theoretical Optimization
Any form of free wishes is Theoretical Optimization.
Anything that breaks wealth by level (Flesh to Salt, Liquid Pain Farms, Thought Bottles) is Theoretical Optimization.

Using Earth Spell to qualify for PrCs earlier than usual is... TO? High Op?
Casting Polymorph Any Object twice for Permanent Duration is... High Op? TO?
Casting Polymorph Any Object to boost your intelligence to like 30+ is... High Op? TO?

I'm having trouble recognizing a pattern here. Exactly where is the line and how do you determine if a trick is high op or TO?

RoboEmperor

2018-03-06, 05:20 AM

Using Earth Spell to qualify for PrCs earlier than usual is... TO? High Op?

Any form of early access or early entry is TO. Especially Heighten Spell. If you use Heighten Spell to qualify for a PrC it's TO.

Basically if you're doing everything directly as written, with no ambiguity, it's high-op.

Also author's "intent". Thought Bottles are not meant to bypass crafting xp costs, and the FAQ directly states that, so by using it to break wealth it's TO.

DMM says use turn-undead to reduce metamagic cost of any metamagic. Persistent Spell is any metamagic. No ambiguity here. And is in completely inline with the Author's intent.
Nightsticks however were intended to give you more turn attempts. They were not intended to be metamagic fuel for DMM:Persist, so this betrays the author's intent.

A spell heightened to level 4 is a level 4 spell. However whether the PrC requirement meant "Ability to cast 4th level spells on your spell list", "have the "ability to cast 4th level spells", which is obtained at level 7", or "Able to cast a spell that is as hard to prepare and cast as a level 4 spell" is ambiguous.
Also Heighten Spell was not intended to be used to cheat into PrCs.

Ubercharging has no ambiguity. There are direct rules about how everything in there stacks. The intent of all those feats were to increase your damage exponentially.

So basically ambiguity and intent. If both are satisfied it's high op, if not then it's TO.

Venger

2018-03-06, 05:30 AM

I know that Uberchargers are at the peak of high optimization.

Are you serious?

Uberchargers just deal damage. The peak of high op is t1 casters.

High op is something you might expect to use in a real game. TO is something that', well, theoretical optimization. Things like festering anger cancer mage or pun pun. Anything infinite is to

Sam K

2018-03-06, 05:56 AM

TO isn't an extreme version of high optimisation.

TO is optimisation that is concerned only by RAW.

A conversation about TO is a conversation about what you CAN do with the rules as written. It CAN be very high OP (on these forums, it usually is) but what makes it TO is that it is concerned exclusively with the rules as written.

Not about RAI.

Not about fluff or flavour.

Not about fun or balance.

And def. not about what "Any DM in their right mind" would allow at their table.

If optimisation is concerned only by viability by RAW, it's TO. Even if it's very weak optimisation.

noce

2018-03-06, 06:11 AM

sorcererlover

2018-03-06, 06:17 AM

Are you serious?

Uberchargers just deal damage. The peak of high op is t1 casters.

Isn't Mailman sorcerer TO? And that's just damage too.

High op is something you might expect to use in a real game. TO is something that', well, theoretical optimization. Things like festering anger cancer mage or pun pun. Anything infinite is to

Early entry into PrCs is something that can be used in a real game, but that's TO isn't it?

noce

2018-03-06, 06:32 AM

Anything that breaks wealth by level (Flesh to Salt, Liquid Pain Farms, Thought Bottles) is Theoretical Optimization.

Let's elaborate on this.
Casting Wall of Salt to sell the salt created is a perfectly viable idea, and a reasonable DM could very well allow this, at least the first time you do it.
After all, you're legitimately creating and selling a trade good.

Still, things could happen in the world that render this trick not applicable.
In a single cast you can produce approx 6 tons of salt, or 60k gp, so you could face:

How do you sell so much salt? Will you find such a reach person?
Are you sure the place you are in needs that quantity of salt?
How do you carry the salt to the person you sell it to?
Word could spread and thieves could steal your salt before the sell or your money after the sell. They are not guaranteed to spare your life.
Salt lobby will not like what you're trying to do. They are not guaranteed to spare your life.
With that much salt produced, cost of salt could drop considerably, and you would end up selling it at a much lower price.
Someone could have had the same idea in the past, maybe the cleric of Pelor of the local church, and now salt is just free in that town.

Using Wall of Salt to try to become reach is not theoretical optimization. You can try this in a real game.

What is theoretical optimization is assuming that you will earn an unlimited amount of money from this trick without consequences: you are assuming something that "a sane" DM will not allow.

RoboEmperor

2018-03-06, 06:38 AM

High op is something you might expect to use in a real game.

I don't think this is a very good interpretation. Everyone's definition of a "real game" is different. Some people say uberchargers can't be played in a real game.

Let's elaborate on this.
Casting Wall of Salt to sell the salt created is a perfectly viable idea, and a reasonable DM could very well allow this, at least the first time you do it.
After all, you're legitimately creating and selling a trade good.

Still, things could happen in the world that render this trick not applicable.
In a single cast you can produce approx 6 tons of salt, or 60k gp, so you could face:

How do you sell so much salt? Will you find such a reach person?
Are you sure the place you are in needs that quantity of salt?
How do you carry the salt to the person you sell it to?
Word could spread and thieves could steal your salt before the sell or your money after the sell. They are not guaranteed to spare your life.
Salt lobby will not like what you're trying to do. They are not guaranteed to spare your life.
With that much salt produced, cost of salt could drop considerably, and you would end up selling it at a much lower price.
Someone could have had the same idea in the past, maybe the cleric of Pelor of the local church, and now salt is just free in that town.

Using Wall of Salt to try to become reach is not theoretical optimization. You can try this in a real game.

What is theoretical optimization is assuming that you will earn an unlimited amount of money from this trick without consequences: you are assuming something that "a sane" DM will not allow.

This only happens if you're the first person to ever invent wall of salt. if it's been around then everyone would copy it and salt would devalue to nothingness.

noce

2018-03-06, 06:42 AM

This only happens if you're the first person to ever invent wall of salt. if it's been around then everyone would copy it and salt would devalue to nothingness.

Exactly. This is what I was trying to say. Something in a real game will prevent you from getting rich with Wall of Salt.

But when people talk about TO, they assume that this strategy works and that their wizard will get rich with Wall of Salt.

This is TO, pretending that things work just because they follow game rules.

Florian

2018-03-06, 08:43 AM

I'm having trouble recognizing a pattern here. Exactly where is the line and how do you determine if a trick is high op or TO?

Ok, let´s try:

PO is looking for ways and means to get the best out a engine/system/rules set while still staying in the boundaries set bat said engine/system/rules set.
TO is looking for "glitches", for situations when that engine/system/rules set either can´t provide unambiguous answers, or using a combination of rules elements that lead to results that will lead you outside of said boundaries.

Example:
1) Some spells need specific material components
2) Not everything in the game comes attached with a price, like AOs toe clippings or major artifacts
3) A spellcomponent pouch contains all cheap and inexpensive.

This is a "glitch" in the d20 system.
PO: "Cool. So if I somehow find some of AOs toe clippings, I could make an Ice Assassin!".
TO: "Cool. No listed price, so now I will make an AO Ice Asassin!".
(And yes, we all buy an component pouch so we have access to all major artifacts in the game, right?)

Glitch situation actually follow a certain pattern, because in most cases, they can only be ever explained by following a stubborn "Raw is Raw!" argumentative pattern (see for example some PrC that will add spells known, when you can´t have spells known at this level)

Edit: You can use a simple lackmus test. People who think that using clipping errors in shooters or wall walking in MMOs rarely have something against TO in TTRPGs.

Gnaeus

2018-03-06, 08:52 AM

I don't think this is a very good interpretation. Everyone's definition of a "real game" is different. Some people say uberchargers can't be played in a real games.

It’s the only definition. And as your objection points out, P.O. varies game by game, group by group. If I’m running a game, early entry tricks are TO and uberchargers are P.O. But in another DMs game that can be reversed. PO is using rules for something you can play at a specific game (or, as we tend to discuss it on forum in abstract, something most DMs will allow). TO is anything past that.

Also link to guide to practical optimization in sig.

Uncle Pine

2018-03-06, 09:45 AM

The line mostly depends on whatever you and your group (read: your table) are used to. In other words, the exact difference between High optimization with a capital H and TO is subjective. A safe point to start to define TO would probably be that any character with at least one attribute set to ∞ or "arbitrarily high" is TO. I'd wager that most of the time 1000+ is optimized enough to be called TO (unless we're talking about gp and kill counters).

Any form of early access or early entry is TO. Especially Heighten Spell. If you use Heighten Spell to qualify for a PrC it's TO.
^Clear example that the boundary is subjective, as entering Dungeon Lord as a 1st level character who contracted lycanthropy and cured it afterwards will hardly qualify you as TO unless you pump the numbers on your sheets a wee bit.

Cosi

2018-03-06, 09:56 AM

TO is hard to define. You could say "anything you expect to be able to use in a game", but different tables have different banlists so that's not especially helpful (particularly because, taken literally, it would make all Eberron material TO in Forgotten Realms games and vice versa). You could say something like planar binding is TO, but there are definitely uses of it that aren't. I think the closet you could get to a real definition would be something that allows you to defeat any printed challenge, which I think probably doesn't get anything you want to avoid, but also misses some things you probably want (like drown healing).

Any form of early access or early entry is TO. Especially Heighten Spell. If you use Heighten Spell to qualify for a PrC it's TO.

Basically if you're doing everything directly as written, with no ambiguity, it's high-op.

So casting ice assassin on yourself to make something that can cast ice assassin is PO, but getting into Rage Mage at sixth level instead of seventh level is TO? That seems like a weird definition. There are a lot of things that are unambiguously RAW that I would ban in a heartbeat, and there are a lot of things that are on pretty shaky ground RAW-wise that I would be 100% okay with from a power perspective.

Nightsticks however were intended to give you more turn attempts. They were not intended to be metamagic fuel for DMM:Persist, so this betrays the author's intent.

What the hell? It was intended to give you turn attempts, but those turn attempts are only supposed to be used for actual turning because ... why exactly? There are Divine Feats in Libris Mortis. Don't you think if the authorial intent was for Nightsticks to not work with those, it would have been mentioned at some point? It's like saying that you can't take Weapon Focus (Elven Thinblade) because the authors "didn't intend" for them to be used together.

Anything infinite is to

Honestly I'm not even sure this is true. Most infinite stuff is probably TO, but something like the d2 Crusader is probably not all that much better than an Ubercharger. Practically speaking, there isn't all that much difference between "infinity damage" and "10,000 damage" or even "500 damage". In all those cases, the only way you survive is by having some kind of immunity.

Hal0Badger

2018-03-06, 09:58 AM

Why do people assume salt created with wall of salt is something edible and actually worth money?

Florian

2018-03-06, 10:04 AM

What the hell? It was intended to give you turn attempts, but those turn attempts are only supposed to be used for actual turning because ... why exactly?

Because 3E is a prime example of a system where every add-on only reverences back to the core, that's it, next to no regards to how things in-between spats interact with each other.

RoboEmperor

2018-03-06, 10:30 AM

So casting ice assassin on yourself to make something that can cast ice assassin is PO, but getting into Rage Mage at sixth level instead of seventh level is TO? That seems like a weird definition. There are a lot of things that are unambiguously RAW that I would ban in a heartbeat, and there are a lot of things that are on pretty shaky ground RAW-wise that I would be 100% okay with from a power perspective.

Maybe we should remove "optimization" from the name. Is it Practical or Theoretical? I don't care about power level, I only care if it's the result of extensive rule lawyering with an iffy foundation, or if it's clear as day.

I think Shadowcraft Mage's high level entry requirements is stupid, and i wish the authors dropped it down so a level 3 spellcaster can enter it. To accomplish this I have experimented with a great deal of early entry shenanigans and justified it by saying it's not broken or OP, it just gets my schtick online faster.

However it doesn't remove the fact that it's "iffy", not clear as day, etc. so I put it under Theoretical (no optimization).

What the hell? It was intended to give you turn attempts, but those turn attempts are only supposed to be used for actual turning because ... why exactly? There are Divine Feats in Libris Mortis. Don't you think if the authorial intent was for Nightsticks to not work with those, it would have been mentioned at some point? It's like saying that you can't take Weapon Focus (Elven Thinblade) because the authors "didn't intend" for them to be used together.

You say that but... after witnessing an ungodly amount of errors on WotC's part, my answer is yes, WotC is that incompetent and didn't think about DMM when creating nightsticks.

Florian

2018-03-06, 10:40 AM

You say that but... after witnessing an ungodly amount of errors on WotC's part, my answer is yes, WotC is that incompetent and didn't think about DMM when creating nightsticks.

I wouldn't call it incompetent. Ignoring some very specific cases, their design philosophy was always "core plus stand alone, let the gm deal with the rest". DMM and Nightsticks were creating with the core cleric in mind, ignoring every kind of complications that came up with combining different splat books. That is pretty consistent behavior. Rest is more up to marketing and sales, when it comes to it: "You, player, are empowered to use it." and "If it´s in D&D, it has a place in Eberron", sh** like that, and people swallowed it.

Segev

2018-03-06, 10:46 AM

High Optimization means that you've done a lot of work to tweak something to be as good at whatever you're aiming it to do as possible. This may or may not be a multi-goal optimization.

Theoretical Optimization (TO) is any optimization you do based on theoretical application of the RAW without regard to whether it would be allowed in a given game.

Practical Optimization is any optimization of a character, item, or other rules-made construct you plan to use in an actual game.

They are often related in some way, but they are not dependent on each other, nor are they antidependent.

"High optimization" is generally what people mean when they speak of optimized characters, in general. Something that is tweaked to get as much power and effectiveness as possible. It can be theoretical or practical. Practical optimization starts as theoretical, and then gets refined to fit into a given game under a particular GM.

ExLibrisMortis

2018-03-06, 10:58 AM

I don't think this is a very good interpretation. Everyone's definition of a "real game" is different.
That's exactly why it's a good interpretation. TO isn't something absolute; one person's TO might be another's casual game plan. Trying to call certain things "absolutely TO" is nonsense.

The only difference between TO and other things it that TO is explicitly not intended to be used at a table, because using it would make it impossible to run anything approaching a typical campaign (including sandbox campaigns). Calling something "TO" means: "I don't even know what kind of story or universe you'd have left if you would actually play this; things just don't make sense anymore". Some TO is extremely high-power: there's simply nothing left to challenge you, therefore we have no plot, no story. And some things that aren't necessarily super powerful are still TO, because if you run them, you don't have a universe that resembles anything we're familiar with anymore. Infinite wealth shenanigans using ladders and 10' poles, for instance, aren't so much super powerful as that they beg serious questions about the sort of economy you're running.

Obviously, since we don't all have the same standards for what constitutes a "runnable" campaign, we don't have the same standards for what constitutes TO.

Zanos

2018-03-06, 10:58 AM

Table dependent. "Theoretical" Optimization means something that only exists in theory, but I can say I've play things on multiple tables without issue that people would consider TO. One DM might be fine with infinite PP at will any spell psions, while another might balk at a TWF rogue while thinking wizards suck because they run out of spells.

I'd say in general most people draw the line for TO at uncapped loops. So nightsticks aren't TO as long as you're limited by WBL.

Eldariel

2018-03-06, 10:58 AM

Maybe we should remove "optimization" from the name. Is it Practical or Theoretical? I don't care about power level, I only care if it's the result of extensive rule lawyering with an iffy foundation, or if it's clear as day.

I think Shadowcraft Mage's high level entry requirements is stupid, and i wish the authors dropped it down so a level 3 spellcaster can enter it. To accomplish this I have experimented with a great deal of early entry shenanigans and justified it by saying it's not broken or OP, it just gets my schtick online faster.

However it doesn't remove the fact that it's "iffy", not clear as day, etc. so I put it under Theoretical (no optimization).

You say that but... after witnessing an ungodly amount of errors on WotC's part, my answer is yes, WotC is that incompetent and didn't think about DMM when creating nightsticks.

DMM doesn't need Nightsticks to be broken. Extra Turning suffices, to say nothing of Reliquary Holy Symbol or company. DMM is the problem right out of the box, breaking max spell level limitation grievously with Persistent Spell only aggravating the matters.

Nifft

2018-03-06, 11:45 AM

Even early access can be PO -- for example, in my games I allow some early access to theurge prestige classes, and that's in part because theurge PrCs aren't that great overall.

Maybe the line is something like: "Would this destroy the setting if it were allowed?"

Uncle Pine

2018-03-06, 11:55 AM

JNAProductions

2018-03-06, 12:45 PM

Practical Optimization is what you'd use at a table.

Theoretical Optimization is something that should never see table use.

Note that these are broad categories, and will vary table-to-table. What's acceptable at Tippy's table is probably considered TO at mine.

Venger

2018-03-06, 01:09 PM

Isn't Mailman sorcerer TO? And that's just damage too.
No, it's not. Because it's just damage.

I don't think this is a very good interpretation. Everyone's definition of a "real game" is different. Some people say uberchargers can't be played in a real game.

It’s the only definition. And as your objection points out, P.O. varies game by game, group by group. If I’m running a game, early entry tricks are TO and uberchargers are P.O. But in another DMs game that can be reversed. PO is using rules for something you can play at a specific game (or, as we tend to discuss it on forum in abstract, something most DMs will allow). TO is anything past that.
Yes, well said.

Honestly I'm not even sure this is true. Most infinite stuff is probably TO, but something like the d2 Crusader is probably not all that much better than an Ubercharger. Practically speaking, there isn't all that much difference between "infinity damage" and "10,000 damage" or even "500 damage". In all those cases, the only way you survive is by having some kind of immunity.
I agree the d2 crusader is hardly gamebreaking. As I said, I was referring to truly infinite things, (since the d2 crusader is still limited by uses of healing devotion) such as pp recharge tricks or wish loops or what have you.

Why do people assume salt created with wall of salt is something edible and actually worth money?

This spell creates a gleaming wall of salt

5gp: one pound of salt (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/wealthAndMoney.htm#wealthOtherThanCoins)

Because wall of salt creates a wall of salt. Salt can be sold for 5gp a pound. The spell doesn't say "btw this salt tastes yucky so it is worth 0gp," so it is the same salt as is statted in the PHB.

Of course, no one is actually allowed to do this in a real game, because the game is balanced around you getting appropriate amounts of wbl by overcoming encounters and not by sitting in your wizard tower expending spell slots. Like wall of iron, it's a universal house rule that you can't sell the stuff created by this spell to make money despite the raw value of the materials you conjure because it will give you too much money and you won't be on an equal footing for cr-appropriate challenges. A popular fluff explanation is that since all people with access to this spell try to do this, the commodity is essentially worth 0gp.

Cosi

2018-03-06, 01:12 PM

Why do people assume salt created with wall of salt is something edible and actually worth money?

Because why would you assume it's not? It's not like fixing that one WBL break is going to make WBL not stupid. Also, it makes the DM kind of a **** to say "lol nope, you can't actually sell it it's not really salt".

Because 3E is a prime example of a system where every add-on only reverences back to the core, that's it, next to no regards to how things in-between spats interact with each other.

Not really. Or rather, not at all. Libris Mortis isn't a great example (the only cross-splat reference I saw when I skimmed it was the undead listings), but look at something like Dragon Magic. That book has psionics, binding, invocations, auras, and a Weapon of Legacy. The level of cross-splat interaction varies, but I don't think you can reasonably claim that there was no regard for cross-splat interaction.

Maybe we should remove "optimization" from the name. Is it Practical or Theoretical? I don't care about power level, I only care if it's the result of extensive rule lawyering with an iffy foundation, or if it's clear as day.

Okay, but that is not the question this thread is asking, so maybe if you want to discuss that question you should start a different thread?

You say that but... after witnessing an ungodly amount of errors on WotC's part, my answer is yes, WotC is that incompetent and didn't think about DMM when creating nightsticks.

Maybe they didn't think of DMM specifically, but they clearly thought of Divine feats, because there are Divine feats in Libris Mortis (for example, Divine Accuracy, on page 26). You could advance the argument that it is only supposed to work with those divine feats, but I think that is an obviously stupid argument that would imply (for example) that you could not take Weapon Focus (Elven Thinblade) because Elven Thinblades weren't in the book that introduced Weapon Focus (or if you want to make an argument along the lines of "but Weapon Focus is Core", consider the additional feats in that line in the PHBII).

That's exactly why it's a good interpretation. TO isn't something absolute; one person's TO might be another's casual game plan. Trying to call certain things "absolutely TO" is nonsense.

I mean, in what sense? If "TO" is a judgment predicated entirely on the opinions of a table, it makes the label "TO" worthless for any conversation. But clearly people have something they think they mean when they say "TO". So we should try to identify what the thing that "TO" is a metaphor for is.

ExLibrisMortis

2018-03-06, 01:19 PM

If "TO" is a judgment predicated entirely on the opinions of a table, it makes the label "TO" worthless for any conversation.
You're wrong there. Just like "tasty" isn't useless just because we don't share the same tastes, "TO" isn't worthless. Calling something "TO" is a very useful way of signalling expectations regarding games. Tell me what you consider TO, and I'll tell you what kind of gamer you are.

Nifft

2018-03-06, 01:24 PM

You're wrong there. Just like "tasty" isn't useless just because we don't share the same tastes, "TO" isn't worthless. Calling something "TO" is a very useful way of signalling expectations regarding games. Tell me what you consider TO, and I'll tell you what kind of gamer you are.

Yep, it's a type of value signaling.

On the forums, we have discussions like "in theory is it possible to punch through a planet?" (and of course the answer is yes), but the fruits of those discussions don't apply to most real games.

So a way to signal: "This is for a real game and therefore suggestions about punching through the planet are not helpful".

-- -- --

Similarly: "I'm looking for tasty food" signals that you want to know about the flavor, not about high-status ingredients or locality of origin or exotic preparation methods. It's a useful signal even though "tasty" is entirely subjective.

ATalsen

2018-03-06, 01:30 PM

Any form of early access or early entry is TO. Especially Heighten Spell. If you use Heighten Spell to qualify for a PrC it's TO.

I don't think this is a very good interpretation. Everyone's definition of a "real game" is different. Some people say uberchargers can't be played in a real game.

I'm currently running a game where I expressly allow early entry into prestige classes (via the known tricks like Heighten spell, Sanctum spell, etc). Game is now at 11th level and I've had no issues based on early entry.

That said, I would not allow infinite wealth (infinite anything) tricks, but no one has tried that yet anyway.

So does that mean I'm running a TO game, or a very high optimization game?

Nifft

2018-03-06, 01:33 PM

I would not allow _____________ tricks, but no one has tried that yet anyway.

So does that mean I'm running a TO game, or a very high optimization game?

There is at least one thing that you won't allow, even if the RAW could be interpreted to allow that thing.

Therefore you are not running a TO game.

RoboEmperor

2018-03-06, 01:34 PM

I'm currently running a game where I expressly allow early entry into prestige classes (via the known tricks like Heighten spell, Sanctum spell, etc). Game is now at 11th level and I've had no issues based on early entry.

That said, I would not allow infinite wealth (infinite anything) tricks, but no one has tried that yet anyway.

So does that mean I'm running a TO game, or a very high optimization game?

I guess I'm using TO in a different way than everyone.

It seems everyone believes TO = power level tier, as in everything in TO surpasses PO or high-op, where as I view it, as Florian puts it, optimization with "glitches".

So in my view TO stuff can be weaker than PO stuff if, because I categorize it based on "glitches" rather than power.

But I guess I'm wrong.

JNAProductions

2018-03-06, 01:37 PM

zergling.exe

2018-03-06, 01:45 PM

I guess I'm using TO in a different way than everyone.

It seems everyone believes TO = power level tier, as in everything in TO surpasses PO or high-op, where as I view it, as Florian puts it, optimization with "glitches".

So in my view TO stuff can be weaker than PO stuff if, because I categorize it based on "glitches" rather than power.

But I guess I'm wrong.

The consensus to me seems to be that TO isn't strength, but rules lawyering. So the more willing to stick to RAW to the bitter end the more TO it is. Early entry, for instance, isn't necessarily a strong option, but it is one that is viewed as TO because the game wasn't designed with it in mind, but because of how you can align the pieces it becomes possible through unintended combinations. It's not High Optimization, but not every table is will to accept getting around the obvious entry requirements (5th level being the most common).

ATalsen

2018-03-06, 01:53 PM

There is at least one thing that you won't allow, even if the RAW could be interpreted to allow that thing.

Therefore you are not running a TO game.

Interesting thought!
Would a Tippyverse then be a TO game?

I kind of go with what people were saying about any real game not being TO, and TO being optimization without consideration for a specific game.

I guess I'm using TO in a different way than everyone.

It seems everyone believes TO = power level tier, as in everything in TO surpasses PO or high-op, where as I view it, as Florian puts it, optimization with "glitches".

So in my view TO stuff can be weaker than PO stuff if, because I categorize it based on "glitches" rather than power.

But I guess I'm wrong.

I can get where your coming from with that, I just think its hard to entirely define 'glitches' - I love building PCs based on interesting rules interactions, but its can be difficult in some cases to tell if its a glitch, intended, or simply an emergent properly.

I do think its more practical to base things on fitting the power level (and themes) of the game you wish to run as opposed to strict "intended or not intended" delineation.

Segev

2018-03-06, 01:58 PM

This seems just about right. Can I put it in my extended sig for whenever a thread about this subject will be inevitably made again?

Be my guest! :smallbiggrin:

Nifft

2018-03-06, 02:03 PM

I guess I'm using TO in a different way than everyone.

It seems everyone believes TO = power level tier, as in everything in TO surpasses PO or high-op, where as I view it, as Florian puts it, optimization with "glitches".

So in my view TO stuff can be weaker than PO stuff if, because I categorize it based on "glitches" rather than power.

But I guess I'm wrong. Nah, I think you're saying something valid.

It's just not universally valid.

For example, I've allowed glitches which were mistakes that tended to correct other mistakes, resulting in overall better intra-party balance.

Interesting thought!
Would a Tippyverse then be a TO game? The T in TO means "theoretical".

If it's used in practice, then it can't be theoretical -- it's been put into practice.

But what Tippy allows at his table might not be practical for my table, so therefore what you're trying to ask is fundamentally flawed.

There is no absolute TO, since tables differ.

What happens at a real table can't be TO at that table, but it might be TO for every other table on the planet.

RoboEmperor

2018-03-06, 02:24 PM

I can get where your coming from with that, I just think its hard to entirely define 'glitches' - I love building PCs based on interesting rules interactions, but its can be difficult in some cases to tell if its a glitch, intended, or simply an emergent properly.

I do think its more practical to base things on fitting the power level (and themes) of the game you wish to run as opposed to strict "intended or not intended" delineation.

Some glitches are hard to define, but some glitches are not.

Using nightstick to fuel DMM? Others in this thread expressed that they don't view it as a glitch. I think it's not their intended use and nightsticks are the reason imo DMM:Persist gets a bad name, so this is up for debate. Unclear. Hard to define. I'm probably wrong though, seeing how there is 0 rule lawyering involved.

Using Heighten Spell with metamagic reducers for early entry into PrCs? This is a definite "glitch" because I believe no one over at wotc even thought such a thing could be possible. Is it overpowered? No. At most you can cram a few more PrC levels into your build. But still it involves rule lawyering and unintended use of heighten spell to cheat requirements.

Versatile Spellcaster to cast spells you can't cast yet? Definite glitch, especially because of the amount of rule lawyering debate it has caused on these forums. Is it overpowered? No, it takes considerable amount of resources to gain spell known you can't cast yet, and your advantage is robbed the next level or so.

Using DMM for persistent spell? Not a glitch, especially since the FAQ itself says you can do it. FAQ is hated by a lot of people because it tells people "you can't do that" without using the rules, but it is unquestionably the RAI, and it directly says you can use DMM to cast spells you normally wouldn't be able to cast. So it has the blessing of both RAW and RAI. Powerful but not TO.

Uncle Pine

2018-03-06, 03:50 PM

Interesting thought!
Would a Tippyverse then be a TO game?

I kind of go with what people were saying about any real game not being TO, and TO being optimization without consideration for a specific game.

Tippyverse is in my opinion the most glaring (and only, as far as I know) example of TO at a real table.
I don't necessarily agree with the fact that TO means "something that can never hit a table", just that in the vast majority of tables (= everyone but Tippy's) it would mean the whole campaign has no reason to exist: when one character is a Cancer Mage which abused festering anger to achieve a Str score of 9,856,433 it's implausible to believe he was the first person in history to realize that you can do such a thing, which in turn leads to considering how improbable the existence of a world would be if something with such ability scores existed at any point of history. Since a normal world wouldn't be able to account for such a character, it means that this character must have never existed, which means that a Cancer Mage such as the one this particular player wants to play can't exist - on the other hand, a TO world such as Tippyverse is equipped to deal with people with NI Strength, so such people can exist there.

This makes me wonder... I don't explicitly disallow infinite or nigh infinite shenanigans at my table, but I always remind my players that whatever they decide to use is also fair game for me in order to keep things moderately in check. One time this player decided to create a Cancer Mage and stated that he was going to contract festering anger with his disease host class feature. I let him take his time picking the rest of his levels, gears, etc. while the other players kept going on with the adventure. When it was time to introduce the character, I described in fine details him having a flashback about a time when he was but an infant in a crib, witnessing a thin purple fracture inexplicably opening on a wall one faithful day. As a slim, athletic little scaly person with large spherical eyes crept out of it with an ancient sigh, he could remember seeing a tiny amber snake curling around its neck. The last thing the cancer mage could make out of that memory was the creature approaching him and stabbing him repeatedly with a curved runed dagger, killing him. Then I asked the player to make a new character.
For those confused, yes that's totally Pun Pun teleporting through time to preserve the balance of the universe and make sure no one can come up with something that could at any point threathen him.
Does this make my table TO? :smalleek:

Segev

2018-03-06, 04:14 PM

The T in TO means "theoretical".

If it's used in practice, then it can't be theoretical -- it's been put into practice..

Not quite. Theoretical things can still be put into practice; they're still theories, just now ones demonstrated in practice.

One other topic that is brushed by this discussion without quite being mentioned is that of "cheese." I think the reason cheese gets so hard to define is because it depends on something as nebulous as what a DM will allow in a game. Only instead of the DM's permission, it looks at the intent of the rules.

People tend to call things "cheesy" if there is a perceived disparity between what the rules seem to intent you to be doing with them, and the use to which somebody is putting them. This isn't a perfect definition, but it's a good guideline. And, since rules-as-intended is very hard to nail down, this explains why whether or not something is "cheese" is a hotly-debated subject.

You can have cheesy things that aren't overpowered, and overpowered things that aren't cheesy, though a lot of cheesy things ARE overpowered.

And, of course, a lot of cheese is pure TO, because it's not expected that you'd find a DM who'd actually let you use it in a game.

Nifft

2018-03-06, 04:48 PM

Some glitches are hard to define, but some glitches are not.

Using nightstick to fuel DMM? Others in this thread expressed that they don't view it as a glitch. I think it's not their intended use and nightsticks are the reason imo DMM:Persist gets a bad name, so this is up for debate. Unclear. Hard to define. I'm probably wrong though, seeing how there is 0 rule lawyering involved. The interesting thing about Nightsticks is that you can "solve" the problem by adding more rules-lawyering.

For example: possession of a Nightstick means you can use your Turn Undead feature 4 extra times per day. Nothing prohibits stacking -- and nothing allows stacking.

If you possess two Nightsticks, you possess at least one Nightstick: therefore you gain a total of 4 Turn Undead attempts per day. This reading is ungenerous, uncommon, and 100% RAW valid.

Does this make my table TO? :smalleek:
By the definition many people seem to be using -- including me -- whatever happens at a real game isn't TO by definition.

But also, what you seem to be doing is allowing the appearance of "anything goes", but then harshly stomping down anything which violates your sensibility. You're doing this in-game via Pun-Pun instead of OoC via communication of expectations. That's not TO, it's just regular heavy-handed DM. You're adding content to a future poster's "horror stories of a player" thread.

Not quite. Theoretical things can still be put into practice; they're still theories, just now ones demonstrated in practice.
Psst! Read the whole thing.

But what Tippy allows at his table might not be practical for my table, so therefore what you're trying to ask is fundamentally flawed.

There is no absolute TO, since tables differ.

What happens at a real table can't be TO at that table, but it might be TO for every other table on the planet.

When a theoretical thing is put into practice, it stops being designated as "theoretical", since "theoretical" ceases to be a distinguishing characteristic.

Segev

2018-03-06, 06:39 PM

The interesting thing about Nightsticks is that you can "solve" the problem by adding more rules-lawyering.

For example: possession of a Nightstick means you can use your Turn Undead feature 4 extra times per day. Nothing prohibits stacking -- and nothing allows stacking.

If you possess two Nightsticks, you possess at least one Nightstick: therefore you gain a total of 4 Turn Undead attempts per day. This reading is ungenerous, uncommon, and 100% RAW valid.My personal take on it is that, per the RAW, you have N uses of Turn Undead per day. When you have used it N times, you can't do it anymore. Each nightstick you're wielding increases N by 4. If you use all of your uses, then pick up a Nightstick and use it 4 more times, you again can't use it anymore. If you put down the Nightstick, you've now used it N+4 times that day. 4 more than you're entitled to. This doesn't make them unhappen, but it does mean you can't use another one.

If you pick up a new Nightstick, you've still used it the same number of times that day. And that matches the maximum number you're allowed (4 more than without a Nightstick). So you're still unable to use more.

If you pick up and wield TWO Nightsticks, you now have used 4 fewer than you're entitled to, and can use it 4 more times. But now, if you put them down, you're 8 over your maximum. Pick them (or new ones) back up, and you're at your maximum. Either way, unless you can wield more than two rods, you've capped out.

i.e., Nightsticks don't hold "charges" of Turn/Rebuke Undead, they just change your maximum number of uses by +4.

When a theoretical thing is put into practice, it stops being designated as "theoretical", since "theoretical" ceases to be a distinguishing characteristic.
This is not an accurate definition. If something is theoretical but not practical, it is labeled as "only theoretical." Because practical things can be theoretical, as well.

Note, not all practical things are theoretical! If we know something works, but lack a theoretical model as to why, then we don't have a theoretical understanding of it. We just know it works in practice.

Nifft

2018-03-06, 06:56 PM

My personal take on it is that, per the RAW, you have N uses of Turn Undead per day. When you have used it N times, you can't do it anymore. Each nightstick you're wielding increases N by 4. If you use all of your uses, then pick up a Nightstick and use it 4 more times, you again can't use it anymore. If you put down the Nightstick, you've now used it N+4 times that day. 4 more than you're entitled to. This doesn't make them unhappen, but it does mean you can't use another one.

If you pick up a new Nightstick, you've still used it the same number of times that day. And that matches the maximum number you're allowed (4 more than without a Nightstick). So you're still unable to use more.

If you pick up and wield TWO Nightsticks, you now have used 4 fewer than you're entitled to, and can use it 4 more times. But now, if you put them down, you're 8 over your maximum. Pick them (or new ones) back up, and you're at your maximum. Either way, unless you can wield more than two rods, you've capped out.

i.e., Nightsticks don't hold "charges" of Turn/Rebuke Undead, they just change your maximum number of uses by +4. The problem with that reading is that RAW says "in your possession", not "wielded".

Your result seems balanced, but unfortunately it's not as well supported by RAW.

This is not an accurate definition. Note that I've been discussing designation, not definition.

The difference between what you want to talk about and what I'm talking about is the difference between a "mathematician's answer (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MathematiciansAnswer)" (correct but worthless) and an actually useful answer which isn't misleading.

If something is theoretical but not practical, it is labeled as "only theoretical." Because practical things can be theoretical, as well. That's what TO is used to designate: things that have "theoretical" as a distinguishing characteristic.

That's precisely why I make the distinction where I do.

unseenmage

2018-03-07, 01:48 AM

Why do people assume salt created with wall of salt is something edible and actually worth money?

Because adding the purify food and drink spell to the process is as trivial as adding the cost of packagingv aznd distribution.
Just doesn't compare to the profit gained.

Mordaedil

2018-03-07, 02:18 AM

I'm kinda new to the abbreviations used in the RPG community, so until this thread came along, I thought TO stood for "Tippy Oververse".

I am not a smart man.

Florian

2018-03-07, 03:14 AM

I guess I'm using TO in a different way than everyone.

It seems everyone believes TO = power level tier, as in everything in TO surpasses PO or high-op, where as I view it, as Florian puts it, optimization with "glitches".

So in my view TO stuff can be weaker than PO stuff if, because I categorize it based on "glitches" rather than power.

But I guess I'm wrong.

Nah, I also think this is more about heavy rules lawyering rather than raw power. It´s just that the stuff that is really game breaking is what's more often discussed because it´s so ridiculous, or rather, it´s ridiculous how some people act on a "RAW is RAW and infallible" stance even when the FAQ says otherwise, which is like saying that it was a cool and intended part of the game that you could often simply drop out of the world in early WoW due to glitching.

Gnaeus

2018-03-07, 06:47 AM

The thing about tippyverse is that it’s defining factors (traps of create food/water, ring gates, logic) aren’t really super high op. Sure some of his other RAW positions would rarely fly. But you can get something much like it at a much lower level table if the traps are allowed.

sorcererlover

2018-03-07, 07:38 AM

Segev

2018-03-07, 12:09 PM

The problem with that reading is that RAW says "in your possession", not "wielded".Except that no rods work off of just owning them. I mean, "in your possession" is meaningless by the RAW. You have to either interpret it in context (where having a ring, for example, "in your possession" would very likely refer to actually wearing it, unless language was VERY carefully used to indicate that the ring was exceptional for giving a power even when not warn), or you have to use the English definition (in which case we get into whether possession involves ownership, carrying it, having it somewhere you put it and nobody's disturbed it...)

Nothing in how it's written suggests to me that it's unusual amongst Rods such that the normal use isn't required. It looks to me like a potentially poor word choice, since you can misinterpret it, but nothing calls it out sufficiently as a DELIBERATE "you don't have to be holding the stupid thing" word choice for me to ignore context of it being a rod.

Note that I've been discussing designation, not definition.

The difference between what you want to talk about and what I'm talking about is the difference between a "mathematician's answer (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MathematiciansAnswer)" (correct but worthless) and an actually useful answer which isn't misleading.

That's what TO is used to designate: things that have "theoretical" as a distinguishing characteristic.

That's precisely why I make the distinction where I do.I pointed out in my post why "TO" isn't true-but-useless by the definition I used. TO is operating without attention to the DM's decisions, or is testing the limits of the DM's stated house rules and limitations. PO is where you take that to the DM and ask if that's okay, and see if he changes anything further/okays it as-is. It remains TO even when put in practice, unless the final PO is ad hoc'd by the DM to get it finally into a shape he was comfortable with.

It is quite possible for PO not to be TO, and for TO not to be PO. It is also possible for TO to be PO. TO is about how you got to the design. PO is about whether it's allowed in a particular game.

Which is more powerful? Ubercharging or DMM:Persist? Because in the games I've been in my DM actively encouraged our new players to build uberchargers and even that wasn't enough to win encounters all the time.

I've been reading online and there seems to be a great amount of hate for DMM:Persist, but then those people admitted that they are banning it on theory rather than seeing it in practice first.DMM:Persist is much, much more powerful. An ubercharger can splatter any creature it can hit. DMM:Persist can warp campaigns around the way they change the game.

sorcererlover

2018-03-07, 12:29 PM

DMM:Persist is much, much more powerful. An ubercharger can splatter any creature it can hit. DMM:Persist can warp campaigns around the way they change the game.

Can you elaborate on how a DMM:Persist can warp campaigns around? Because all I'm seeing is DMM:Persist Divine power and its damage is much less than that of an ubercharger.

I mean sure the DM has to add dispel magic to every encounter but an ubercharger is far more dangerous than a divine power cleric, so if an encounter can stop an ubercharger it stops a DMM cleric no?

DEMON

2018-03-07, 12:44 PM

In a single sentence answer that might get disputed just as any other post: TO is anything to which your DM says: "no".

On the flip side, anything to which your DM says "yes", is a PO no matter how powerful/ridiculous/arbitrary.

Mato

2018-03-07, 12:48 PM

Q: Where's the line between high optimization and TO?
A: It's right there in your post.

DMM:Persist is high optimization.
Using Nightsticks to fuel DMM:Persist is Theoretical optimization

Stacking Effects
Item effects stack just as spells do (see Stacking Effects, page 137).

Stacking Effects
Spells that provide bonuses or penalties on attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and other attributes don’t stack with themselves.

Using lower spell levels from different classes that is not bard/paladin/ranger is Theoretical Optimization. So like Eternal Wand of Charm Monster is high op but Eternal Wand of Lesser Planar Binding is TO.

An eternal wand holds a single arcane spell of 3rd level or lower, determined during creation.

]Planar Binding, Lesser
Conjuration (Calling) [see text]
Level: Sor/Wiz 5

Anything used with Precocious Apprentice is Theoretical Optimizaiton.

When you become able to cast 2nd-level spells, you lose the benefit described above but retain the extra 2nd-level spell slot, which you can use to prepare or spontaneously cast a spell of 2nd level or lower as you normally would.

Anything that breaks wealth by level (Flesh to Salt, Liquid Pain Farms, Thought Bottles) is Theoretical Optimization.

Keep in mind that this information is based on character power as well as expected treasure. Table 5–1: Character Wealth by Level gives a guideline for about how much treasure a character of a certain level should possess.

Using Earth Spell to qualify for PrCs earlier than usual is... TO? High Op?

As spells increase in level, they become exponentially more complicated, requiring a discipline of thought and an understanding of principles impossible for low-level characters to learn.

I don't have time to hit them all, and some of them fall into the fallacy people call "RAW" making them "dubious" to some, but there are a few quick answers for you.

I'm having trouble recognizing a pattern here. Exactly where is the line and how do you determine if a trick is high op or TO?It all depends on if the rules and/or context disagrees with the statement. If the rules don't support it then it's wrong and millennials try to take home a "TO" prize for their effort.

Nifft

2018-03-07, 01:39 PM

Except that no rods work off of just owning them.

You've apparently never read the Core rules, because there are several in Core which do exactly that.

The most iconic Rod in D&D -- the Immovable Rod -- works perfectly well when unattended, let alone unwielded.

Here's another one:

Splendor

The possessor of this rod gains a +4 enhancement bonus to her Charisma score for as long as she holds or carries the item.
Emphasis partially mine.

You're wrong about the rules of the game in general, and in specific you're also wrong. The Nightstick write-up does not say that you have to hold the item to gain its function, unlike the other three Rods in the same book.

Could you PLEASE do some reading, even just fact-check my assertions about the SRD -- they're easy to verify, guess how I know -- and stop dragging the thread off-topic?

Segev

2018-03-07, 03:36 PM

Can you elaborate on how a DMM:Persist can warp campaigns around? Because all I'm seeing is DMM:Persist Divine power and its damage is much less than that of an ubercharger.

I mean sure the DM has to add dispel magic to every encounter but an ubercharger is far more dangerous than a divine power cleric, so if an encounter can stop an ubercharger it stops a DMM cleric no?You're overly focused on damage. Consider, instead, Persist shapechange. Or Persist owl's insight (the short-duration divine spell that gives CL/2 insight bonus to Wisdom). Persist greater ironguard makes you immune to metal weapons all day long. Immune. Period. Even magical ones. Persist greater blink lets you controllably shift back and forth to the Ethereal Plane more or less at will. Think of a spell whose duration makes you think it'd be nice if you managed to pick when to use it correctly, and then imagine having it all day long.

You've apparently never read the Core rules, because there are several in Core which do exactly that.

The most iconic Rod in D&D -- the Immovable Rod -- works perfectly well when unattended, let alone unwielded.

Here's another one:
Emphasis partially mine.

You're wrong about the rules of the game in general, and in specific you're also wrong. The Nightstick write-up does not say that you have to hold the item to gain its function, unlike the other three Rods in the same book.

Could you PLEASE do some reading, even just fact-check my assertions about the SRD -- they're easy to verify, guess how I know -- and stop dragging the thread off-topic?
Note that both expressly call out their function as being distinct from normal. The Immovable Rod very clearly specifies a button you must press. The Rod of Splendor specifies a specific one of several effects that works "when held or carried," because it actually matters that that one applies "when carried" as well as "when held."

Trying to get high-handed about dragging the thread off topic while insulting my intelligence or intellectual honesty by suggesting that I'm unwilling to or incapable of "checking your assertions" (when you actually hadn't presented any examples for me to "check" before), implying that I'm somehow being unfair to you by ignoring cogent points you've made, is rather low as an argumentative tactic. I had expected better from you.

Florian

2018-03-07, 03:50 PM

Which is more powerful? Ubercharging or DMM:Persist? Because in the games I've been in my DM actively encouraged our new players to build uberchargers and even that wasn't enough to win encounters all the time.

I've been reading online and there seems to be a great amount of hate for DMM:Persist, but then those people admitted that they are banning it on theory rather than seeing it in practice first.

You're more or less asking the question wrong.

By themselves, both, Ubercharger and DMM:Persist are fine. Ubercharger uses the usual rules for stacking, especially stacking multipliers, while DMM is just an example of stupid but valid game design that allows you to spent a limited resource (turn attempts), for something else.

Now let's say you use one of the usual free gp/xp shenanigans to craft some free Ioun Stone of (Feat X). Now for the Ubercharger, you're running out of Ioun stones to create quite fast because there's only a limited amount of feats that will ultimately stack up. The Persistomancer can simple get an endless amount of Extra Turning (and Pearls of Power) until they get bored and than simple add all the regular Ubercharger things on top. And no, before you start saying "custom item!" - Nightsticks.

The great amount of flak DMM: Persist gets is simply based on the horrible game design here and is greatly justified. Divine Power is a good example: Normally you have a choice: Full BAB or full casting. Persisting that spell will make the choice meaningless. It also touches on other game aspects, like resource management and economy of actions. Persisting one of the Vital Aura spells make both meaningless.

As a side note: When using tried and true PO stuff doesn't work, you're way beyond what the system itself can handle.

RoboEmperor

2018-03-07, 03:51 PM

You're overly focused on damage. Consider, instead, Persist shapechange. Or Persist owl's insight (the short-duration divine spell that gives CL/2 insight bonus to Wisdom). Persist greater ironguard makes you immune to metal weapons all day long. Immune. Period. Even magical ones. Persist greater blink lets you controllably shift back and forth to the Ethereal Plane more or less at will. Think of a spell whose duration makes you think it'd be nice if you managed to pick when to use it correctly, and then imagine having it all day long.

When you're at 9th level spells, nothing matters. So it doesn't matter if you're gating solars, abominations, persisting shapechange, spamming time stop, etc. Nothing matters. So saying DMM:persistent spell is broken because it persists shapechange is not an argument.

Owl's Insight is a touch spell so it cannot be persisted.

Greater Ironguard is a sorcerer/wizard spell exclusive. No domain grants it. So it can't be DMM:Persisted because the cleric has no access to it. Also it is a touch spell so it can't be persisted.

Greater Blink is a 8th level spell for a cleric with the celerity domain. Again at 8th level spells the game is over, so saying because you can persist 8th level spells the build is broken is not an argument.

DMM:Persist clerics (aka Clericzilla) is just a brute. Damage Dealer. A gish. Nothing more. And Ubercharger beats this by miles.

Nifft

2018-03-07, 04:12 PM

Note that both expressly call out their function as being distinct from normal. The Immovable Rod very clearly specifies a button you must press. The Rod of Splendor specifies a specific one of several effects that works "when held or carried," because it actually matters that that one applies "when carried" as well as "when held." In that vein, I'll ask you to note that the language for the Nightstick is different from the language of the other three Rods in the same section, because the other three Rods must be wielded -- unlike the Nightstick, which expressly functions merely by being possessed.

So, even taking your current argument under consideration, you're still wrong.

Trying to get high-handed about dragging the thread off topic while insulting my intelligence or intellectual honesty by suggesting that I'm unwilling to or incapable of "checking your assertions" (when you actually hadn't presented any examples for me to "check" before), implying that I'm somehow being unfair to you by ignoring cogent points you've made, is rather low as an argumentative tactic. I had expected better from you.
Man what?

You were making assertions about the whole of the rules, and your assertions are wrong.

Your arguments must either arise from ignorance, or malice -- and I'm assuming an absence of malice, so just regular ignorance. Your ignorance about this matter says nothing about your intelligence.

What I'd tried to imply when discussing my examples was that you should fact check your system-wide assertions a bit harder, not that I'd made those specific examples before.

If I was unclear, that's my bad -- but I don't think it's reasonable to call me high-handed, nor to insinuate that I insulted your intelligence.

... and now I feel like I've been dragged even further from the topic. Ugh.

Florian

2018-03-07, 04:24 PM

Mato

2018-03-07, 04:26 PM

By using reach spell any touch spell has a fixed range of 30ft, dispel magic has a built in caster level cap lower than your caster level (specially if you get into persisting), and clerics of Mystra can ignore antimagic effects after level 3.

@Sorvererlover, if you want a great example of what I said before read the recent posts. They are trying to defend DMM:Persist but when someone brings up 9th level spells they claim those don't count. And when somebody brought up some lower level ones they claimed those don't count either. Are you starting to see the picture yet?

To make something TO, all you have to do is argue you are right. No matter what anyone else or the rules say, just make up an excuse and theoretically you might be correct in someone's mind (mostly just your own).

Florian

2018-03-07, 04:44 PM

sorcererlover

2018-03-07, 04:48 PM

@Sorvererlover, if you want a great example of what I said before read the recent posts. They are trying to defend DMM:Persist but when someone brings up 9th level spells they claim those don't count. And when somebody brought up some lower level ones they claimed those don't count either. Are you starting to see the picture yet?

I don't see your point. 9th level spell craziness is apparent to everyone and you don't need persistent spell to break games with 9th level spells.

Also DMM:Persist isn't TO, neither is ubercharging. I was asking why exactly people have a problem with DMM:Persist but not with ubercharging. While I believe using ocular spell and reach spell to cheat persistent spell's requirement is TO, DMM:Persist is not.

I agree with someonenoone11 that if something is to be broken or overpowered, it should break the game at lower levels not at 8th and 9th spell levels.

To make something TO, all you have to do is argue you are right. No matter what anyone else or the rules say, just make up an excuse and theoretically you might be correct in someone's mind (mostly just your own).

You're no different though. You believe you're right and you're being condescending to anyone who argues against you. They weren't even talking about rules, they were talking about the strength of DMM:Persist compared to ubercharging. No rule lawyering involved so it's not even a TO discussion and yet somehow you're saying they're TO people who is fudging the rules to their favor?

Segev

2018-03-07, 04:49 PM

Venger

2018-03-07, 04:53 PM

RoboEmperor

2018-03-07, 04:58 PM

Unfortunately, it's been years since I made the build, and I don't have it to hand right not to look at, but I once built a Sorcerer (heavily, heavily multiclassed through PrCs that stacked sorcerous casting) that did have turn/rebuke powers without being a cleric. I forget what stunt or trick I pulled to design it. It was very TO in build, though it was also PO in that a DM did let me use it (he had other players breaking the game much worse already).

I'd also have to hunt down his build to remember the lengthy list of spells he kept persisted. I was trying to recall some I'd seen more recently that would be "nice." Sorry for forgetting their inapplicability.

Regardless, if you wish to insist that there aren't any spells that persist spell breaks wide open, very well. I won't try to argue with you over it. But I challenge you to hold that banner high on these forums; optimizers with better memories (or more time to perform research) than I will likely demonstrate to you the folly of such a claim.

DMM has been errata'd to only work with divine spells so... sorcerers shouldn't be able to use DMM at all even with Sacred Exorcist.

Illumian (race) on the other hand can use turn/rebuke to persist arcane spells, but they're capped at two spells a day. With Extend spell they could theoretically persist 4 spells at once. But this isn't DMM:Persist. It's Naenhoon Persist.

edit: I will make a new thread.

edit2: Fixed double posting

By using reach spell any touch spell has a fixed range of 30ft, dispel magic has a built in caster level cap lower than your caster level (specially if you get into persisting), and clerics of Mystra can ignore antimagic effects after level 3.

Are you serious?

You may cast a spell that normally has a range of touch at any distance up to 30 feet. The spell effectively becomes a ray, so you must succeed on a ranged touch attack to bestow the spell upon the recipient. A reach spell uses up a spell slot two levels higher than the spell's actual level.

Venger

2018-03-07, 05:04 PM

DMM has been errata'd to only work with divine spells so... sorcerers shouldn't be able to use DMM at all even with Sacred Exorcist.

Illumian (race) on the other hand can use turn/rebuke to persist arcane spells, but they're capped at two spells a day. With Extend spell they could theoretically persist 4 spells at once.

Southern magician. You're probably not persisting more spells a day than it allows you to transform.

RoboEmperor

2018-03-07, 05:27 PM

While I believe using ocular spell and reach spell to cheat persistent spell's requirement is TO, DMM:Persist is not.

Ocular Spell and Reach Spell change the spell to a ranged touch attack, which disqualifies it for Persistent Spell, so this isn't even TO. It's illegal.

Segev

2018-03-07, 05:29 PM

Ocular Spell and Reach Spell change the spell to a ranged touch attack, which disqualifies it for Persistent Spell, so this isn't even TO. It's illegal.

I suggest taking this to the new thread for the purpose. Suffice it to say, you've got quite the can of worms of legalistic parsing that will likely be argued, here.

Mato

2018-03-09, 09:48 AM

I don't see your point. 9th level spell craziness is apparent to everyone and you don't need persistent spell to break games with 9th level spells. That's because you're looking at at 9th level spells while I have been talking about arguments this entire time. Now go back and reread those posts and you'll realize I said divine metamagic isn't not TO but trying to stack nightsticks is, and you'll understand why.

Are you serious?
Yes, persisting spells with a fixed range is actually persist spell's first usage. It's example, detect magic, is actually a spell with a range entry of 60ft instead of personal too. Simply being a ray spell doesn't disqualify a spell but most ray spells use a range determined by caster level, like scorching ray uses close.

Spells with a fixed or personal range can have their duration increased to 24 hours. Spells of instantaneous duration cannot be affected by this feat, nor can spells whose effects are discharged. You don't need to maintain concentration on persistent detect spells (such as detect magic or detect thoughts) for you to be aware of the mere presence or absence of the subject detected, but gaining additional information requires concentration as normal. A persistent spell uses up a spell slot six levels higher than the spell's actual level.Ironguard is not an instantaneous spell and it cannot be discharged, with reach spell it's range becomes a fixed value of 30ft.

@sorcererlover, if you want to know why I tend to appear condescending to someone who has posted a question and then argued they didn't like the answers, just read one of the replies about this that argues persisting a spell with a range of X feet is TO. The most important part of their argument isn't the inaccuracy of their facts & statements but that they consider the validity of it dubious and as such, to them, it is TO.

Nifft

2018-03-12, 02:23 PM

@Nifft:

You're actually making a prime example for the whole topic, which is actually quite amusing
Yes, you'll find an exception to the rules anywhere and then proceed to argue as if the exception was part of the general, instead of maybe saying that possible the Immovable Rod is in the wrong item category, you would possible answer that you could craft potions with wondrous items because you have to drink a philter of love, right? Well, glad to help amuse, I guess.

This isn't really a category thing, though -- the language is distinct:

https://i.imgur.com/EOgvl86.jpg

Regarding your idea about Elixer = Potion: by RAW, of course, there's no such equivalence.

IMHO the Brew Potion feat is underpowered, and RAW potions kinda suck, so my preference is the opposite of your proposal -- I'd rather move Elixers and Philters and a bunch of other single-use items into Potions, specifically to balance out the utility disparity between the item creation feats. CWI has plenty of value even without those drinks-which-are-technically-not-potions.

Ocular Spell and Reach Spell change the spell to a ranged touch attack, which disqualifies it for Persistent Spell, so this isn't even TO. It's illegal.

Yeah. For Occular Spell, it's an Effect: Ray, which is a different type of spell and not one with a fixed-range area.

-- -- --

In terms of house-rules...

I wonder if it'd be more fruitful to just use the permanency list as the qualification for Persistent Spell.

You'd pay a feat, then get one of those effects (which you can cast) active all day.

Cosi

2018-03-12, 02:44 PM

I wonder if it'd be more fruitful to just use the permanency list as the qualification for Persistent Spell.

One suggestion I saw was that you gave players a fixed number of slots (I think it was 8?) into which they could put permanent/long term magical effects. So your magical sword, or your Persistent divine power, or the shapeshifting power you got from being a werewolf. Obviously that requires some work to balance, but I think that brings Persist-o-mancy down some without completely destroying characters that are legitimately pretty cool (like the guy who Persists dimension jumper). You probably either need to add some additional cost, or to make magic items better, but I like the idea. Also, even at a very bare bones level, it at least means the Cleric can't literally be the Fighter plus extra stuff.

Nifft

2018-03-12, 02:48 PM

One suggestion I saw was that you gave players a fixed number of slots (I think it was 8?) into which they could put permanent/long term magical effects. So your magical sword, or your Persistent divine power, or the shapeshifting power you got from being a werewolf. Obviously that requires some work to balance, but I think that brings Persist-o-mancy down some without completely destroying characters that are legitimately pretty cool (like the guy who Persists dimension jumper). You probably either need to add some additional cost, or to make magic items better, but I like the idea. Also, even at a very bare bones level, it at least means the Cleric can't literally be the Fighter plus extra stuff.

That's a really neat idea.

Maybe even use it to mildly nerf casters, by making casting somehow occupy a few effect-slots, so a Fighter-type would have more available buff slots than a caster.

Eldariel

2018-03-12, 03:01 PM

That's a really neat idea.

Maybe even use it to mildly nerf casters, by making casting somehow occupy a few effect-slots, so a Fighter-type would have more available buff slots than a caster.

You could just tie training your body (i.e. levels in non-caster classes) to an increase in the number of effect slots you have in the first place.

Mato

2018-03-12, 09:55 PM

One suggestion I saw was that you gave players a fixed number of slots (I think it was 8?) into which they could put permanent/long term magical effects. So your magical sword, or your Persistent divine power, or the shapeshifting power you got from being a werewolf.
That's a really neat idea.

Maybe even use it to mildly nerf casters, by making casting somehow occupy a few effect-slots, so a Fighter-type would have more available buff slots than a caster.Of course it sounds like a neat idea, that's how magic item slots work. And if you like the idea of using magic to cast "spells" to create magical effects you benefit from all day, and take up slots when made to be more powerful, WotC thought that was an awesome idea too and gave us a decently balanced supplement for it in September 2005.

Cosi

2018-03-12, 10:39 PM

Of course it sounds like a neat idea, that's how magic item slots work. And if you like the idea of using magic to cast "spells" to create magical effects you benefit from all day, and take up slots when made to be more powerful, WotC thought that was an awesome idea too and gave us a decently balanced supplement for it in September 2005.

No, that's not how magic items slots work. Because there are unslotted magic items. In the proposed set up, you would not be able to get "free" power out of Ion Stones (which do not take up a slot under the current system).

Your characterization of Magic of Incarnum is weird. Obviously "here is a new system that does a thing" is a different thing from "we should change an old system to do a thing", and frankly "they take up magic item slots" is a pretty minor note for Magic of Incarnum. Also, that book is nowhere close to balanced. Two-thirds of its classes are "worse Paladin" and "really big skill numbers that don't do anything". Also, it has the Spinemeld Warrior in it.

Lans

2018-03-13, 12:45 AM

Because adding the purify food and drink spell to the process is as trivial as adding the cost of packagingv aznd distribution.
Just doesn't compare to the profit gained.

That would only work if the salt created is an edible form of salt like NaCl.

And for the value of table salt

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_3wRicL-QI

Segev

2018-03-13, 10:55 AM

No, that's not how magic items slots work. Because there are unslotted magic items. In the proposed set up, you would not be able to get "free" power out of Ion Stones (which do not take up a slot under the current system).

Your characterization of Magic of Incarnum is weird. Obviously "here is a new system that does a thing" is a different thing from "we should change an old system to do a thing", and frankly "they take up magic item slots" is a pretty minor note for Magic of Incarnum. Also, that book is nowhere close to balanced. Two-thirds of its classes are "worse Paladin" and "really big skill numbers that don't do anything". Also, it has the Spinemeld Warrior in it.

Don't knock skill bonuses that are shiftable. There are builds that use that quite well.

But yes, Magic of Incarnum is weird. Very weird.

I disagree on the notion that the magic item slot association is "minor." It's actually one of the more prominent design features, and impacts what you can mix and match and how.

Mato

2018-03-13, 12:08 PM

But yes, Magic of Incarnum is weird. Very weird.Which is besides the point, and Cosi's entire post is simply ad hominem anyway.

WotC even admits to to MoI being about (level-scaling) magic items as class features.

A whole new system awaits you in the Magic of Incarnum D&D supplement. With this book, player characters can meld incarnum -- the power of souls living, dead, and unborn -- into magic items and even their own bodies, granting them special attacks, defenses, and other abilities (much as magic items and spells do). Incarnum can be shaped and reshaped into new forms, giving characters tremendous versatility in the dungeon and on any battlefield. This book also features new classes, prestige classes, feats, and other options for characters wishing to explore the secrets of incarnum, as well as rules and advice for including incarnum in a D&D campaign. The excerpts below include information on a new race called dusklings, the totemist class, the lammasu mantle, sphinx claws, the spell conjure midnight construct, and monster statistics for necrocarnum zombies.

They just had a different thought than making something like bite of the werebear taking up your head slot would totally balance the massive epic-scaled bonuses obtained from the spell. It appears they just figured an effect like that was just too powerful to begin with so they toned the bonuses down some. It also makes Cosi's complaint some kind of Goldilocks deal; Spells are too powerful and they need to use MoI's premise, but he totally didn't mean MoI because that is too weak (and not that he has no idea what MoI is). :smallsigh:

Cosi

2018-03-13, 12:19 PM

Don't knock skill bonuses that are shiftable. There are builds that use that quite well.

Skill bonuses are just not an entire (viable) build. Like, I don't care if you can be really good at Jump today and really good at Climb tomorrow. Even if you could do both of those things at once, that would not be an entire character. There are skills that are worth an entire character (UMD, Diplomacy), but there are few enough of them that shuffling your bonuses around doesn't do much.

I disagree on the notion that the magic item slot association is "minor." It's actually one of the more prominent design features, and impacts what you can mix and match and how.

The fact that soulmelds compete with each other is important. The fact that you can't stick sphinx claws and gorallion arms in your totem at the same time is totally a thing that matters. The fact that they compete with items is much less so. It makes you gear marginally weirder, because they don't actually trade off. The key to the set up I was proposing is actually the capped number of items and buffs, because that makes the tradeoff real.

WotC even admits to to MoI being about (level-scaling) magic items as class features.

Wat?

Your quote says that you can make magic items that use Incarnum. Which, yes, but that is not the same as saying "what if your buffs traded off with magic items" was the point. Because that's not what you achieve in a world of slotless magic items. Magic of Incarnum was "what is some of your buffs sometimes meant you had to buy weird magic items or magic items that were slightly more expensive?" which is an entirely different, and much stupider, question.

It also makes Cosi's complaint some kind of Goldilocks deal; Spells are too powerful and they need to use MoI's premise, but he totally didn't mean MoI because that is too weak (and not that he has no idea what MoI is). :smallsigh:

I mean, it seems kind of rude to assume that I didn't know what Magic of Incarnum was. I would totally have told you that Magic of Incarnum was weak and stupid yesterday, or at any point before that. I could even have told you which parts of Magic of Incarnum I thought were worthwhile designs (it's the thing where you can assign points to different abilities).

Nifft

2018-03-13, 12:47 PM

Mato

2018-03-13, 05:58 PM

The fact that soulmelds compete with each other is important. The fact that you can't stick sphinx claws and gorallion arms in your totem at the same time is totally a thing that matters. The fact that they compete with items is much less so. It makes you gear marginally weirder, because they don't actually trade off. The key to the set up I was proposing is actually the capped number of items and buffs, because that makes the tradeoff real.Yeah, that's the point. We're discussing the same exact thing it's just you haven't figured out the connection yet. The only difference here is your idea has barely been detailed out while WotC's already completed the whole nine yards. Like at your current stage of thinking your '8' persist spell slots have no typing to them, in other words I can dedicate all of them to increasing a character's strength score. MoI however often makes one strength-boosting effect compete with another different strength boosting effect rather than allowing you to use both of them.

And you can actually stack sphinx claws and gorallion arms together. What you can't do is bind the both of them in the same slot together unless you take the double chakra feat. And again that's designed to prevent stacking abuse just like the proposal of slotting persisted items to nerf them. And it's attempt to provide a more balanced version of magical buffs that last 24 hours a day worked since all you can do is complain it's too weak. And that's where the Goldilocks syndrome comes in, persisting spells is too powerful and you want to make up houserules to weaken it. MoI pretty much already did this, but it's too weak so you don't like that either.

Cosi

2018-03-13, 06:08 PM

Yeah, that's the point. We're discussing the same exact thing it's just you haven't figured out the connection yet.

Are you not reading my posts? I've not only figured out the connections, I've figured out the differences. You're stuck on "slots are slots". Except they're not. Because Magic of Incarnum lives in a world that has slotless items, which means the most anything can ever do is make you pay twice as much for your items (and, frankly, it probably does nothing or makes you pay half again as much).

Like at your current stage of thinking your '8' persist spell slots have no typing to them, in other words I can dedicate all of them to increasing a character's strength score. MoI however often makes one strength-boosting effect compete with another different strength boosting effect rather than allowing you to use both of them.

Yes. And that's honestly fine. We already have typed bonuses. If you think +20 STR is too good, just don't print +20 worth of STR boosts in stacking types. If your case for slot types is avoiding stacking concerns, slot types are stupid. The game is, ceteris paribus, if you have the ability to choose between "STR Buff 1 + STR Buff 2", "STR Buff 1 + DEX Buff 1", "STR Buff 1 + DEX Buff 2", "STR Buff 2 + DEX Buff 1", "STR Buff 2 + DEX Buff 2", and "DEX Buff 1 + DEX Buff 2" instead of just the combos with one of each.

And it's attempt to provide a more balanced version of magical buffs that last 24 hours a day worked since all you can do is complain it's too weak.

I mean, couldn't it actually be too weak? Is it not conceivable to you that Magic of Incarnum might be below the appropriate balance point for content? Because it looks to me like you're saying "you think it is too weak" like that is in-and-of-itself an argument. I can think something is too good without thinking every nerf to it is justified.

Mato

2018-03-13, 06:31 PM

Because Magic of Incarnum lives in a world that has slotless itemsSo does D&D, ioun stones don't take up item slots any more than drawing a wondrous figurine. There are probably a half dozen similar effects that can achieve the same result. Like MiC's rules on adding common effects to items allows a minor cloak of displacement to gain the benefits of a +5 cloak of resistance and a +6 cloak of charisma for their respective market prices with no additional fees for combining them. Equipment like a wand hilt effectively renders a wand slotless since it shares the same hand slot as the weapon you are holding too.

Yes. And that's honestly fine. We already have typed bonuses.Which is not enough. A good example would be infernal transformation and holy transformation, both can be persisted and neither one prevents the other from being applied outside of how clerics cannot cast spells that oppose their alignments (so just be neutral). The caster is allowed to stack a +4 profane bonus to strength and a +4 sacred bonus to strength, and he can combine them both with valiant fury for a +12 bonus to strength and he hasn't even looked into the enhancement bonus type yet. MoI/items had an additional stacking rule by observing that certain bonuses should come from certain slots. Like strength would be a belt or arm slot, so you can only apply a maximum of two strength increasing effects if you stuck to the guidelines.

I mean, couldn't it actually be too weak? Is it not conceivable to you that Magic of Incarnum might be below the appropriate balance point for content? Because it looks to me like you're saying "you think it is too weak" like that is in-and-of-itself an argument. I can think something is too good without thinking every nerf to it is justified.No, but you're branching off topic. MoI already developed the idea you just thought of and that is the path they choose and where they ended up at. You should use it as a lesson, you can even copy ideas from it to streamline your homebrew creation or even consider writing your own higher powered incarnum material rather than writing more supplement materials for the wizard & cleric.

What you should absolutely not to is attempt to dismiss it's existence for being weak. You can't ignore the PHB because the fighter class sucks or complete warrior because the samurai is even worse than that. And you shouldn't ignore what MoI can teach you because you think the spinemeld warrior sucks.

Cosi

2018-03-13, 06:54 PM

So does D&D, ioun stones don't take up item slots any more than drawing a wondrous figurine.

Yes, and the suggestion was to change that. You know, exactly like Magic of Incarnum didn't. Because it is exactly the same as this suggestion which would.

Was that not clear? Because I thought I was fairly clear about this proposal also eliminating the idea of slotless items.

Which is not enough. A good example would be infernal transformation and holy transformation, both can be persisted and neither one prevents the other from being applied outside of how clerics cannot cast spells that oppose their alignments (so just be neutral). The caster is allowed to stack a +4 profane bonus to strength and a +4 sacred bonus to strength, and he can combine them both with valiant fury for a +12 bonus to strength and he hasn't even looked into the enhancement bonus type yet. MoI/items had an additional stacking rule by observing that certain bonuses should come from certain slots. Like strength would be a belt or arm slot, so you can only apply a maximum of two strength increasing effects if you stuck to the guidelines.

So people aren't respecting the type system we put in place to prevent buffs from getting out of hand, therefore we need an additional type system to stop buffs from getting out of hand? If your concern is that people will make things that stack when we think they shouldn't, it seems like a limit to the total number of things you can have is a better solution than trying to make the rules for what things can stack even stricter.

No, but you're branching off topic.

You were the one who opened up this conversation by commenting specifically on the balance of Magic of Incarnum. If arguments about that balance are not germaine to the topic, why did you make one? I could understand a point like "your comment about Spinemeld Warriors was stupid, they don't have anything to do with the topic". Because frankly it was and I just brought it up because of my deeply held belief that the existence of Spinemeld Warriors is an idiotic mistake for which Wizards should be relentlessly mocked. But you started the conversation about Magic of Incarnum's balance. How are my comments on it branching off topic?

What you should absolutely not to is attempt to dismiss it's existence for being weak.

It doesn't implement the two most important aspects of the change -- eliminating slotless items and capping total slots -- and it sucks (which means it doesn't work as a straight hot swap). Did I really need to prefix my comment with "you know how Magic of Incarnum tried to make buffs and items trade off? What if we did a version of that which didn't suck and was also completely different and also applied to existing classes instead of introducing new ones and also covered racial or template abilities"?

Jack_Simth

2018-03-13, 06:58 PM

I'm having trouble recognizing a pattern here. Exactly where is the line and how do you determine if a trick is high op or TO?
You're not seeing a pattern when looking at individual items in isolation because ultimately there isn't one without the context of a specific table. Practical Optimization (whether high or not) is intended for for use at a table; Theoretical Optimization is not. Anything beyond that definition will boil down to individual tastes. What specific items fall into which category will vary from person to person and table to table (and even from campaign to campaign within one table). I actually played in a game for a while where I'd ended up with Miracle, Wish, and Time Stop as at-wills (with a few sets of metamagic on top, even) at no XP or GP cost. For that campaign that was practical optimization (high, but practical). In others, that would be insane (and I've also played in games where I worked with the party to get my character down to the expected optimization level of the table, because my first stab was way too high). In some cases, I have gone through sheets for a game and compiled statistics of applications (min, max, median, average, and standard deviation for HP, AC, best save, worst save, attack bonus, highest save DC, highest skill check, et cetera) as a way of working out what the expectations are for the game so that I can be mostly in line with them (being at "highest" on one category is not a problem, at three or more is).

The real, useful advice is "know the table you're playing at". That'll tell you what is, and is not, acceptable... at that table. The point is to have fun. If you have consequence-free fun without ruining anyone else's fun: You won! Go you! If you don't have fun, or if you ruin someone else's fun, or if you damage a real-life relationship? YOU LOST, BIG TIME. D&D and Pathfinder are games that are almost always played without stakes. When there are no stakes, the point is consequence-free fun. That's your actual priority when playing. Keep that in mind, and you'll do well. Lose sight of that, and you'll become someone's problem player (or problem DM).