Sorcerers Only Get 3 9th Level Spells. Which Would You Choose?

[ColorBlindNinja]

Pretty straightforward.

Poor Sorcerers only get 3 9th level spells...

Which ones would you choose?


Personally, I'd go with:

- Shapechange: If I could only have one 9th level spell, this would be it.
- Time Stop: Stopping time is handy. :smallsmile:
- Invoke Magic: I thought a while about the last 9th level spell and settled on this one. Being able to get out of AMFs/Dead Magic Zones seems like a good idea. And yes, I'm assuming the spell can actually be cast in AMFs/DMZ like it's supposed to. :smallsigh:

Anyway, please list the spells you'd pick below.

Thank you!

[MeimuHakurei]

Gate: Because why use Summon Monster if any 36-40 HD creature is fair game?
Shades: Cast just about every conjuration spell there is? Yes please.
Shapechange: Polymorph is already borked, this even moreso.

Iffy choices:

Wish: The exp cost is high and getting what you want out of it is pretty dicey.
Mindrape: Mostly because evil, otherwise, go ahead.
Astral Projection: As useful as it sounds, it practically screams for Githyanki to come out and screw you over.

[Particle_Man]

Foresight, Gate and Soul Bind. Because I don't want to be surprised, I would like to travel, and if I have to kill someone I want them to stay dead.

[RoboEmperor]

Wish - 15,000xp to create a Mithral Golem. 7500xp with Extract Demonic Essence. Can change your race, give you templates, etc. Some templates like the Ghost Template makes you literally invincible. Can also create an Intelligent Rod of Excellent Magic to be duplicated later with Simulacrum. Any min/max guy who doesn't put Wish on their list because "it's expensive" has absolutely no idea wtf they're talking about. I'd glady trade levels for epic creatures, invincibility, or the ability to eliminate all xp cost of my spells, which in turn eliminates all material components of my spells because Wish makes 25,000gp worth of items. Not to mention it creates super high CL scrolls of Simulacrum I can UMD for some truly epic monsters.
Shapechange - Only if free wishes are allowed. If not I'll skip this because I don't fight directly.
Gate - I win button
Mindrape - Combo with Gate for permanent epic minions for 1,000xp.

I probably will only have one 9th level spell because I'll probably spend all of my xp on Wishes. Even without cheese a single Rod of Excellent Magic is absolutely phenomenal. Totally worth trading 1.5 levels for. With Extract Demonic Essence they reduce the xp cost of wish to 500xp per cast.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Shapechange - Only if free wishes are allowed. If not I'll skip this because I don't fight directly.

Free Wishes are fine, knock yourself out. :smallsmile:

[ezekielraiden]

Shapechange, Gate, and Time Stop. The previous two can both get me Wishes when I want them. The third can help me in so many situations it's not even funny.

[zfs]

Shades, Shapechange, and Gate. Between those three I should be able to access just about anything I need - Wish would be nice, but the XP cost hurts.

[gkathellar]

As has been confirmed by just about everyone: Shapechange and Gate are just about mandatory. As for the others? Season to taste. Maybe something with "everyday" use, if for some reason I can't do better with lower-level spells + metamagic.

[RoboEmperor]

As has been confirmed by just about everyone: Shapechange and Gate are just about mandatory. As for the others? Season to taste. Maybe something with "everyday" use, if for some reason I can't do better with lower-level spells + metamagic.

I think the third is always time stop. mindrape and other out of combat spells can be obtained with wish.

[Awakeninfinity]

I mainly play Gishes so...
Efflugent Epuration the ability to deny single target effects on demand is handy
Timestop- because buffing and combat prepping
Greater Dimension Jumper- because being able to nope away after a full attack is pretty funny.

Those are what I would pick.

[Quertus]

Wish - 15,000xp to create a Mithral Golem. 7500xp with Extract Demonic Essence. Can change your race, give you templates, etc. Some templates like the Ghost Template makes you literally invincible. Can also create an Intelligent Rod of Excellent Magic to be duplicated later with Simulacrum. Any min/max guy who doesn't put Wish on their list because "it's expensive" has absolutely no idea wtf they're talking about. I'd glady trade levels for epic creatures, invincibility, or the ability to eliminate all xp cost of my spells, which in turn eliminates all material components of my spells because Wish makes 25,000gp worth of items. Not to mention it creates super high CL scrolls of Simulacrum I can UMD for some truly epic monsters.
Shapechange - Only if free wishes are allowed. If not I'll skip this because I don't fight directly.
Gate - I win button
Mindrape - Combo with Gate for permanent epic minions for 1,000xp.

I probably will only have one 9th level spell because I'll probably spend all of my xp on Wishes. Even without cheese a single Rod of Excellent Magic is absolutely phenomenal. Totally worth trading 1.5 levels for. With Extract Demonic Essence they reduce the xp cost of wish to 500xp per cast.

Wow. I came here to say "Mindrape + Gate* = win", and here you've already said the same thing.

For the 3rd spell, if I don't have Wish though a Simulacrum or 20, I may have to go Wish, but a nice custom spell (like Elminster's Evasion) can really make a character.

Who am I kidding? Teleport Through Time . Was this even a question?

* Especially the 3.0 version

[Feantar]

The problem free wishes, is that if you allow that, there's no point in having anything but shapechange. Because you can wish for a staff of the other spells, a scroll, or whatever else. Seriously, you don't even need shapechange, just make a simulacrum of an advanced Efreet. So, if we can have free wishes, Shapechange, Prestidigitation, Ray of frost:P.

Edit: You can also change your spells with wish. Check the Symbul entry in the Epic Level Handbook.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Shapechange, astral projection, gate... or time stop. It's hard to pick only three :smallfrown:.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Shapechange, astral projection, gate... or time stop. It's hard to pick only three :smallfrown:.

Yeah, that's the biggest issue with being a Sorcerer.

[ericgrau]

Barring abuse that would never be allowed:

Time stop: It lets you do a lot with your lower level spells and abuse action economy. If nothing else, drop multi-BFC. Maybe self-buff a little too. As an 18th-20th level sorcerer, you can already do a lot so that's why the versatility of #2 doesn't top this list.
Shapechange: A sorcerer may only get 3 level 9 spells, but at least he can get it up 24 hours more easily. That's 1440 minutes and it lasts 200 minutes at CL 20. A greater rod of extend spell is 24,500 gp, which is well worth it and it's easy to afford two rods by the time you get 9s. So for 3 spells per day you're all set.
Foresight: It's spidey sense. I mean it says right in the spell it's a sixth sense forewarning of danger, what action to best prevent it, and enough time for you or another person to take that preventative action. So it's not just a +2, since another person doesn't even get the +2. But many DMs don't play it that way, so if so you can nix it from the list.

Otherwise I almost put this as 2nd on the list. Assuming that you or the target are given enough time to take a standard action preventative action as the spell seems to imply. That's nearly armor against the plot. And it was also almost 2nd because as many options as shapechange gives you, so do your level 1-8 spells. Still with a good long list of pre-statted forms I think I'd rather have shapechange, and because shapechanging is cool. Again, I am not considering abuse like infinite free wishes, as I think it's silly to even think of such things. Likewise get a 3rd rod of greater extend to keep it up 24 hours. And a couple expensive pearls of power unfortunately. That's a little bit of a bugger but still worth it I think. On the plus side, with all those 9s, on dungeon days you could spam foresight on your allies instead of trying to keep it up 24 hours.


All 3 of those also use action economy well, and in fact you can use all 3 at the same time. I think any good list of 3 should have 1-2 spells that work with action economy, because why use your 9s 1 at a time when you can do more than 1?

Shades only works on (summoning) and (creation), but it's still kinda nice because there are some spells you wouldn't expect in those subschools. Still I wouldn't put it in the top 3.

I left out wish and gate because the xp cost keeps you from casting them every day. They're nicer for a prepared caster to only prepare sometimes. And because without silly abuse there's nothing good enough to warrant blowing that much xp daily. Now and then, sure. A staff with wish on it would be incredibly nice, even if the wish cost 5 or 10 charges. And I would get limited wish and spam it heavily, since its xp cost is bearable.

[Calthropstu]

Gate definitely. Gate in something with wish spell like and so many other 9ths. It is literally apmost every spell in the game at your disposal.

Shapechange because yeah.

Dominate monster for the win.

[Troacctid]

Wish, Ice Assassin, Shapechange, in that order.

[Cosi]

wish is not actually very good (unless you are doing stupid abusive things, but then planar binding -> Efreet -> no XP wish is better). shapechange offers better versatility, and a bunch of absurd passive defenses, and gives you wish from Zodar anyway. You don't really need anything after shapechange. gate, ice assassin, mindrape, programmed amnesia, and time stop are all fine choices. But just casting shapechange is fine, especially because strict RAW allows you to stack EX abilities to become immune to pretty much everything.

[ColorBlindNinja]

But just casting shapechange is fine, especially because strict RAW allows you to stack EX abilities to become immune to pretty much everything.

I've heard about that trick before, but I never understood how it works...

[RoboEmperor]

I've heard about that trick before, but I never understood how it works...

It says you lose the Su abilities of your old form and you gain the Su and Ex abilities of your new form. Notice how it doesn't say you lose Ex abilities of your old form.

[ColorBlindNinja]

It says you lose the Su abilities of your old form and you gain the Su and Ex abilities of your new form. Notice how it doesn't say you lose Ex abilities of your old form.

I see. I assume you'd lose them all when the spell ends?

[RoboEmperor]

I see. I assume you'd lose them all when the spell ends?

Yes but considering how that spell lasts 1min/level and is persistable, i doubt it's an issue.

Gheden (I think that's what it's called) from Dragon magazine has an Ex that makes him immune to all nonlethal damage.
Solar's Regeneration makes all non-epic-evil damage nonlethal damage.

Stacking just Solar's and Gheden's Ex abilities makes you immune to all damage that isn't from an epic weapon. Add in Pit Fiend's regeneration and you need an epic silvered good evil aligned weapon to deal damage.

And it takes only 2 rounds to set this up. So imagine someone spending 100 rounds every morning getting every Ex ability in the game on himself.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Yes but considering how that spell lasts 1min/level and is persistable, i doubt it's an issue.

Gheden (I think that's what it's called) from Dragon magazine has an Ex that makes him immune to all nonlethal damage.
Solar's Regeneration makes all non-epic-evil damage nonlethal damage.

Stacking just Solar's and Gheden's Ex abilities makes you immune to all damage that isn't from an epic weapon. Add in Pit Fiend's regeneration and you need an epic silvered good evil aligned weapon to deal damage.

And it takes only 2 rounds to set this up. So imagine someone spending 100 rounds every morning getting every Ex ability in the game on himself.

Thank you for explaining.

(Furiously scribbles notes.) :smallsmile:

[RoboEmperor]

Thank you for explaining.

(Furiously scribbles notes.) :smallsmile:

I forgot to mention Hellfire Golem and Demonflesh Golems have Magic Immunity that blocks Su abilities as well being 3.0 creatures whose update booklets failed to update their spell immunity to the 3.5 version.

So if you stack all that, how do you kill that which is immune to all damage, all spells, and all Su abilities? It is still doable though. I believe there are some warblade maneuvers that are SoD and magic items that give you negative levels and whatnot.

[ColorBlindNinja]

I forgot to mention Hellfire Golem and Demonflesh Golems have Magic Immunity that blocks Su abilities as well being 3.0 creatures whose update booklets failed to update their spell immunity to the 3.t version.

So if you stack all that, how do you kill that which is immune to all damage, all spells, and all Su abilities? It is still doable though I believe there are so warblade maneuvers that are SoD and magic items that give you negative levels and whatnot.

As if Shapechange wasn't insane enough at first glance. :smallsmile:

[Troacctid]

wish is not actually very good (unless you are doing stupid abusive things, but then planar binding -> Efreet -> no XP wish is better). shapechange offers better versatility, and a bunch of absurd passive defenses, and gives you wish from Zodar anyway. You don't really need anything after shapechange. gate, ice assassin, mindrape, programmed amnesia, and time stop are all fine choices. But just casting shapechange is fine, especially because strict RAW allows you to stack EX abilities to become immune to pretty much everything.
Calling an efreet takes like half an hour. Casting your own wish takes a standard action. I'll take the one I can use to insta-win a combat. Even shapechange cheese takes two rounds.


It says you lose the Su abilities of your old form and you gain the Su and Ex abilities of your new form. Notice how it doesn't say you lose Ex abilities of your old form.
As of the introduction of the Polymorph subschool, it doesn't need to. Losing all the (Ex) abilities of your old form is the default for [Polymorph] effects, and shapechange doesn't include any text overriding the general rule.

[RoboEmperor]

Calling an efreet takes like half an hour. Casting your own wish takes a standard action. I'll take the one I can use to insta-win a combat. Even shapechange cheese takes two rounds.

How about a scroll of wish made by a shapechange wish? Feantar is right. If you have free wishes from shapechange then literally everything in the game becomes pointless because you can just make infinite scrolls, staves, etc.


As of the introduction of the Polymorph subschool, it doesn't need to. Losing all the (Ex) abilities of your old form is the default for [Polymorph] effects, and shapechange doesn't include any text overriding the general rule.

If this is true then that's great. Less reasons for a DM to ban shapechange. I'm a look into this to see if it also addresses the Polymorph Any Object issue.

[Cosi]

Calling an efreet takes like half an hour. Casting your own wish takes a standard action. I'll take the one I can use to insta-win a combat. Even shapechange cheese takes two rounds.

Casting wish as a combat spell is worse than just casting actual combat spells 90% of the time. The number of cases where "the best possible spell" is better than "a very good spell" by a 5,000 XP margin is pretty small.


As of the introduction of the Polymorph subschool, it doesn't need to. Losing all the (Ex) abilities of your old form is the default for [Polymorph] effects, and shapechange doesn't include any text overriding the general rule.

Yes it does, it's the text where it says what you lose, and "Ex abilities" isn't one of those things.

[Quertus]

Gate definitely. Gate in something with wish spell like and so many other 9ths. It is literally apmost every spell in the game at your disposal.

Shapechange because yeah.

Dominate monster for the win.


Wish, Ice Assassin, Shapechange, in that order.

Dang. I forgot Dominate Monster. (IIRC, I've never cast Ice Assassin, so no surpassed that I forgot that one). I suppose Necrotic Domination can replace Dominate Monster. Any reason Simulacrum can't replace Ice Assassin?

[ColorBlindNinja]

Any reason Simulacrum can't replace Ice Assassin?

Well, it depends what you want to do with it. Simulacrum is capped by your caster level (which admittedly can be pumped) and whatever you make has half the HD.

If all you want is free Wishes, Simulacrum works just fine, but Ice Assassin is better for minionmancy.

[Troacctid]

How about a scroll of wish made by a shapechange wish? Feantar is right. If you have free wishes from shapechange then literally everything in the game becomes pointless because you can just make infinite scrolls, staves, etc.
In which case you've violated the anthropic principle by creating a scenario where the game cannot exist. The discussion is premised on the game's existence, and any such scenario that so negates this premise can therefore be dismissed. QED.


Casting wish as a combat spell is worse than just casting actual combat spells 90% of the time. The number of cases where "the best possible spell" is better than "a very good spell" by a 5,000 XP margin is pretty small.
10% is a great rate. I'm more than happy to use wish that often. I have 8th level and lower "very good spells" (and metamagic versions of them) for the other 90% where I don't need to bust out the biggest of big guns.


Yes it does, it's the text where it says what you lose, and "Ex abilities" isn't one of those things.
In order to contradict the general rules, it needs to also be in the text where it says what you keep, or it needs to say that (Su) abilities are the only aspect of the old forms that you lose. Neither is the case.

[RoboEmperor]

Well, it depends what you want to do with it. Simulacrum is capped by your caster level (which admittedly can be pumped) and whatever you make has half the HD.

If all you want is free Wishes, Simulacrum works just fine, but Ice Assassin is better for minionmancy.

This is incorrect. Ice Assasins cannot be healed so they are terrible for minionmancy. Simulacrum on the other hand can be healed so despite being at half strength they are better.

But like you said Ice Assassin is not restricted to caster level so it can get over the "cannot heal" weakness by simply winning d&d before they run out of hp, like making an ice assassin of a god or some ludicrously powerful epic creature.

But if you can pump your Caster level or UMD high enough, Simulacrum is better. The limit is half of the target creature's maximum advancement hd.

[ColorBlindNinja]

This is incorrect. Ice Assasins cannot be healed so they are terrible for minionmancy. Simulacrum on the other hand can be healed so despite being at half strength they are better.

:smallconfused:



Damage caused to the ice assassin can be repaired only via a complex process requiring 1 day, 100 gp per hit point, and a fully equipped laboratory.

As far as I can tell, Simulacrum has a similar line, but it doesn't prohibit other types of healing the way Ice Assassin does:


A complex process requiring at least 24 hours, 100 gp per hit point, and a fully equipped magical laboratory can repair damage to a simulacrum.

But if you're popping out Ice Assassins for free as full round action, who cares if it's hard to repair damage they take?

EDIT: Originally I was thinking of Uncanny Forethought, but that's a Wizard feat. You can still get Ice Assassins as a standard action or so from traps/Spell Clocks. :smallwink:

[Cosi]

10% is a great rate. I'm more than happy to use wish that often. I have 8th level and lower "very good spells" (and metamagic versions of them) for the other 90% where I don't need to bust out the biggest of big guns.

Or you could take a spell you use more than 10% of the time. Like shapechange. I swear, no one on this forum understands the concept of opportunity cost.


In order to contradict the general rules, it needs to also be in the text where it says what you keep, or it needs to say that (Su) abilities are the only aspect of the old forms that you lose. Neither is the case.

It contradicts because it is defining a new set of things you lose. If it was not replacing, it would use a word like "also".

[RoboEmperor]

:smallconfused:



As far as I can tell, Simulacrum has a similar line, but it doesn't prohibit other types of healing the way Ice Assassin does:



But if you're popping out Ice Assassins for free as full round action, who cares if it's hard to repair damage they take?

EDIT: Originally I was thinking of Uncanny Forethought, but that's a Wizard feat. You can still get Ice Assassins as a standard action or so from traps/Spell Clocks. :smallwink:

Okay, my bad, I overlooked that.

But my point still stands.

The ONLY way to heal ice assassin is via expensive laboratory.
Simulacrum can be healed normally and via expensive laboratory. Both. Laboratory healing is an additive rule for simulacrum, but an exclusive rule for ice assassin. You can heal a simulacrum with cure light wounds. Simulacrums can heal themselves with fast healing. Ice Assassins cannot.

[Karl Aegis]

Reality Maelstrom, Eye of Power and Bigby's Crushing Hand.

[Troacctid]

Or you could take a spell you use more than 10% of the time. Like shapechange. I swear, no one on this forum understands the concept of opportunity cost.
9th level spells represent less than 10% of your available spell slots. I would expect all of your 9th level spells combined to see action maybe 20% of the time. That a single 9th level spell would account for half that by itself is perfectly respectable. Frankly, considering that you have 44 other spells known, a blind spot that none of them can easily deal with that comes up in fully 10% of encounters is HUGE. That's a point in wish's favor!


It contradicts because it is defining a new set of things you lose. If it was not replacing, it would use a word like "also".
No it isn't and no it wouldn't.

[Anthrowhale]

Shapechange, Time Stop, and Foresight seem like the spells to never be without.

Foresight guarantees you the opportunity to act and Time Stop guarantees a budget of actions. Shapechange is an omnispell that allows you to do many things.

Many of the others seem like great spells to have on a scroll or staff since you'll want situational use.

One not mentioned yet (I think) is Disjunction. If you use it inside of a Time Stop, it does not harm carried magic items making it a great spell for fighting foes that are more powerful than you without destroying the loot.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Shapechange, Time Stop, and Foresight seem like the spells to never be without.

Foresight guarantees you the opportunity to act

I will point out that Shapechange can get you Forsight as a free action. Just turn into an Elemental Weird.

[Yogibear41]

I mean if you have free wishes what more do you even need?

[ColorBlindNinja]

I mean if you have free wishes what more do you even need?

Invoke Magic is nice to have a solution for AMFs and DMZs.

[SLOTHRPG95]

To respond to OP: I'd have to go with Gate, Shapechange, and Disjunction. Probably in that order. It's not a particularly original answer, but it's two really versatile uber-spells, plus a Hard No.


It says you lose the Su abilities of your old form and you gain the Su and Ex abilities of your new form. Notice how it doesn't say you lose Ex abilities of your old form.


As of the introduction of the Polymorph subschool, it doesn't need to. Losing all the (Ex) abilities of your old form is the default for [Polymorph] effects, and shapechange doesn't include any text overriding the general rule.

Neither of these are quite correct. On the one hand, switching through forms to stack Ex abilities is a misunderstanding of the text of the spell:


This spell functions like polymorph, except that it enables you to assume the form of any single nonunique creature (of any type) from Fine to Colossal size. The assumed form cannot have more than your caster level in Hit Dice (to a maximum of 25 HD). Unlike polymorph, this spell allows incorporeal or gaseous forms to be assumed.

You gain all extraordinary and supernatural abilities (both attacks and qualities) of the assumed form, but you lose your own supernatural abilities.

You gain the Ex abilities of "the new form" meaning the one you're currently in, but retain "your own" Ex abilities, i.e. those you posses in your natural form. Once you change forms, you are no longer in the same "new form" and hence no longer gain those Ex abilities. This is not one of the many, many instances in which the wording of a spell is poor enough that by RAW you get really unexpected/counter-intuitive results. Not that Shapechange needs it, as it's already pretty damn powerful.

With that said, were this not the case, the introduction of the Polymorph subschool wouldn't change it. As mentioned in "Spells That Have Come Before" (in Complete Mage), anything in any of the pre-existing spells based off Polymorph or Alter Self that contradicts the rules laid down for the Polymorph subschool takes precedence over said rules. So were it the case that a straight reading of the text of Shapechange allowed for Ex stacking, then the subschool rules wouldn't change that. Of course, this is a moot point as it doesn't. (Edited for grammar.)

[RoboEmperor]

You gain the Ex abilities of "the new form" meaning the one you're currently in, but retain "your own" Ex abilities, i.e. those you posses in your natural form. Once you change forms, you are no longer in the same "new form" and hence no longer gain those Ex abilities. This is not one of the many, many instances in which the wording of a spell is poor enough that by RAW you get really unexpected/counter-intuitive results. Not that Shapechange needs it, as it's already pretty damn powerful.

That is interesting. Then perhaps you need a 2nd casting of Shapechange to stack Ex abilities.

[Yogibear41]

Invoke Magic is nice to have a solution for AMFs and DMZs.


Sure if you are in a bind to Dimension Door out. But if you know its going to be there, you could just wish both of those away.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Sure if you are in a bind to Dimension Door out. But if you know its going to be there, you could just wish both of those away.

I don't think that's a safe effect of Wish, actually.

[SLOTHRPG95]

That is interesting. Then perhaps you need a 2nd casting of Shapechange to stack Ex abilities.

You mean to get nested instances of what counts as your original form? Multiple castings of Shapechange might work for that. I think that's definitely a more plausible interpretation than trying to do so with just one casting.

[Krobar]

Wish, Gate, and Shapechange. My personal Big 3.

[ericgrau]

10% is a great rate. I'm more than happy to use wish that often. I have 8th level and lower "very good spells" (and metamagic versions of them) for the other 90% where I don't need to bust out the biggest of big guns.
That's why I'd scroll wish and get the best of both worlds. 28,825 gp a pop well spent, given high level character budgets. Also considering most of the scroll's cost is to cover the xp cost which you'd have to pay anyway. Except as a known spell you'd pay actual xp instead of the "equivalent" gold.

The only problem is possibly not being able to find the scroll, but same with all high level magic items.

[Anthrowhale]

I will point out that Shapechange can get you Forsight as a free action. Just turn into an Elemental Weird.

There are two issues here.

You want Foresight on when you don't realize you need it.
An Elemental Weird has a very specific habitat.



Invoke Magic is nice to have a solution for AMFs and DMZs.

Invoke Magic doesn't allow you to cast Invoke Magic in an AMF or DMZ. It only allows you to cast an L4- spell into a DMZ or AMF. This is situationally useful if you want to attack something inside an AMF/DMZ from a position outside but that's a rather narrow use case.

[RoboEmperor]

That's why I'd scroll wish and get the best of both worlds. 28,825 gp a pop well spent, given high level character budgets. Also considering most of the scroll's cost is to cover the xp cost which you'd have to pay anyway. Except as a known spell you'd pay actual xp instead of the "equivalent" gold.

The only problem is possibly not being able to find the scroll, but same with all high level magic items.

I pick wish because I use it to create magic items which can't be made from 5,000xp scrolls.
I also pick wish because Extract Demonic Essence cuts the cost in half.
But I will say you need to use Wish for permanent stuff for it to be worth it. Never to replicate a lower level spell.

[Mordaedil]

9th level spells represent less than 10% of your available spell slots. I would expect all of your 9th level spells combined to see action maybe 20% of the time. That a single 9th level spell would account for half that by itself is perfectly respectable. Frankly, considering that you have 44 other spells known, a blind spot that none of them can easily deal with that comes up in fully 10% of encounters is HUGE. That's a point in wish's favor!


No it isn't and no it wouldn't.

Not that I think Wish is a bad spell, even in combat, but what circumstance warrants the 5000xp loss? There's certainly situations I can see it being a matter of urgency and you needing to get that spell off to get even a chance at victory, but I think it'd be more obvious if there was a clause in Wish where it didn't cost any xp at all for certain types of wishes.

Do you have any examples from personal experience you could share?

[ericgrau]

@^ What he said, also:


I pick wish because I use it to create magic items which can't be made from 5,000xp scrolls.
I also pick wish because Extract Demonic Essence cuts the cost in half.
But I will say you need to use Wish for permanent stuff for it to be worth it. Never to replicate a lower level spell.

Hmmm, this is for a DM that makes it hard to find high level NPC crafters and/or lack of party crafters? Or because of lack of downtime or limited options from a party crafter? Because it's the specific magic item for a job and yet also will be reused later?

When picking sorcerer spells I'm very hesitant to pick spells I don't use nearly every day. Even if it's really good now and then I tend to scroll it. I'm trying to see what might make wish good enough to be used what is practically every 5th game session or 2-ish levels.

[unseenmage]

Gate because usefulness.

Genesis, the arcane version that let's one fiddle with time.

No Disjunction for me thanks, dont want to accidentally an artifact.

And Wish if custom magic items are safe wishes. If not then Shapechange for utility.

[Crichton]

You gain all extraordinary and supernatural abilities (both attacks and qualities) of the assumed form, but you lose your own supernatural abilities.




You gain the Ex abilities of "the new form" meaning the one you're currently in, but retain "your own" Ex abilities, i.e. those you posses in your natural form.


That's not at all what it says. It says you lose "your own" supernatural abilities, not that you retain "your own" Ex abilities. Big difference, no limiting language on what's retained. That particular line of text doesn't exclude keeping Ex abilities of assumed forms.

Now, until your posting of the following, I was of the impression that it didn't matter, since retaining Ex abilities of assumed forms was excluded due to the Polymorph subschool argument. But then you posted this:


With that said, were this not the case, the introduction of the Polymorph subschool wouldn't change it. As mentioned in "Spells That Have Come Before" (in Complete Mage), anything in any of the pre-existing spells based off Polymorph or Alter Self that contradicts the rules laid down for the Polymorph subschool takes precedence over said rules. So were it the case that a straight reading of the text of Shapechange allowed for Ex stacking, then the subschool rules wouldn't change that. Of course, this is a moot point as they don't.

If that's true, it's not a moot point, as you say, because if the Polymorph subschool rules don't prevent retaining Ex abilities of assumed forms, the line in the Shapechange description also doesn't prevent it, so I think, unless there's a third argument to prevent it here, I might have to change my opinion on this one.

[RoboEmperor]

Hmmm, this is for a DM that makes it hard to find high level NPC crafters and/or lack of party crafters? Or because of lack of downtime or limited options from a party crafter? Because it's the specific magic item for a job and yet also will be reused later?

It's to get magic items that you can't get, afford, and craft. I mean if you're satisfied with pre-epic gear then yeah, wish has less appeal, but if you have your eyes set on an epic magic item, wish is the only way you're gonna get one because it's too expensive to be bought from a metropolis, no one has epic crafting feats on your party, and it will probably be more expensive than your entire WBL.

So you're trading xp for ludicrous amounts of money. And since wealth is power in d&d, it's a good trade.

[Crichton]

It's to get magic items that you can't get, afford, and craft. I mean if you're satisfied with pre-epic gear then yeah, wish has less appeal, but if you have your eyes set on an epic magic item, wish is the only way you're gonna get one because it's too expensive to be bought from a metropolis, no one has epic crafting feats on your party, and it will probably be more expensive than your entire WBL.

So you're trading xp for ludicrous amounts of money. And since wealth is power in d&d, it's a good trade.

That sounds good, but as I look at it, I'm having a hard time figuring out how to make it work. Even with Extract Demonic Essence to cut the XP cost in half, casting Wish to create a magic item requires twice the XP cost of normally crafting the item, plus the 5000xp for casting Wish.


Not sure how you can get epic gear pre-epic this way. For example, crafting a Rod of Excellent Magic normally costs 26000xp, so casting Wish to craft one costs 26000x2+5000XP, or 57000XP. Half of that, using Extract Demonic Essence, is a cost to you of 28500XP, which is more than you can afford to spend, pre-epic, since you can't spend so much XP that you'd drop a level.

Help me out, here, what am I missing?

[RoboEmperor]

That sounds good, but as I look at it, I'm having a hard time figuring out how to make it work. Even with Extract Demonic Essence to cut the XP cost in half, casting Wish to create a magic item requires twice the XP cost of normally crafting the item, plus the 5000xp for casting Wish.


Not sure how you can get epic gear pre-epic this way. For example, crafting a Rod of Excellent Magic normally costs 26000xp, so casting Wish to craft one costs 26000x2+5000XP, or 57000XP. Half of that, using Extract Demonic Essence, is a cost to you of 28500XP, which is more than you can afford to spend, pre-epic, since you can't spend so much XP that you'd drop a level.

Help me out, here, what am I missing?

Templates.

Check out Nar Fiendbond. It slaps on the half-fiend template on your character.

"The newly created half-fiend also gains a +4 level adjustment, raising the XP required for it to achieve its next character level.
For example, a 5th-level sorcerer who becomes a half-fiend by means of this spell becomes a 9th-level character who needs 45,000 XP to gain his sixth class level."

Notice that he needs 45,000xp to level up, more than enough to bank 28,500xp.

Now, Nar Fiendbond isn't the most optimal choice since by boosting your ECL by +4, it reduces the xp you receive from encounters. So what you want to do is use Wish to get a +1 template of your choice (savage species has details on using wish to change race). 17th level character who gains a +1 template will need 35,000xp to level up, more than enough to bank 28,500xp.

If you don't want to use savage species there's a bunch of other stuff like Lich and Vampire you can use.

[Crichton]

Templates.

Check out Nar Fiendbond. It slaps on the half-fiend template on your character.


Notice that he needs 45,000xp to level up, more than enough to bank 28,500xp.

Now, Nar Fiendbond isn't the most optimal choice since by boosting your ECL by +4, it reduces the xp you receive from encounters. So what you want to do is use Wish to get a +1 template of your choice (savage species has details on using wish to change race). 17th level character who gains a +1 template will need 35,000xp to level up, more than enough to bank 28,500xp.

If you don't want to use savage species there's a bunch of other stuff like Lich and Vampire you can use.

Gotcha. Thanks for helping me get that figured out! Also, bonus points for turning the downside of a level adjustment into a positive benefit!

[SLOTHRPG95]

That's not at all what it says. It says you lose "your own" supernatural abilities, not that you retain "your own" Ex abilities. Big difference, no limiting language on what's retained. That particular line of text doesn't exclude keeping Ex abilities of assumed forms.

Now, until your posting of the following, I was of the impression that it didn't matter, since retaining Ex abilities of assumed forms was excluded due to the Polymorph subschool argument. But then you posted this:

[Internal quotation omitted]

If that's true, it's not a moot point, as you say, because if the Polymorph subschool rules don't prevent retaining Ex abilities of assumed forms, the line in the Shapechange description also doesn't prevent it, so I think, unless there's a third argument to prevent it here, I might have to change my opinion on this one.

First, on the question of mootness: I was saying that the Polymorph subschool issue is moot, as the Shapechange text doesn't allow for stacking of Ex abilities in the first place. Going back and reading my original post, I see that I confusingly wrote "they don't" when I wanted the referent to be "a straight reading of the text" and not "the subschool rules." That's a grammar error on my part, I'll go back and edit that in a moment. I do hope this answers this half of your question.

Turning now to the text of Shapechange, you're reading the relevant sentence wrong by ignoring the context in which it occurs. The contrast set up is between that of the form you've current assumed, and your original natural form. You gain all Su and Ex of the former, you lose the Su (but not the Ex) of the latter, while "assum[ing] the form of any single nonunique creature." If you were to read this as saying, "well you gain the abilities, so you don't lose them until the spell ends or until something specifically says you lose them" then this would actually also allow for Su stacking. After all, the Su abilities that you lose are those of your own natural form, and it never says in the text that you lose the Su abilities of intermediate forms. Except it does, since the aforementioned reading is just plain wrong. You gain all the Su and Ex abilities on a continuous basis, not an instantaneous basis. That much is clear via a careful reading of the entire spell's text.

[Crichton]

First, on the question of mootness: I was saying that the Polymorph subschool issue is moot, as the Shapechange text doesn't allow for stacking of Ex abilities in the first place. Going back and reading my original post, I see that I confusingly wrote "they don't" when I wanted the referent to be "a straight reading of the text" and not "the subschool rules." That's a grammar error on my part, I'll go back and edit that in a moment. I do hope this answers this half of your question.

Yes, that's exactly what I meant. Up until this discussion, my impression was that the only reason stacking Ex abilities from Shapechange wasn't possible was because it was prohibited from the Polymorph subschool rules, so what it said inside the Shapechange discussion was irrelevant. But you've pointed out that the Polymorph subschool rules don't prohibit Ex stacking shenanigans. You're of the opinion that such shenanigans are prohibited not because of Polymorph Subschool limitations, but in the description of the actual spell's rules, as you say here:


So were it the case that a straight reading of the text of Shapechange allowed for Ex stacking, then the subschool rules wouldn't change that.





Turning now to the text of Shapechange, you're reading the relevant sentence wrong by ignoring the context in which it occurs. The contrast set up is between that of the form you've current assumed, and your original natural form. You gain all Su and Ex of the former, you lose the Su (but not the Ex) of the latter, while "assum[ing] the form of any single nonunique creature."

Telling me I'm 'reading it wrong' isn't the best way to support your own viewpoint, but I'll look past that. So by putting your parenthetical note (but not the Ex) you're expressing your opinion on what you think they mean here.


If you were to read this as saying, "well you gain the abilities, so you don't lose them until the spell ends or until something specifically says you lose them" then this would actually also allow for Su stacking. After all, the Su abilities that you lose are those of your own natural form, and it never says in the text that you lose the Su abilities of intermediate forms.

That's exactly what the entire text of the spell says. You've yet to show me where the text says otherwise.


Except it does, since the aforementioned reading is just plain wrong. You gain all the Su and Ex abilities on a continuous basis, not an instantaneous basis.

This is your personal interpretation. Your entire argument is based on what you think they meant when writing it.



That much is clear via a careful reading of the entire spell's text.


Nothing at all in the rest of the text of the spell clarifies, expounds, or contradicts any part of the sentence we've been discussing, in any way, so how exactly is it 'clear'??



Your entire argument is based on how you think the designers intended Shapechange to work. You're probably right, and frankly, I agree that Ex abilities aren't meant to stack from this, but the actual text of the rules of the spell is very clear in what you gain and what you lose, and the text of the rules indicates that they do in fact stack.


TL;DR: While the RAI of Shapechange probably is that Ex abilities aren't meant to stack, the RAW of the spell is quite clear that they do, since you've removed the Polymorph subschool prohibition of them stacking(this is all based on the assumption that you're correct in asserting that Shapechange doesn't fall under the Polymorph subschool rules)

[SLOTHRPG95]

Yes, that's exactly what I meant. Up until this discussion, my impression was that the only reason stacking Ex abilities from Shapechange wasn't possible was because it was prohibited from the Polymorph subschool rules, so what it said inside the Shapechange discussion was irrelevant. But you've pointed out that the Polymorph subschool rules don't prohibit Ex stacking shenanigans. You're of the opinion that such shenanigans are prohibited not because of Polymorph Subschool limitations, but in the description of the actual spell's rules

Well, glad I was at least able to clear up that half for you. Now to address the rest:


by putting your parenthetical note (but not the Ex) you're expressing your opinion on what you think they mean here.

Nope. The parentheses are just a tool for ease of reading. It's not to indicate that this is an aside about RAI. Unless you think noting an omission and how it differs from a previous section of text is somehow invoking RAI? :smallconfused:


That's exactly what the entire text of the spell says. You've yet to show me where the text says otherwise.

So are you arguing for Su stacking? Since I didn't think you were seriously considering that. I thought you were only arguing for Ex stacking. Do correct me if I assumed incorrectly, and you're arguing for both.


This is your personal interpretation. Your entire argument is based on what you think they meant when writing it.

I mean, yes, but not in a way that's helpful to your argument. It's based on what I think the writers meant when writing it in the same way that anything else is. If someone writes "I love the Muppets" I then would think that they mean (a) that they, the speaker, exist, (b) that the speaker has knowledge of the Muppets, (c) that the Muppets in fact exist and are an illusion inside my mind, and (d) that the set of all things which the speaker loves is non-empty, and in particular contains the Muppets. But for all I know, the writers could have meant something completely different. And yet, not having any information that'd lead me believe anything to the contrary, I take the literal interpretation as what they meant. So no, this still isn't a question of RAW vs. RAI. Interpreting meaning and interpreting intent are two very different beasts.


Your entire argument is based on how you think the designers intended Shapechange to work. You're probably right, and frankly, I agree that Ex abilities aren't meant to stack from this, but the actual text of the rules of the spell is very clear in what you gain and what you lose, and the text of the rules indicates that they do in fact stack.

TL;DR: While the RAI of Shapechange probably is that Ex abilities aren't meant to stack, the RAW of the spell is quite clear that they do, since you've removed the Polymorph subschool prohibition of them stacking

Again, I didn't once invoke designer intent. Not that I'm at all allergic to the stuff when I DM, mind you, but you and I (and others before) were speaking purely of RAW, so I've remained within that realm. What I have done, however, is read the text using all the semantic tools at my disposal in order to understand it. Perhaps if I limited myself to logical implication alone I'd come to the conclusion that Ex abilities stacked, but more likely I'd have to take issue with parts of the text being contradictory (leading me to reject the whole of the text as false), or I'd take issue with one of several references to a potentially non-existent referent.
tl; dr I read it as if it were English (which it is)

[skaddix]

I mean if the plan is to shapeshift to cheat Wish why even learn Wish itself.

[ericgrau]

It's to get magic items that you can't get, afford, and craft. I mean if you're satisfied with pre-epic gear then yeah, wish has less appeal, but if you have your eyes set on an epic magic item, wish is the only way you're gonna get one because it's too expensive to be bought from a metropolis, no one has epic crafting feats on your party, and it will probably be more expensive than your entire WBL.

So you're trading xp for ludicrous amounts of money. And since wealth is power in d&d, it's a good trade.

What's a good epic item? When I played level 30 epic I found epic gear was too expensive for what you get and almost all my WBL went to tons and tons of non-epic gear. And you'd really pay over 21,000 xp multiple times to craft epic items or you'd cheat that somehow?

I did notice that the xp cost is only 8% of the magic item gp cost in xp (not the standard 20%), plus another 5,000 xp. Unless my hastily done math is wrong for items over 83,333 41,667 gp (EDIT: cast as a spell known) that's a better deal than crafting, faster, and feat and pre-req free. Spamming wish could be a nice way to craft at epic level. Except epic gp scales faster than xp does so I'm not sure if xp is actually worth 5 gp each at epic level. When you're overwhelmed with epic WBL it might still be better to spend gp instead of xp. Xp scales quadratically while gp scales exponentially. Maybe it would be a good idea in early epic.

[RoboEmperor]

What's a good epic item? When I played level 30 epic I found epic gear was too expensive for what you get and almost all my WBL went to tons and tons of non-epic gear. And you'd really pay over 21,000 xp multiple times to craft epic items or you'd cheat that somehow?

Your math is a bit off. According to this thread:http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?536566-Anyone-have-a-formula-for-when-wishing-for-items-become-cheaper-than-buying-them
48,045gp is the magic number. Anything more expensive than that is better bought as a scroll of wish with the necessary xp than the item itself. With Extract demonic essence it's half that (if you're casting not crafting because that 10% chance of a cursed item is NOT worth it.)

Honestly the Rod of Excellent Magic is the only epic item I like. I like it to the point I'd gladly sacrifice 4 feats and 1.5 levels to get that. Free 1/day Gate. 500xp Wishes. XP free simulacrum. Free Permanency on Animated Objects (with Extract Demonic Essence). There's just so many powerful things you can spam once a day for free with that item. In fact I don't think I'd mind staying 17 or 18 forever as I just rack up Rods of Excellent Magic for multiple free gates or free high xp wishes.

Other items you can't afford, find, or craft are permanent runes of 9th level spells, which are only craftable by going 8 levels into Runecasters (FR exclusive prestige class). And other items craftable only by specific PrCs or Races. IIRC there were some grafts only Illithids can graft onto you. Wish gets past this restriction.

[Rhedyn]

You know I took "what would you choose" as personally have; which would be Shapechange, Gate, and Shades.

In-play, I would take Summon Monster IX, Time Stop, and Shades, because I have other spells I use and I like playing summoners.

[Quertus]

Honestly the Rod of Excellent Magic is the only epic item I like. I like it to the point I'd gladly sacrifice 4 feats and 1.5 levels to get that. Free 1/day Gate. 500xp Wishes. XP free simulacrum. Free Permanency on Animated Objects (with Extract Demonic Essence). There's just so many powerful things you can spam once a day for free with that item. In fact I don't think I'd mind staying 17 or 18 forever as I just rack up Rods of Excellent Magic for multiple free gates or free high xp wishes.

Other items you can't afford, find, or craft are permanent runes of 9th level spells, which are only craftable by going 8 levels into Runecasters (FR exclusive prestige class). And other items craftable only by specific PrCs or Races. IIRC there were some grafts only Illithids can graft onto you. Wish gets past this restriction.

So, make it to, say, 18th, become, say, a Vampire, never worry about leveling every again?

[RoboEmperor]

So, make it to, say, 18th, become, say, a Vampire, never worry about leveling every again?

Yup. 100% of my xp goes into more rods of excellent magic. This is actually what I intend on doing in the game I'm in right now, eventually.

But not vampire because they restrict your domain choices and I'm a cleric. And because the ECL is too high (freaking +8 man!). I prefer a +1 template. So like if I'm 17th level, i'd be receiving xp as an 18th level character with the +1 template instead of as a 25th level character with the +8 vampire template.

Once you stockpile 15 you can make a Rod of Excellent Magic for free once a day. This should totally let you stay relevant in epic levels.

[Crichton]

Well, glad I was at least able to clear up that half for you. Now to address the rest:

With respect, you didn't clear anything up. You attempted to clarify your original intent, which I never misunderstood.



So are you arguing for Su stacking? Since I didn't think you were seriously considering that. I thought you were only arguing for Ex stacking. Do correct me if I assumed incorrectly, and you're arguing for both.


No I'm not arguing for Su stacking. I'm not really even arguing that Ex stacking is how it should be. I'm arguing that Ex stacking is what the text of the rule says, and that by pointing out that the only other rule text people (like Troacctid above) have used to prohibit Ex stacking - the Polymorph subschool rules - don't apply, you've opened Ex stacking back up to those (like RoboEmperor and Cosi above) who support it.




I mean, yes, but not in a way that's helpful to your argument. It's based on what I think the writers meant when writing it in the same way that anything else is. If someone writes "I love the Muppets" I then would think that they mean (a) that they, the speaker, exist, (b) that the speaker has knowledge of the Muppets, (c) that the Muppets in fact exist and are an illusion inside my mind, and (d) that the set of all things which the speaker loves is non-empty, and in particular contains the Muppets. But for all I know, the writers could have meant something completely different.

Nice illustration, but your example is not in any way equivalent to the situation here.


And yet, not having any information that'd lead me believe anything to the contrary, I take the literal interpretation as what they meant.

Interestingly, your 'literal interpretation' doesn't seem to line up with what others have taken from that sentence. Could it be that you're reading into this text, instead of taking meaning out of it?


So no, this still isn't a question of RAW vs. RAI. Interpreting meaning and interpreting intent are two very different beasts.

Here's the thing, though. The literal meaning of the text, at its face value, doesn't match up with what you're saying. Only by attempting to interpret what you think it should mean can you come to your conclusion. Let's break the sentence down, to take a closer look:



You gain all extraordinary and supernatural abilities (both attacks and qualities) of the assumed form, but you lose your own supernatural abilities.

It's a simple equation, laid out in a simple sentence. You gain two sets of things, you lose one set of things. The only part of the sentence that isn't completely unambiguously clear is what is meant by 'your own' Su abilities. The folks above who argue for Ex stacking take that to mean the Su abilities of whatever form you're in are currently 'your own' and under that reading, it's clear that Ex stacking works, because the rules text here clearly outlines that you gain Ex abilities but doesn't say you lose them. What's probably more 'RAW', and in fact you yourself pointed this out, is that 'your own,' at its most literal, means only the Su abilities that you have permanent ownership of: those of your natural form. Under that reading, as you pointed out, you'd be able to stack both Su and Ex abilities of all assumed forms until the spell ends. So the folks arguing for Ex stacking are actually taking the less literal interpretation of the rules text.


But that sentence in no way supports, in the exact text it lays out, your idea that the 'literal' interpretation of its text is that you, at any point before the end of the spell's duration, lose the Ex abilities that this sentence says you gained.

IF it had said, later in the text when it talks about changing form again, something like 'You can change form once each round as a free action, losing the Su and Ex abilities of your previously assumed form and gaining those of your newly assumed form' THEN and only then would the 'literal' meaning of the rules not allow for Ex stacking.

In the absence of any greater, 'umbrella' rules to further restrict, the text of this spell is all we have. By detailing what you gain and what you lose, there's no other rule that would have you lose any of the abilities in question. The spell's text has claimed authority over both, and so if it doesn't say you lose an ability, you don't lose it, until the spell's duration ends, and thus ends the authority of the spell's text.



Again, I didn't once invoke designer intent. Not that I'm at all allergic to the stuff when I DM, mind you, but you and I (and others before) were speaking purely of RAW, so I've remained within that realm. What I have done, however, is read the text using all the semantic tools at my disposal in order to understand it. Perhaps if I limited myself to logical implication alone I'd come to the conclusion that Ex abilities stacked, but more likely I'd have to take issue with parts of the text being contradictory (leading me to reject the whole of the text as false), or I'd take issue with one of several references to a potentially non-existent referent.
tl; dr I read it as if it were English (which it is)

You didn't 'invoke' intent, but you bring to the text meaning that the text itself doesn't have. That's explicitly not 'purely RAW' and has to then fall into the category of RAI.
As for your semantic tools, I can't speak, but as a trained researcher of modern day unwritten languages and translation techniques and a sophomoric amateur of interpreting and translating ancient languages, the first rule of reading a text is that the text means what it says, and doesn't mean what it doesn't say, but sometimes it intends things it doesn't say. You've fallen into the trap of assuming that something the text intends is what it says, even when the words don't say it. In the study of ancient Greek that's called eisegesis, or 'reading into' instead of exegesis, the drawing out of meaning from the words.


And again, don't get me wrong. I don't allow Ex stacking at my table. That used to be because I thought it was prohibited by the polymorph subschool rules. But after looking at it again after your post, you're right. They don't apply here. So I guess now it's a houserule based on my interpretation of RAI, because the text allows it.

PS: Thanks for the friendly and invigorating discussion. Always appreciated.

[Âmesang]

Since my oldest character is a Suel sorceress I tend to have her in mind when pondering such questions, although it does lead to some unorthodox answers:

Wish: Expensive, but Quintessa can mitigate it to a degree with her own Quintessa's dweomerdrain spell, draining magic items for their experience for the purpose of paying a spell's experience cost.
Time Stop/Invoke Magic: Assuming epic level is off the table, in which case I'd go with the latter whilst developing a "mass time stop" that could affect a whole party.
Slerotin's fortitude: An AD&D spell that would transmute an area of non-magical, inorganic material to be impervious to damage; only dispellable via wish. A personal spell of the Last Mage of Power of the Suel Imperium, her ancestral homeland.

[ericgrau]

Your math is a bit off. According to this thread:http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?536566-Anyone-have-a-formula-for-when-wishing-for-items-become-cheaper-than-buying-them
48,045gp is the magic number. Anything more expensive than that is better bought as a scroll of wish with the necessary xp than the item itself. With Extract demonic essence it's half that (if you're casting not crafting because that 10% chance of a cursed item is NOT worth it.)

Honestly the Rod of Excellent Magic is the only epic item I like. I like it to the point I'd gladly sacrifice 4 feats and 1.5 levels to get that. Free 1/day Gate. 500xp Wishes. XP free simulacrum. Free Permanency on Animated Objects (with Extract Demonic Essence). There's just so many powerful things you can spam once a day for free with that item. In fact I don't think I'd mind staying 17 or 18 forever as I just rack up Rods of Excellent Magic for multiple free gates or free high xp wishes.

Other items you can't afford, find, or craft are permanent runes of 9th level spells, which are only craftable by going 8 levels into Runecasters (FR exclusive prestige class). And other items craftable only by specific PrCs or Races. IIRC there were some grafts only Illithids can graft onto you. Wish gets past this restriction.
Doesn't it cost 57000 xp to wish for that rod? IIRC you can't save up more than 2 levels worth of xp (1xp below 2 levels to be precise), so you need to be level 28 before you can wish for that rod. EDIT: Actually it's more complicated than that: https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/83236/is-leveling-up-mandatory . Also this, which specifically applies to spells with xp costs: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#components. But basically you can never bank more than 2 levels, and usually you can't bank much more than 1 level. And you can't spend so much xp that you lose a level either.

And shouldn't the discounted cost of a wish be 5,000-2,000 = 3,000 xp? Unless you stack multiple rods of excellent magic of course (and if that's allowed).

[Crichton]

Doesn't it cost 57000 xp to wish for that rod? IIRC you can't save up more than 2 levels worth of xp (1xp below 2 levels to be precise), so you need to be level 28 before you can wish for that rod. EDIT: Actually it's more complicated than that: https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/83236/is-leveling-up-mandatory . Also this, which specifically applies to spells with xp costs: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#components. But basically you can never bank more than 2 levels, and usually you can't bank much more than 1 level. And you can't spend so much xp that you lose a level either.

And shouldn't the discounted cost of a wish be 5,000-2,000 = 3,000 xp? Unless you stack multiple rods of excellent magic of course (and if that's allowed).

I asked him the same thing. Here ya go:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23653601&postcount=57 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23653601&postcount=57)

[Torpin]

mordenkainen's disjunction, time stop, pristmatic sphere

[ericgrau]

I asked him the same thing. Here ya go:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23653601&postcount=57 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23653601&postcount=57)

Ah thanks.

It's still an eventual NI loop, though it will take a bit to set up. Better run that one past the DM.

It looks like after rod 3 you're also making a 12,500 gp magic item per day.

[SLOTHRPG95]

With respect, you didn't clear anything up. You attempted to clarify your original intent, which I never misunderstood.

No I'm not arguing for Su stacking. I'm not really even arguing that Ex stacking is how it should be. I'm arguing that Ex stacking is what the text of the rule says, and that by pointing out that the only other rule text people (like Troacctid above) have used to prohibit Ex stacking - the Polymorph subschool rules - don't apply, you've opened Ex stacking back up to those (like RoboEmperor and Cosi above) who support it.

Nice illustration, but your example is not in any way equivalent to the situation here.

Interestingly, your 'literal interpretation' doesn't seem to line up with what others have taken from that sentence. Could it be that you're reading into this text, instead of taking meaning out of it?

Here's the thing, though. The literal meaning of the text, at its face value, doesn't match up with what you're saying.

[snip]

You didn't 'invoke' intent, but you bring to the text meaning that the text itself doesn't have. That's explicitly not 'purely RAW' and has to then fall into the category of RAI.
As for your semantic tools, I can't speak, but as a trained researcher of modern day unwritten languages and translation techniques and a sophomoric amateur of interpreting and translating ancient languages, the first rule of reading a text is that the text means what it says, and doesn't mean what it doesn't say, but sometimes it intends things it doesn't say. You've fallen into the trap of assuming that something the text intends is what it says, even when the words don't say it. In the study of ancient Greek that's called eisegesis, or 'reading into' instead of exegesis, the drawing out of meaning from the words.

And again, don't get me wrong. I don't allow Ex stacking at my table. That used to be because I thought it was prohibited by the polymorph subschool rules. But after looking at it again after your post, you're right. They don't apply here. So I guess now it's a houserule based on my interpretation of RAI, because the text allows it.

PS: Thanks for the friendly and invigorating discussion. Always appreciated.

So, it seems to me that when you refer to "literal text" you omit the use of presuppositions, implicatures, and other such things, is that correct? This was what I was trying to point at with much of my previous post, but perhaps I should have been more direct about it. If I am correct in saying that by "literal text" you mean "the text interpreted using only entailments"? I am not a professional in translation nor in ancient languages, but I am indeed familiar with the term exegesis from my background in semantics and pragmatics. With that said, relying only on entailments (p implies q, p is true, hence q is true) would be an overly-limited way of reading the text. RAW readings don't just limit themselves to entailment, what they do is avoid any consideration of designer intent. In this way, RAW readings are more akin to a textualist reading of a US statue than they are of a computer processing a logic problem. If you weren't taking such a limited view, I apologize but also I am interested in what you do mean. If you are taking this view, and wish to stand by it, then I can only say that our definitions of what it means to be RAW vs. RAI differ violently, and are probably irreconcilable.

[Crichton]

So, it seems to me that when you refer to "literal text" you omit the use of presuppositions, implicatures, and other such things, is that correct? This was what I was trying to point at with much of my previous post, but perhaps I should have been more direct about it. If I am correct in saying that by "literal text" you mean "the text interpreted using only entailments"? I am not a professional in translation nor in ancient languages, but I am indeed familiar with the term exegesis from my background in semantics and pragmatics. With that said, relying only on entailments (p implies q, p is true, hence q is true) would be an overly-limited way of reading the text. RAW readings don't just limit themselves to entailment, what they do is avoid any consideration of designer intent. In this way, RAW readings are more akin to a textualist reading of a US statue than they are of a computer processing a logic problem. If you weren't taking such a limited view, I apologize but also I am interested in what you do mean. If you are taking this view, and wish to stand by it, then I can only say that our definitions of what it means to be RAW vs. RAI differ violently, and are probably irreconcilable.



With great respect, I think the only thing you may be correct on is that we strongly disagree on what RAW vs RAI is.

I don't think you are grasping what RAW is, at least on this forum. It seems as though you are saying that RAW is 'Rules as Written, so long as they make sense, or so long as they aren't ridiculous, or so long as they don't impinge on my presupposed idea of how the game works' or something like that.

RAW, by its own name, absolutely omits the use of 'presuppositions, implicatures, and other such things,' because those things, by their very definitions, bring meaning from the outside, from the minds of the reader, and injects that meaning into the text, when that meaning isn't overtly in the text itself. I stand by my statement that in the realm of RAW, the words mean what they say, and don't mean what they don't say.

RAW is how we get Pun-Pun, the Tippyverse, and the dozens of Dirty Tricks and infinite or near infinite loops that abound on this forum.


Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think for a second that in this instance, Shapechange is supposed to allow Ex stacking, and I don't think that you'd find many here that do think that. But that is absolutely a RAI statement, because, based solely on the text of the spell, by RAW it does allow it. Unless there is some other rules text somewhere that we've left out of this discussion, that overrides the spell's text?


(and again, as I try to always say in big discussions here, thank you for your time and input, it is absolutely appreciated, regardless of whether we agree)

[RoboEmperor]

Doesn't it cost 57000 xp to wish for that rod? IIRC you can't save up more than 2 levels worth of xp (1xp below 2 levels to be precise), so you need to be level 28 before you can wish for that rod. EDIT: Actually it's more complicated than that: https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/83236/is-leveling-up-mandatory . Also this, which specifically applies to spells with xp costs: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#components. But basically you can never bank more than 2 levels, and usually you can't bank much more than 1 level. And you can't spend so much xp that you lose a level either.

And shouldn't the discounted cost of a wish be 5,000-2,000 = 3,000 xp? Unless you stack multiple rods of excellent magic of course (and if that's allowed).

You forgot Extract Demonic Essence which is kinda mandatory if you plan on crafting with Wish.

57,000 / 2 = 28,500xp

5,000 / 2 - 2000 = 2500 - 2000 = 500xp.

I looked into stacking multiple rods and there's nothing that's stopping it. Only metamagic rods have a clause saying you can't use more than one therefore you can use more than one rod at a time as long as it's not a metamagic rod.


It's still an eventual NI loop, though it will take a bit to set up. Better run that one past the DM.

My DM at least gave the OK because it happens WELL into epic and honestly my build doesn't benefit from more than two rods, and one rod is really all I need.

Twin and Repeat Spell are also nice to get multiple rods with one casting.

[Quertus]

But not vampire because they restrict your domain choices and I'm a cleric. And because the ECL is too high (freaking +8 man!). I prefer a +1 template. So like if I'm 17th level, i'd be receiving xp as an 18th level character with the +1 template instead of as a 25th level character with the +8 vampire template.

So... Several things.

0) (for 1&2) point, you do level more slowly when you count as 25th level. That is an issue, but...

1) with only a +1 template, aren't you worried about accidentally leveling (ie, earning too much XP between "can't create the rod" and "oops, I leveled")?

2) when the party is 42nd level, how does your character earn XP?

3) being a vampire restricts your domains?


Since my oldest character is a Suel sorceress I tend to have her in mind when pondering such questions, although it does lead to some unorthodox answers:

Wish: Expensive, but Quintessa can mitigate it to a degree with her own Quintessa's dweomerdrain spell, draining magic items for their experience for the purpose of paying a spell's experience cost.
Time Stop/Invoke Magic: Assuming epic level is off the table, in which case I'd go with the latter whilst developing a "mass time stop" that could affect a whole party.
Slerotin's fortitude: An AD&D spell that would transmute an area of non-magical, inorganic material to be impervious to damage; only dispellable via wish. A personal spell of the Last Mage of Power of the Suel Imperium, her ancestral homeland.

Sweet, someone else who actively uses custom spells! :smallbiggrin: :smallcool:

So, the existence of multiple editions - and their accessablity* via Teleport Through Time - makes this an interesting question. So, I suppose, like any answer to this question, it is setting and GM dependent.

Curiously, though, off hand, I'm not remembering any 9th level spells from earlier editions that I just couldn't live without. I'll think about it.

* on certain worlds

[RoboEmperor]

So... Several things.

0) (for 1&2) point, you do level more slowly when you count as 25th level. That is an issue, but...

1) with only a +1 template, aren't you worried about accidentally leveling (ie, earning too much XP between "can't create the rod" and "oops, I leveled")?

2) when the party is 42nd level, how does your character earn XP?

3) being a vampire restricts your domains?

1)

However, you may, on gaining enough XP to attain a new level, use those XP for casting a spell rather than keeping them and advancing a level.

2) I never got that high into epic. But since you only need 15 rods of excellent magics to create a rod everyday for free, after I amass 15 rods I level up normally. I stay within 8 levels of the party though because you can't gain xp from encounters that are 8 CR higher than your level or something like that.

3)

Vampire Characters

Vampires are always evil, which causes characters of certain classes to lose some class abilities. In addition, certain classes take additional penalties.

Clerics

Vampire clerics lose their ability to turn undead but gain the ability to rebuke undead. This ability does not affect the vampire’s controller or any other vampires that a master controls. A vampire cleric has access to two of the following domains: Chaos, Destruction, Evil, or Trickery.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/vampire.htm

[Vizzerdrix]

Meta magic`d launch bolt, create water, and prestadigitation. One for protection and two for fun!

[SLOTHRPG95]

With great respect, I think the only thing you may be correct on is that we strongly disagree on what RAW vs RAI is.

I don't think you are grasping what RAW is, at least on this forum. It seems as though you are saying that RAW is 'Rules as Written, so long as they make sense, or so long as they aren't ridiculous, or so long as they don't impinge on my presupposed idea of how the game works' or something like that.

RAW, by its own name, absolutely omits the use of 'presuppositions, implicatures, and other such things,' because those things, by their very definitions, bring meaning from the outside, from the minds of the reader, and injects that meaning into the text, when that meaning isn't overtly in the text itself. I stand by my statement that in the realm of RAW, the words mean what they say, and don't mean what they don't say.

RAW is how we get Pun-Pun, the Tippyverse, and the dozens of Dirty Tricks and infinite or near infinite loops that abound on this forum.


Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think for a second that in this instance, Shapechange is supposed to allow Ex stacking, and I don't think that you'd find many here that do think that. But that is absolutely a RAI statement, because, based solely on the text of the spell, by RAW it does allow it. Unless there is some other rules text somewhere that we've left out of this discussion, that overrides the spell's text?


(and again, as I try to always say in big discussions here, thank you for your time and input, it is absolutely appreciated, regardless of whether we agree)

Okay, I think we actually agree on something: we both think that the other is only correct insofar as they know that we strongly disagree on what it means to be RAW. I also think that most of the Playgrounders don't limit RAW to only entailments, and instead think (as I do) that "as written" doesn't mean you have to throw out all the other tools in the semantic toolbox to analyze what is written. Now, I'd go on more about this, but at this point I think we risk being repetitive, and minorly derailing the thread. I say we just each agree to think that the other person is totally wrong, and that's that. If there's ever a new thread on the noodly details of textual analysis under RAW, I guess that'll be the place to pick this conversation back up in a non-derailing way.

[RedMage125]

On the note of the Shapechange stacking cheese, I would just like to point you all to the idea of Munchkin Fallacy. Munchkin Fallacy is when someone looks to game rules and says "these rules don't say I can't do this thing, therefore, the RAW says I can".

Now, I, also, am a fan of the nitpicky, anal-retentive, detail-mongering that is "RAW discussions". Things that point out little minutiae like "Dread Necromancers don't actually get the lich template at 20" (even though that's probably what was intended), "drown healing" and so forth. At least for discussion and debate. Not necessarily in practice at the table.

But I'm looking at the SRD for Shapechange right now. Nowhere in the text does it actually say that you keep Su or Ex abilities of previous forms when you change forms. We can agree that you lose the "your own Su abilities" (which, in game terms, I can only read as those of the natural form of the caster). So the Ex abilities of the caster's natural form remain. But when it says that you "gain all Ex and Su abilities (both attacks and qualities) of the assumed form", unless that assumed form ALSO has all the ones of the previous form, the most literal reading is that you have "all the Ex and Su abilities of your assumed form", not "you have all the Ex and Su abilities of your assumed form and all other forms that you have previously assumed during this casting of Shapechange". Which the text does not say. Nor does it say "when you change forms again on your turn you retain all Ex abilities of the form you were just in".

So let's say you assume the form of a Black Dragon, giving you Ex: Acid Immunity.

A few rounds later, you assume the form of a Red Dragon. Now, do Red Dragons have Ex: Acid Immunity? No? You don't have Acid Immunity.

The most literal reading of the RAW (without assuming that "lack of text saying no" equals "text saying yes") is that the words "assumed form" have meaning, as game rules, for this spell. Which means that a form not currently being assumed is not "the assumed form". If there is ever any doubt as to whether or not an ability is retained, look at the text. "You gain the Ex and Su abilities of the assumed form". Is the ability in question an ability of the assumed form at the time the question is being asked?

To even claim that "the text of the RAW" supports Ex stacking is to claim that "assumed form" equates to something other than "the form one is assuming right now", which is immediately going into interpretation, and thus not the most literal reading of the RAW. That, or it requires one to interpret the abilities one gains through assuming a form now count as "your own", for which there is no real support, given that even those abilities will go away when the duration of the spell (10 min/level) expires. Which I think everyone agrees on, even those who read Ex stacking as a thing. No coherent reading of the text equates "something granted by a spell" as "one's own ability".

[Crichton]

On the note of the Shapechange stacking cheese, I would just like to point you all to the idea of Munchkin Fallacy. Munchkin Fallacy is when someone looks to game rules and says "these rules don't say I can't do this thing, therefore, the RAW says I can".

Now, I, also, am a fan of the nitpicky, anal-retentive, detail-mongering that is "RAW discussions". Things that point out little minutiae like "Dread Necromancers don't actually get the lich template at 20" (even though that's probably what was intended), "drown healing" and so forth. At least for discussion and debate. Not necessarily in practice at the table.

But I'm looking at the SRD for Shapechange right now. Nowhere in the text does it actually say that you keep Su or Ex abilities of previous forms when you change forms. We can agree that you lose the "your own Su abilities" (which, in game terms, I can only read as those of the natural form of the caster). So the Ex abilities of the caster's natural form remain. But when it says that you "gain all Ex and Su abilities (both attacks and qualities) of the assumed form", unless that assumed form ALSO has all the ones of the previous form, the most literal reading is that you have "all the Ex and Su abilities of your assumed form", not "you have all the Ex and Su abilities of your assumed form and all other forms that you have previously assumed during this casting of Shapechange". Which the text does not say. Nor does it say "when you change forms again on your turn you retain all Ex abilities of the form you were just in".

So let's say you assume the form of a Black Dragon, giving you Ex: Acid Immunity.

A few rounds later, you assume the form of a Red Dragon. Now, do Red Dragons have Ex: Acid Immunity? No? You don't have Acid Immunity.

The most literal reading of the RAW (without assuming that "lack of text saying no" equals "text saying yes") is that the words "assumed form" have meaning, as game rules, for this spell. Which means that a form not currently being assumed is not "the assumed form". If there is ever any doubt as to whether or not an ability is retained, look at the text. "You gain the Ex and Su abilities of the assumed form". Is the ability in question an ability of the assumed form at the time the question is being asked?

To even claim that "the text of the RAW" supports Ex stacking is to claim that "assumed form" equates to something other than "the form one is assuming right now", which is immediately going into interpretation, and thus not the most literal reading of the RAW. That, or it requires one to interpret the abilities one gains through assuming a form now count as "your own", for which there is no real support, given that even those abilities will go away when the duration of the spell (10 min/level) expires. Which I think everyone agrees on, even those who read Ex stacking as a thing. No coherent reading of the text equates "something granted by a spell" as "one's own ability".



Your argument has a lot of merit and is well explained, but I don't think this is an instance of your Munchkin Fallacy. This isn't a simple case of 'the rules don't say I can't'



It says you lose the Su abilities of your old form and you gain the Su and Ex abilities of your new form. Notice how it doesn't say you lose Ex abilities of your old form.


Yes it does, it's the text where it says what you lose, and "Ex abilities" isn't one of those things.


it is defining a new set of things you lose.


I don't want to assume the intent of the folks quoted, but it seems that the argument hinges on the fact that the Shapechange rules say what abilities you gain, but also say what abilities you lose, thereby claiming authority over both.

That's not as simple as 'lack of text saying no.' The idea is that the text is, as Cosi said, defining a new set of abilities you lose, and so if an ability isn't in that set, you don't lose it(until the spell's duration ends and its rules therefore no longer apply).

It's not at all a matter of claiming that 'assumed form' equates to something other than 'the form one is assuming right now.' It might be a matter of reading 'your own' as your current form, and that argument may win out.

Instead, it's a matter of, since the spell's rules lay claim to both what you gain AND what you lose, you only lose what it says you lose. If that is in fact the case, reading 'your own' as only applying to your natural form is actually more broken than only allowing Ex stacking, since you only lose the Su abilities of your original natural form, but nowhere does it say you lose any other Su abilities, making both the Su and Ex abilities increasingly additive.


And to note from above, even this argument was irrelevant until SLOTHRPG95 pointed out that the Polymorph subschool rules, which many assumed to prohibit this stacking, don't in fact apply to this aspect of Shapechange.



And again, having said all that, allowing Ex stacking is silly and shouldn't be allowed.

[RedMage125]

Your argument has a lot of merit and is well explained, but I don't think this is an instance of your Munchkin Fallacy. This isn't a simple case of 'the rules don't say I can't'

I don't want to assume the intent of the folks quoted, but it seems that the argument hinges on the fact that the Shapechange rules say what abilities you gain, but also say what abilities you lose, thereby claiming authority over both.

That's not as simple as 'lack of text saying no.' The idea is that the text is, as Cosi said, defining a new set of abilities you lose, and so if an ability isn't in that set, you don't lose it(until the spell's duration ends and its rules therefore no longer apply).
Except that BOTH of those people are misquoting the rules. They don't say "lose the Su abilities of your old form". It says "you lose your own Su abilities", nothing about "form" relating to what you lose. Only those abilities that are "one's own"*.

Which means, strictly, using only a reading of the text and no interpretation, that for any given form that one has assumed, one's abilities are the Ex and Su of the assumed form, and the Ex and Sp (Spell-like) of one's own form.

Since one only gains the Ex and Su of an assumed form, it is fallacious to say that the RAW grants continued use of those abilities when it is no longer the assumed form. Having those abilities is expressly tied to which form is assumed.

And since there is no text which says "when you assume a new form, you retain the Ex abilities of any previous forms, until the spell's duration expires", it is a case of Munchkin Fallacy.

*Please do not just take my word for it. The 3.5e SRD is free online, you can look up Shapechange. I would actually prefer it if people verified for themselves what it says, as I did, rather than trust that what others claimed the spell said was true.


It's not at all a matter of claiming that 'assumed form' equates to something other than 'the form one is assuming right now.' It might be a matter of reading 'your own' as your current form, and that argument may win out.
I agree that the latter is more likely, as far as why they claim this. But I just want to point out that when one says that this kind of thing is a result of a "strict RAW reading" that means "no interpretation". And I would say that it's quite a stretch to interpret an ability that is granted by a spell effect which has a duration as being "one's own".

But I kept the possibility of 'assumed form' being the clincher of the issue, because, as I said, the Ex and Su abilities are only of the "assumed form", and they might be claiming that it meant "a form that one had assumed, even if it is not the one assumed right now".

Actually, I honestly think that the most likely reason behind this whole thing was some people fallaciously thinking the text said "you lose the Su abilities of your old form". If those had been the text in the RAW, there would be a much stronger case, and I think even I would admit that it "worked by RAW".



Instead, it's a matter of, since the spell's rules lay claim to both what you gain AND what you lose, you only lose what it says you lose. If that is in fact the case, reading 'your own' as only applying to your natural form is actually more broken than only allowing Ex stacking, since you only lose the Su abilities of your original natural form, but nowhere does it say you lose any other Su abilities, making both the Su and Ex abilities increasingly additive.
I bolded the last part, because nowhere does it say that they are additive. Where does that leave us?

No, a spell's effects are not defined by "what it does not say", ever. They are only defined by what it does say. And it says that the Ex and Su abilities gained are "of the assumed form".

Taken another way, since the spell allows you to change form once each round as a free action, you must once again refer yourself to the text at the top of the spell description each time you do so, just like when you first assumed another form. Because each transformation must be one that "you are familiar with", "a nonunique creature", "cannot have more HD than your caster level (max 25 HD)", and "may be incorporeal or gaseous (unlike polymorph)". Then you "gain all Ex and Su abilities of the assumed form". Again, with no text explicitly saying that said abilities "carry over", or "are additive".

I'm as big of a fan of doing the "nitpicky RAW discussions" as other people. I will gladly point out that by a "strict reading of the RAW", you can take someone at -7 hp, drown them to reset their hp to -1, and then heal them. Things like that which are quite obviously a violation of RAI and completely contrary to any common sense use of the rules at a table, but are still technically true by RAW. And even through that lens, I don't see the "Ex stacking" as something the RAW allow.


And to note from above, even this argument was irrelevant until SLOTHRPG95 pointed out that the Polymorph subschool rules, which many assumed to prohibit this stacking, don't in fact apply to this aspect of Shapechange.
So, fun fact...kind of a tangent...I went and looked up the "Polymorph subschool", and that came out in the PHB2 for 3.5e. Interestingly enough, that particular excerpt is free online on the archived WotC site. HOWEVER, the rules regarding what SLOTHRPG95 said about Ex abilities isn't in that section. It is, however, found in the Pathfinder SRD. So even if that point being brought up hadn't been moot, it only would have applied to Pathfinder rules, and not D&D.

I invite anyone here to Google "polymorph subschool", you will get a link to the old WotC site, where the text of the Polymorph Subschool was posted as a "preview" of the PHB2 content. Another link will be to the Pathfinder SRD. Read both. The text that SLOTHRPG95 mentioned is only in the PFSRD.



And again, having said all that, allowing Ex stacking is silly and shouldn't be allowed.

I think everyone agrees on that point. It's just the academic discussion of "is it one of those RAW-legal-but-otherwise-dumb" kinds of things in the same vein as "drown healing" that we're talking about.

[ColorBlindNinja]

So, fun fact...kind of a tangent...I went and looked up the "Polymorph subschool", and that came out in the PHB2 for 3.5e. Interestingly enough, that particular excerpt is free online on the archived WotC site. HOWEVER, the rules regarding what SLOTHRPG95 said about Ex abilities isn't in that section.

Worth noting, IIRC, the Polymorph subschool's new rules don't apply to Polymorph, Shapechange, ect.

[RedMage125]

Worth noting, IIRC, the Polymorph subschool's new rules don't apply to Polymorph, Shapechange, ect.

I do not mean to be rude, but you do not remember correctly. At the bottom of the description of the subschool it says "any spell whose effect is based on either alter self or polymorph should be considered to have the polymorph subschool." And Shapechange says "As polymorph".

[ColorBlindNinja]

I do not mean to be rude, but you do not remember correctly. At the bottom of the description of the subschool it says "any spell whose effect is based on either alter self or polymorph should be considered to have the polymorph subschool." And Shapechange says "As polymorph".

It's moot since it's not errata. It can't change the core spell's rules.

Also, I have highlighted the text that I recall being relevant:


For the purpose of adjudicating effects that apply to polymorph spells, any spell whose effect is based on either alter self or polymorph should be considered to have the polymorph subschool. However, note that the spells’ existing rules text takes priority over that of the subschool. Alter self, for instance, does not change the target’s ability scores (unlike normal for spells of the polymorph subschool).

[tyckspoon]

I do not mean to be rude, but you do not remember correctly. At the bottom of the description of the subschool it says "any spell whose effect is based on either alter self or polymorph should be considered to have the polymorph subschool." And Shapechange says "As polymorph".

They should also say something like 'although these spells are now part of the Polymorph subschool, in any conflict between the subschool rules and the spell use the original spell text.' Which largely means that the Polymorph subschool doesn't change how the core shapechanging spells work, because almost everything the Polymorph subschool altered as general rules (ability inheritance, how natural weapons work, etc) is expressly spelled out in the spell text. It mostly ends up making it possible to have things like Polymorph-subschool focused boosts to save DCs or caster levels include the original spells.

[RedMage125]

It's moot since it's not errata. It can't change the core spell's rules.

Also, I have highlighted the text that I recall being relevant:

I'm sorry if I was unclear, but yes, I acknowledge that the point is moot. If you look at what I said that you initially quoted, I said it was a bit of a tangent.

The tangent being that even if it wasn't moot, the text that was initially cited when the sub school was brought up is only in the PFSRD, not the text for the sub school in D&D.

It was not my intent to keep focusing on te sub school as relevant to the point. Mea culpa.

[ColorBlindNinja]

I'm sorry if I was unclear, but yes, I acknowledge that the point is moot. If you look at what I said that you initially quoted, I said it was a bit of a tangent.

The tangent being that even if it wasn't moot, the text that was initially cited when the sub school was brought up is only in the PFSRD, not the text for the sub school in D&D.

It was not my intent to keep focusing on te sub school as relevant to the point. Mea culpa.

Fair enough.

[SLOTHRPG95]

So, fun fact...kind of a tangent...I went and looked up the "Polymorph subschool", and that came out in the PHB2 for 3.5e. Interestingly enough, that particular excerpt is free online on the archived WotC site. HOWEVER, the rules regarding what SLOTHRPG95 said about Ex abilities isn't in that section. It is, however, found in the Pathfinder SRD. So even if that point being brought up hadn't been moot, it only would have applied to Pathfinder rules, and not D&D.

I invite anyone here to Google "polymorph subschool", you will get a link to the old WotC site, where the text of the Polymorph Subschool was posted as a "preview" of the PHB2 content. Another link will be to the Pathfinder SRD. Read both. The text that SLOTHRPG95 mentioned is only in the PFSRD.

So first off, not to be totally pedantic (okay, maybe just a little) but I originally cited the polymorph subschool sidebar from Complete Mage, not the polymorph subschool section of ch. 4 of the PHB II. Yes they're seemingly-identical, but the latter is the more recent publication (by five months) and also three whole inches closer to my nightstand, so that's the one I went with. There was no pathfinder involved in this. But just to clear up any possible confusion: I didn't in the first instance say that the polymorph subschool rules normally block Ex ability stacking. Someone else did. What I did is assume arguendo that they were correct, and then showed that this wouldn't apply to Shapechange. But even this was in the context of assuming arguendo that a RAW reading of Shapechange would allow for Ex stacking just looking at the spell in a vacuum (ignoring the later subschool rules entirely), which is a reading that I hope I made painfully clear I do not support.


Worth noting, IIRC, the Polymorph subschool's new rules don't apply to Polymorph, Shapechange, ect.


I do not mean to be rude, but you do not remember correctly. At the bottom of the description of the subschool it says "any spell whose effect is based on either alter self or polymorph should be considered to have the polymorph subschool." And Shapechange says "As polymorph".


It's moot since it's not errata. It can't change the core spell's rules.

Also, I have highlighted the text that I recall being relevant: [internal quote omitted]


They should also say something like 'although these spells are now part of the Polymorph subschool, in any conflict between the subschool rules and the spell use the original spell text.' Which largely means that the Polymorph subschool doesn't change how the core shapechanging spells work, because almost everything the Polymorph subschool altered as general rules (ability inheritance, how natural weapons work, etc) is expressly spelled out in the spell text. It mostly ends up making it possible to have things like Polymorph-subschool focused boosts to save DCs or caster levels include the original spells.

Not that there's anything wrong with going around in circles, but yeah they already say something like this. The relevant sentence is:


However, note that the spells' existing rule text takes priority over that of the subschool.

This exact sentence can be found both in the PHB II and in Complete Mage, as has been pointed out by both CBN and myself.

EDIT: Didn't see this as it came after I was crafting my reply. My apologies to RedMage125 for beating a dead horse if the latter half of this post was already a conceded point on your part. However, the first half of this post still applies.




It was not my intent to keep focusing on te sub school as relevant to the point. Mea culpa.

[ericgrau]

You forgot Extract Demonic Essence which is kinda mandatory if you plan on crafting with Wish.

57,000 / 2 = 28,500xp

5,000 / 2 - 2000 = 2500 - 2000 = 500xp.

I looked into stacking multiple rods and there's nothing that's stopping it. Only metamagic rods have a clause saying you can't use more than one therefore you can use more than one rod at a time as long as it's not a metamagic rod.



My DM at least gave the OK because it happens WELL into epic and honestly my build doesn't benefit from more than two rods, and one rod is really all I need.

Twin and Repeat Spell are also nice to get multiple rods with one casting.

As a DM I would totally have fun with that and bring in the vengeance of demons. But that's not a criticism of the technique, just an amusing thought.

I assume you're using some form of skill optimization to auto pass the DC 41 concentration checks too.

Well, once you get to NI rods you can also craft magic items costing NI gp. With free pearls of power or another method of getting more wishes you could also speed up rod creation.

[RoboEmperor]

As a DM I would totally have fun with that and bring in the vengeance of demons. But that's not a criticism of the technique, just an amusing thought.

I assume you're using some form of skill optimization to auto pass the DC 41 concentration checks too.

Well, once you get to NI rods you can also craft magic items costing NI gp. With free pearls of power or another method of getting more wishes you could also speed up rod creation.

I use a simulacrum of a demon instead of a real one. I couldn't find anything that said I couldn't do that. Simulacrum have the tanarri subtype so I couldn't find an argument saying simulacrum of a demon aren't demons.

I'm a cleric actually not a wizard so I got divine insight, surge of fortune, and improvisation (via miracle) to help out with that concentration check. If web content is allowed we got guidance of the avatar.

XP is the bottleneck here so I don't think pearl of power will help until you get 30 rods! Twin Spell and Repeat Spell are amazing, but you need DMMs of them and that is really feat intensive.

[Crichton]

Except that BOTH of those people are misquoting the rules. They don't say "lose the Su abilities of your old form". It says "you lose your own Su abilities", nothing about "form" relating to what you lose. Only those abilities that are "one's own"*.

While Robo uses the words 'your old form,' Cosi doesn't, so I don't see how you can claim that 'both' of them misquote the rules. In fact, as I've repeatedly pointed out, the meaning that all of us have assumed, that 'your own' Su abilities are only those of your natural form, leaves us with no mention of losing Su abilities of assumed forms.


Which means, strictly, using only a reading of the text and no interpretation, that for any given form that one has assumed, one's abilities are the Ex and Su of the assumed form, and the Ex and Sp (Spell-like) of one's own form.

Now it is you who are misquoting the rules. You claim that the rules are that 'for any given form that one has assumed, one's abilities are the Ex and Su of the assumed form.' That's not what it says. It says you gain the abilities of the assumed form. The word 'gain' is additive language, which is why some folks have claimed that by RAW the abilities stack.


Since one only gains the Ex and Su of an assumed form,


Here you use the same word as the rule: gains. You bounce back and forth between 'gains' and 'are' with respect to the abilities of the assumed forms.


it is fallacious to say that the RAW grants continued use of those abilities when it is no longer the assumed form. Having those abilities is expressly tied to which form is assumed.

Ordinarily that is the general way the rules work. Specific trumps general, however, and if the specific rules of Shapechange say you gain them, and don't lose them, that overrides the general.



And since there is no text which says "when you assume a new form, you retain the Ex abilities of any previous forms, until the spell's duration expires", it is a case of Munchkin Fallacy.

I stand by my previous pointing out that this isn't a case of 'text not saying no.' You've failed to address the point that Cosi makes, that I quoted above, that Shapechange not only details what abilities you gain, but also those that you lose. It's setting itself up as a very simple equation: gain X, lose Y. If an ability isn't part of the definition of Y, you don't lose it. Or so the logic of Ex stacking goes.




*Please do not just take my word for it. The 3.5e SRD is free online, you can look up Shapechange. I would actually prefer it if people verified for themselves what it says, as I did, rather than trust that what others claimed the spell said was true.

I'm choosing to believe that you aren't intending to be condescending here, but hoo boy, it sure sounds like it. Not only have I directly quoted the text of the Shapechange entry from the SRD, others have as well. Please read carefully the posts you're attempting to rebut or discuss, before telling them to look it up.


I agree that the latter is more likely, as far as why they claim this. But I just want to point out that when one says that this kind of thing is a result of a "strict RAW reading" that means "no interpretation". And I would say that it's quite a stretch to interpret an ability that is granted by a spell effect which has a duration as being "one's own".

I don't think most folks are assuming that the assumed form's abilities are 'your own.' I've tried to point that out before, but that's not at all what the folks are saying. They're saying (as the text does) that you gain certain abilities, but it doesn't say you lose them. In fact, by your idea of 'strict RAW' meaning 'no interpretation,' you'd also be able to stack Su, since it doesn't ever say you lose the Su abilities of your assumed form either, only that you gain them.



Actually, I honestly think that the most likely reason behind this whole thing was some people fallaciously thinking the text said "you lose the Su abilities of your old form". If those had been the text in the RAW, there would be a much stronger case, and I think even I would admit that it "worked by RAW".

I don't think that's it at all. It's because, as Cosi and Robo very very clearly stated, it says you gain the abilities, but it doesn't say you lose them. It does say which abilities you lose (those Su abilities of your own form), and so, since it's listed what you lose, what reason would you have to believe that you'd lose anything else?



I bolded the last part, because nowhere does it say that they are additive. Where does that leave us?

It says 'You gain all extraordinary and supernatural abilities (both attacks and qualities) of the assumed form.' In what way is the word 'gain' not an additive word? Having said you gain them, and having said what you do lose (not them), it would have to say somewhere that you lose them, in order for you to lose them. It doesn't, thus you don't lose them.


No, a spell's effects are not defined by "what it does not say", ever. They are only defined by what it does say. And it says that the Ex and Su abilities gained are "of the assumed form".

And it defines what you lose, and what you lose is not them. Thus, they remain until the spell expires.


Taken another way, since the spell allows you to change form once each round as a free action, you must once again refer yourself to the text at the top of the spell description each time you do so, just like when you first assumed another form. Because each transformation must be one that "you are familiar with", "a nonunique creature", "cannot have more HD than your caster level (max 25 HD)", and "may be incorporeal or gaseous (unlike polymorph)". Then you "gain all Ex and Su abilities of the assumed form". Again, with no text explicitly saying that said abilities "carry over", or "are additive".

I feel like we're going in circles here. The text says you gain them, and lose your own Su abilities. If you, correctly as you say, refer to the top of the spell text for the next change, you then gain the Su and Ex abilities of your new assumed form, and lose... your own Su abilities. It doesn't say you lose any abilities of your previous form, and as you say, 'a spell's effects are not defined by "what it does not say", ever.'




I'm as big of a fan of doing the "nitpicky RAW discussions" as other people. I will gladly point out that by a "strict reading of the RAW", you can take someone at -7 hp, drown them to reset their hp to -1, and then heal them. Things like that which are quite obviously a violation of RAI and completely contrary to any common sense use of the rules at a table, but are still technically true by RAW.

That statement is true. It's technically RAW, but it's ridiculous, much as I've been saying this is.



And even through that lens, I don't see the "Ex stacking" as something the RAW allow.

Why, specifically, not? You gain X abilities, you lose Y abilities. So long as abilities don't belong to group Y, you don't lose them. Pretty simple logic




So, fun fact...kind of a tangent...I went and looked up the "Polymorph subschool", and that came out in the PHB2 for 3.5e. Interestingly enough, that particular excerpt is free online on the archived WotC site. HOWEVER, the rules regarding what SLOTHRPG95 said about Ex abilities isn't in that section. It is, however, found in the Pathfinder SRD. So even if that point being brought up hadn't been moot, it only would have applied to Pathfinder rules, and not D&D.

I invite anyone here to Google "polymorph subschool", you will get a link to the old WotC site, where the text of the Polymorph Subschool was posted as a "preview" of the PHB2 content. Another link will be to the Pathfinder SRD. Read both. The text that SLOTHRPG95 mentioned is only in the PFSRD.

SLOTHRPG95 already pointed this out, but the rules quoted were from Complete Mage, which is newer and thus would supercede PHB2, except that they're not different. No PF involved. But you seem to have missed the part in your referenced WotC archive version where it says 'However, note that the spells' existing rules text takes priority over that of the subschool.'




I think everyone agrees on that point. It's just the academic discussion of "is it one of those RAW-legal-but-otherwise-dumb" kinds of things in the same vein as "drown healing" that we're talking about.

Indeed it is. Nothing like a good ol' irrelevant academic discussion to stir up a good time! Having said that, we're going in circles here, so this will likely be my last wall of text on the subject, unless there's a specific point you'd like clarification on.

[RedMage125]

I'm moving one quote out of order for my response here, just to make sure we're on the same page, vis a vis my tone, since I came across as condescending before. So it is my disclaimer that I am not trying to be condescending, mean or confrontational. I just enjoy debate. And I use italics (and sometimes caps or bold) simply for emphasis (and sometimes for algebra), with no assumption of tone.



Indeed it is. Nothing like a good ol' irrelevant academic discussion to stir up a good time! Having said that, we're going in circles here, so this will likely be my last wall of text on the subject, unless there's a specific point you'd like clarification on.
I quite agree :smile:

But I'm not in need of any "clarification" on your stance. However, what I was saying, I think, needs to be clarified.



While Robo uses the words 'your old form,' Cosi doesn't, so I don't see how you can claim that 'both' of them misquote the rules. In fact, as I've repeatedly pointed out, the meaning that all of us have assumed, that 'your own' Su abilities are only those of your natural form, leaves us with no mention of losing Su abilities of assumed forms.
And no mention of keeping them, either. Hence why I mentioned Munchkin Fallacy.

The only mention of being able to change forms multiple times during the spell's duration is at the end of the description. And there is no language that in any way equates what gets "lost" in terms of relation to the form one is in. Therefore, the claim that the spell "defines the sum total of what abilities are lost, therefore anything not specified is not lost" is fallacious. Once again, the effects of a spell are never defined by what the text does not say. The effects of a spell are only defined by what it does say.

The entire basis for this claim is in the lack of rules saying no.

I understand the principle behind "it defines what you do lose", but that's only in relation to what powers of one's natural form are available while shapechanged.


Now it is you who are misquoting the rules. You claim that the rules are that 'for any given form that one has assumed, one's abilities are the Ex and Su of the assumed form.' That's not what it says. It says you gain the abilities of the assumed form. The word 'gain' is additive language, which is why some folks have claimed that by RAW the abilities stack.

"Gain" is additive, because prior to the casting of the spell, the caster did not have those Ex and Su abilities. But what you're dismissing as less important is that the powers one gains are "of the assumed form", in the same sentence where "your own" is used to describe abilities with respect to the caster's natural form. The "you" at the beginning of the sentence is the caster, in their own form, who gains abilities "of the assumed form".

If it were RAW, then at any moment afterwards, one could examine what Ex and Su abilities the caster had, and they would meet the description of what was granted by the spell. So again, my example where the caster becomes a black dragon and later becomes a red dragon, one only needs to look at the caster and ask "is 'Ex: Acid Immunity' an ability of the assumed form"?



Here you use the same word as the rule: gains. You bounce back and forth between 'gains' and 'are' with respect to the abilities of the assumed forms.
It has to be "gain" because the caster did not have them prior to assuming the form. I only used "are" to describe powers of a form one had already been in (and had thus already been "gained"). "Gain" is a verb that specifically covers transition of possession.



Ordinarily that is the general way the rules work. Specific trumps general, however, and if the specific rules of Shapechange say you gain them, and don't lose them, that overrides the general.
I'll play your game.

Please quote where the spell description of Shapechange specifically says that "you don't lose the powers of previously assumed forms". In those terms. Remember, as you acknowledged, the effects of a spell are NOT defined by what it does not say, only by what it DOES say.




I stand by my previous pointing out that this isn't a case of 'text not saying no.' You've failed to address the point that Cosi makes, that I quoted above, that Shapechange not only details what abilities you gain, but also those that you lose. It's setting itself up as a very simple equation: gain X, lose Y. If an ability isn't part of the definition of Y, you don't lose it. Or so the logic of Ex stacking goes.

It only specifies what abilities of "your own" are lost. It makes no mention whatsoever about other abilities granted due to this spell from previously assumed forms. You are, like Cosi, ignoring the significance of the text "of the assumed form". Which means the equation is "You gain A and B of X form, but lose Y". If one changes form again, one has only replaced the value of X, and thus replaced the value of A and B. That's how algebra works, when you change the value of an independent variable, the dependent variables also change in value. A and B are dependent variables of X.

You still "gain new value of A and B"(A2 and B2), as you have assumed "new value of X"(X2) and you have still "lost Y". But interpreting this as Cosi does requires one to claim that "since A1 and B1 do not equal Y, I still keep them" which is not explicit in the text. But the text never defines what happens to any dependent variables of X when X changes in value, it only says that X can change in value (and due to the way it was worded, means that A and B change in value as well). Therefore it IS a claim of "text not saying no".


I'm choosing to believe that you aren't intending to be condescending here, but hoo boy, it sure sounds like it. Not only have I directly quoted the text of the Shapechange entry from the SRD, others have as well. Please read carefully the posts you're attempting to rebut or discuss, before telling them to look it up.
I was not, and I apologize for giving that perception. I cannot link the SRD on my work computer, have to use my phone to look at it. So it was "an invitation to double check me to verify what I was saying", and not any kind of claim that others had not read it (but still relevant because at least one poster was misquoting it.



I don't think most folks are assuming that the assumed form's abilities are 'your own.' I've tried to point that out before, but that's not at all what the folks are saying. They're saying (as the text does) that you gain certain abilities, but it doesn't say you lose them. In fact, by your idea of 'strict RAW' meaning 'no interpretation,' you'd also be able to stack Su, since it doesn't ever say you lose the Su abilities of your assumed form either, only that you gain them.

I don't think that's it at all. It's because, as Cosi and Robo very very clearly stated, it says you gain the abilities, but it doesn't say you lose them. It does say which abilities you lose (those Su abilities of your own form), and so, since it's listed what you lose, what reason would you have to believe that you'd lose anything else?

I think they are conflating those things. Because nowhere in the text does it ever define "abilities granted by the spell which may be lost" only what is "[the caster's] own". And since the initial claim is that Ex abilities are what "stacks", it means they are claiming that A1 and B1 are "one's own" (by insisting that they only lose B1).

The second potential clincher (the one you didn't quote) was on "assumed form", which means that they think that "gain A and B of X form" means "for all values of X that have occurred during the duration of the spell". Which is what you are now saying, in claiming that Su and Ex abilities of previous forms are retained. Meaning that for form X3, you believe the caster has A1, A2, A3, B1, B2, and B3, just not Y.

And the third part was about postulating that they were thinking the rules said "lose the Su of your old form". Which, if that was true, then the equation would be "Gain An and Bn of Xn, but lose B(n-1) of X(n-1)" In that instance, upon assuming the very first form, one's natural form is Xn-1, and so of course, one still has A(n-1) (that being, one's own Ex abilities). I will freely admit that IF the text of the spell said "you lose the Su abilities of your old form" that this whole thing would work by RAW. But the text does not say that.



It says 'You gain all extraordinary and supernatural abilities (both attacks and qualities) of the assumed form.' In what way is the word 'gain' not an additive word? Having said you gain them, and having said what you do lose (not them), it would have to say somewhere that you lose them, in order for you to lose them. It doesn't, thus you don't lose them.

And it defines what you lose, and what you lose is not them. Thus, they remain until the spell expires.
As I have already said, you DO "gain" them, because they were not possessed previously. But the only thing specified as "lost" is parsed in terms of the caster's original abilities, not abilities previously gained from previous forms during use of this spell. So the claim that the spell "specifies what you do and do not lose" in terms of other abilities previously gained by the spell is just not true. Ergo, one is making assumptions and extrapolations based on what is not said. Thus, Munchkin Fallacy.



I feel like we're going in circles here. The text says you gain them, and lose your own Su abilities. If you, correctly as you say, refer to the top of the spell text for the next change, you then gain the Su and Ex abilities of your new assumed form, and lose... your own Su abilities. It doesn't say you lose any abilities of your previous form, and as you say, 'a spell's effects are not defined by "what it does not say", ever.'
But those abilities aren't yours, it would be a bit redundant (although more concise) to say that abilities of the old form are lost. Since the rules for assuming a form are at the top of the spell description changes in abilities are parsed in terms of what one gains upon assuming one's first form.

And the part I bolded is in direct conflict with the part you put in italics. It does not say that you keep the abilities of previous forms. You do not define a spells effects by what it does not say.

Unless, of course, you can find words in the text that explicitly address what abilities of previously assumed forms are retained and which are lost.


That statement is true. It's technically RAW, but it's ridiculous, much as I've been saying this is.
Right. Those kinds of things are fun to find in the RAW.

But like I said, as a person who can show that "drown healing" is "true by RAW", I cannot get on board with "Shapechage Ex stacking", even through that same lens.



Why, specifically, not? You gain X abilities, you lose Y abilities. So long as abilities don't belong to group Y, you don't lose them. Pretty simple logic
I addressed the equation above. I reject your assertion that it's "gain X, lose Y", but insist that the significance of the text is such that "Gain An and Bn of Xn form, but lose Y"


SLOTHRPG95 already pointed this out, but the rules quoted were from Complete Mage, which is newer and thus would supercede PHB2, except that they're not different. No PF involved. But you seem to have missed the part in your referenced WotC archive version where it says 'However, note that the spells' existing rules text takes priority over that of the subschool.'
I missed nothing about what was on the WotC page. I did miss that Complete Mage was the source being cited. Like I said, it was a tangent, and I was only pointing out that the line of "losing Ex abilities of your old form being the default for the [Polymorph] subschool" (which was originally brought up by Troacctid, btw) line was not in the initial 3.5e RAW for the Polymorph subschool anyway.

Like everyone has said, this is a moot point (I did say it was a tangent) due to the line about spells' existing rules text (which I never contested). And is apparently doubly moot, because the Complete Mage (the more recent printing) does have that text, so even my tangent was irrelevant as a tangent, because I was going off the older text.

Is that more clear? Can we stop tearing apart what I said as "fun fact...kind of a tangent" as if it was somehow relevant to the point I'm making? Claiming that this had anything to do with why I am dissecting Cosi's theory would be a Straw Man, at this point. I was never trying to say it was, and I copped to it being my fault that I was apparently unclear about that in the perception I created. I then clarified. Twice now.

[Crichton]

This is fun, and you're fun. Thanks!




It only specifies what abilities of "your own" are lost. It makes no mention whatsoever about other abilities granted due to this spell from previously assumed forms. You are, like Cosi, ignoring the significance of the text "of the assumed form". Which means the equation is "You gain A and B of X form, but lose Y". If one changes form again, one has only replaced the value of X, and thus replaced the value of A and B. That's how algebra works, when you change the value of an independent variable, the dependent variables also change in value. A and B are dependent variables of X.

You still "gain new value of A and B"(A2 and B2), as you have assumed "new value of X"(X2) and you have still "lost Y". But interpreting this as Cosi does requires one to claim that "since A1 and B1 do not equal Y, I still keep them" which is not explicit in the text. But the text never defines what happens to any dependent variables of X when X changes in value, it only says that X can change in value (and due to the way it was worded, means that A and B change in value as well). Therefore it IS a claim of "text not saying no".
I was not, and I apologize for giving that perception. I cannot link the SRD on my work computer, have to use my phone to look at it. So it was "an invitation to double check me to verify what I was saying", and not any kind of claim that others had not read it (but still relevant because at least one poster was misquoting it.


I think they are conflating those things. Because nowhere in the text does it ever define "abilities granted by the spell which may be lost" only what is "[the caster's] own". And since the initial claim is that Ex abilities are what "stacks", it means they are claiming that A1 and B1 are "one's own" (by insisting that they only lose B1).


The core of the argument rests on the claim that by using the contrastive wording 'you gain X, BUT lose Y' the text is claiming authority over the totality of both what is gained AND what is lost. You ONLY gain X, but ONLY lose Y. Under that claim, it doesn't matter what is actually in X or Y, ('assumed form' or 'your own'), it only matters that X is gained, and Y is lost, and since the spell later lets you change form again, X is again gained, and Y is again lost (except that there's nothing left to lose on the second and later changes, since the value of Y is never altered).

You change form. What do you gain? All of that form's Su and Ex abilities. What do you lose? Your own Su abilities.
You change form again. What do you gain? All of THAT form's Su and Ex abilities. What do you lose? Your own Su abilities. (NOT the first form's abilities, since they're not part of what it defines as you losing)


You've rejected that claim of the text's authority, claiming instead that the 'gain' clause and the 'lose' clause refer to different subsets of things that don't interact, and thus the text isn't defining a total set of what's gained and lost. I can see the merit of your argument, but I don't think that's what the text is saying, grammatically or semantically.



The second potential clincher (the one you didn't quote) was on "assumed form", which means that they think that "gain A and B of X form" means "for all values of X that have occurred during the duration of the spell". Which is what you are now saying, in claiming that Su and Ex abilities of previous forms are retained. Meaning that for form X3, you believe the caster has A1, A2, A3, B1, B2, and B3, just not Y.

Yes, that's exactly what the text of the spell says, based on the claim above.


Thanks again. nitpicking is a fine art, and you sir, are a master. :D




And no mention of keeping them, either. Hence why I mentioned Munchkin Fallacy.

Please quote where the spell description of Shapechange specifically says that "you don't lose the powers of previously assumed forms". In those terms. Remember, as you acknowledged, the effects of a spell are NOT defined by what it does not say, only by what it DOES say

And the part I bolded is in direct conflict with the part you put in italics. It does not say that you keep the abilities of previous forms. You do not define a spells effects by what it does not say.

Unless, of course, you can find words in the text that explicitly address what abilities of previously assumed forms are retained and which are lost.

It doesn't have to go out of its way to say you keep them since it's already defined that you don't lose them. Effectively the same thing. That's defining the spell's effects by what it does say.





I addressed the equation above. I reject your assertion that it's "gain X, lose Y",

You can reject it if you'd like. Heck, I reject it, but that's an interpretation



but insist that the significance of the text is such that "Gain An and Bn of Xn form, but lose Y"

It is that, but An and Bn of Xn form is not part of losing Y, during the next change.

[ericgrau]

I use a simulacrum of a demon instead of a real one. I couldn't find anything that said I couldn't do that. Simulacrum have the tanarri subtype so I couldn't find an argument saying simulacrum of a demon aren't demons.

Nothing says you can either, and the spell does say it's a fake. They can't even heal normally. Your subtype comment led me to a a little Googling said they still do have the same creature type though. Normally I'd say check with the DM to make sure it counts at all. But it sounds like you should first find the book that says the simulacrum retains the same creature type. So then you say it has the same type, meaning the simulacrum is also a demon, and as long as he accepts the book that should fly I think. The bigger issue is getting a piece of hair or nail from a 42+ HD demon. Most demons have a CR close to their HD. Sure you don't need to kill it, but even finding one and getting near to it or its hairdresser is difficult. And/or involves more questionable cheese that might exceed the power of even this trick.

[RoboEmperor]

They can't even heal normally.

Yes they can. You're confusing Simulacrum with Ice Assassin. Magical Laboratory Healing is an additive rule for Simulacrum and exclusive rule for Ice Assassin.


Your subtype comment led me to a a little Googling said they still do have the same creature type though. Normally I'd say check with the DM to make sure it counts at all. But it sound like you should first find the book that says the simulacrum retains the same creature type. So then you say it has the same type, meaning the simulacrum is also a demon, and as long as he accepts the book that should fly I think.

Simulacrum is an exact copy at half hd. It has all abilities of the creature including natural abilities which is what I think the demon traits are. Are you saying simulacra don't get acid, cold, and fire resistance?


The bigger issue is getting a piece of hair or nail from a 42+ HD demon. Most demons have a CR close to their HD. Sure you don't need to kill it, but even finding one and getting near to it or its hairdresser is difficult.

Summon Components or Eschew Materials. Worst case scenario Wish.

[ColorBlindNinja]

And/or involves more questionable cheese that might exceed the power of even this trick.

Take Eschew Materials. Done.

[RoboEmperor]

Take Eschew Materials. Done.

Swordsaged

[ericgrau]

Yes they can. You're confusing Simulacrum with Ice Assassin. Magical Laboratory Healing is an additive rule for Simulacrum and exclusive rule for Ice Assassin.



Simulacrum is an exact copy at half hd. It has all abilities of the creature including natural abilities which is what I think the demon traits are. Are you saying simulacra don't get acid, cold, and fire resistance?



Summon Components or Eschew Materials. Worst case scenario Wish.

I thought of that and almost wrote it in, but it seemed silly to even bring up as it would leave the spell with nothing to copy. A bit of archdemon hair might be a reasonable wish though. I also don't think the value is necessarily below 1 gp just because it's undetermined/undefined/not normally sold. If I asked for someone to retrieve it I'm sure the price would be a great deal higher. And there would be resistance to the attempt, because this is far from the only spell that uses bits of a creature.



Simulacrum creates an illusory duplicate of any creature. The duplicate creature is partially real and formed from ice or snow. It appears to be the same as the original, but...

It's an illusory duplicate, so it is absolutely a fake copy. It is similar but different, meaning you need to determine what's the same and what's different. The spell itself doesn't say one way or the other for demonhood, but one or more other books do. The source I Googled was a Greyhawk setting book which isn't the most airtight argument, but I figured you already had that or something better to show the DM since you mentioned subtype.

[RoboEmperor]

It's an illusory duplicate, so it is absolutely a fake copy. It is similar but different, meaning you need to determine what's the same and what's different. The spell itself doesn't say one way or the other for demonhood, but one or more other books do. The source I Googled was a Greyhawk setting book which isn't the most airtight argument, but I figured you already had that or something better to show the DM since you mentioned subtype.

Nope, i couldn't find any book that elaborated on simulacrum. Not even Frostburn did.

If I make a simlacrum of a fire elemental, are you saying it won't have the fire subtype? y/n.

But you know, this isn't a mechanical argument, it's a lore argument. Essence isn't defined anywhere except in that feat so I guess the DM has enough leeway to say no here if he wanted to. In which case Gate + Mindrape.

[ColorBlindNinja]

It's an illusory duplicate, so it is absolutely a fake copy.

The spell says "partially real".


You could also use Ice Assassin, which says "living, breathing" to describe the duplicate.

[ericgrau]

Nope, i couldn't find any book that elaborated on simulacrum. Not even Frostburn did.

If I make a simlacrum of a fire elemental, are you saying it won't have the fire subtype? y/n.

But you know, this isn't a mechanical argument, it's a lore argument. Essence isn't defined anywhere except in that feat so I guess the DM has enough leeway to say no here if he wanted to. In which case Gate + Mindrape.

More like I don't know what type & subtype it is, it's undefined. Some Googling could probably get you the simulacrum's type though and which book says so. At minimum the Greyhawk campaign book if not better sources. EDIT for clarity, marked and italicized to avoid discussion confusion: Or bypass all that and ask the DM, because again "undefined" is neither "yes" nor "no".

If you're allowed to Gate+Mindrape a creature twice your level, why would you need the rods or any other trick?


The spell says "partially real".
Yeup, not saying anything against that. Just a question of what part's real and what's not. And even if real, is that part same as the original? Especially on something as hazy as "essence".

But I think if you can confirm type=demon, it won't matter if it doesn't have the same essence as the original demon. It still has the essence of a 21 HD demon. Perhaps a different essence (or perhaps the same), but still one that matches the requirements for the feat.

The question only comes up in the first place because it is only a duplicate, and an illusory one at that. I mean you could make a golem automoton that is very much like a humanoid, but it's still a construct not a humanoid.

[RoboEmperor]

If you're allowed to Gate+Mindrape a creature twice your level, why would you need the rods or any other trick?

Gate is restricted to Extraplanar. Simulacrum is not. The whole thing started when I thought Nightwalkers from MMI looked cool and I said to myself "I want that." Then after toying around with Simulacrum I thought to myself "I wanna do that for free"

With caster level boosting I can create Simulacra of Epic Creatures whose max HD is half the maximum advancement hd of the target creature. Gate however, because Abominations have divine ranks and therefore are uncontrollable by Gate, becomes less and less useful in epic.

If Eschew materials or Summon Component does not result in Simulacra's material component (by raw it does) then I will lose interest in the rods, simulacra, and just go gate+mindrape.

edit: then again, free wish->nail or hair so I might still pursue Simulacrum.

[ColorBlindNinja]

At minimum the Greyhawk campaign book if not better sources.

What's the book's name?



Yeup, not saying anything against that. Just a question of what part's real and what's not. And even if real, is that part same as the original? Especially on something as hazy as "essence".

But I think if you can confirm type=demon, it won't matter if it doesn't have the same essence as the original demon. It still has the essence of a 21 HD demon. Perhaps a different essence (or perhaps the same), but still one that matches the requirements for the feat.

Unless you can provide some rules support for your argument, I don't think it holds any water.

[ericgrau]

Unless you can provide some rules support for your argument, I don't think it holds any water.

Neither does the claim that you can use a simulacrum this way. That's what "undefined" is, not "yes" or "no". "Ask the DM", is also a perfectly acceptable answer.


What's the book's name?

Expedition to Castle Greyhawk, according to some random guy. I didn't dig further.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Neither does the claim that you can use a simulacrum this way. That's what "undefined" is, not "yes" or "no". "Ask the DM", is also a perfectly acceptable answer.

Yeah, no. Simulacrum makes a copy, unless you can demonstrate that copy isn't sufficient for the feat's purposes, you have no argument.


Expedition to Castle Greyhawk, according to some random guy. I didn't dig further.

I'll see what I can find.

[RedMage125]

This is fun, and you're fun. Thanks!

You, too.



The core of the argument rests on the claim that by using the contrastive wording 'you gain X, BUT lose Y' the text is claiming authority over the totality of both what is gained AND what is lost. You ONLY gain X, but ONLY lose Y. Under that claim, it doesn't matter what is actually in X or Y, ('assumed form' or 'your own'), it only matters that X is gained, and Y is lost, and since the spell later lets you change form again, X is again gained, and Y is again lost (except that there's nothing left to lose on the second and later changes, since the value of Y is never altered).

You change form. What do you gain? All of that form's Su and Ex abilities. What do you lose? Your own Su abilities.
You change form again. What do you gain? All of THAT form's Su and Ex abilities. What do you lose? Your own Su abilities. (NOT the first form's abilities, since they're not part of what it defines as you losing)

You've rejected that claim of the text's authority, claiming instead that the 'gain' clause and the 'lose' clause refer to different subsets of things that don't interact, and thus the text isn't defining a total set of what's gained and lost. I can see the merit of your argument, but I don't think that's what the text is saying, grammatically or semantically.


Yes, that's exactly what the text of the spell says, based on the claim above.
All of this, though, is predicated on a lack of text explicitly saying that you "lose the abilities of previously assumed forms".

The only "gains" (that is, gained above and beyond the abilities of one's own form) are those of the assumed form, because that's all the text says. Those are the only specified gains. When the assumed form changes, the "gains" change. Dependent variables.



Thanks again. nitpicking is a fine art, and you sir, are a master. :D

I'm also very humble.

One of my best qualities.



It doesn't have to go out of its way to say you keep them since it's already defined that you don't lose them. Effectively the same thing. That's defining the spell's effects by what it does say.
Except gthat it does not explicitly say that "you don't lose them", so that is defining the spell's effects by what it does not say.



You can reject it if you'd like. Heck, I reject it, but that's an interpretation
It requires a great deal more "interpretation" to see "the Ex and Su abilities of the assumed form" as "the Ex and Su abilities of all forms that have been assumed since casting the spell".

[ericgrau]

Yeah, no. Simulacrum makes a copy, unless you can demonstrate that copy isn't sufficient for the feat's purposes, you have no argument.
Does an illusory copy have the same essence as the original? That's not a clear-cut answer. And you can just as easily and just as correctly say "It doesn't say you can" and say you can't support your technique to use it that way. But neither confirming it or denying it is certain.

Just go to the DM and/or book(s).



I'll see what I can find.
Cool, thanks.

[ColorBlindNinja]

The source I Googled was a Greyhawk setting book which isn't the most airtight argument, but I figured you already had that or something better to show the DM since you mentioned subtype.

The only thing I could find in that book was that the Simulacrum Iggwilv has the Simulacrum subtype.

She's a human Wizard, though, so she wouldn't have any other subtypes.

Unless you can get more specific?

[Crichton]

You, too.


All of this, though, is predicated on a lack of text explicitly saying that you "lose the abilities of previously assumed forms".

No, that's backwards. It's predicated on the presence of text defining what you do lose.


The only "gains" (that is, gained above and beyond the abilities of one's own form) are those of the assumed form, because that's all the text says. Those are the only specified gains. When the assumed form changes, the "gains" change. Dependent variables.

Not so much that the gains 'change,' but that you now gain a different set, but don't lose the old set, since they aren't part of what's defined as what you lose.


Except gthat it does not explicitly say that "you don't lose them", so that is defining the spell's effects by what it does not say.

It explicitly does say what you do lose, though, and they aren't part of that, so it's defining the spell's effects by what it does say.



It requires a great deal more "interpretation" to see "the Ex and Su abilities of the assumed form" as "the Ex and Su abilities of all forms that have been assumed since casting the spell".

It would take more interpretation to see it that way, but that's not what I was saying. Not 'you gain all the Ex and Su abilities of all forms you've taken since casting the spell.' Just 'you gain all Ex and Su abilities of the assumed form' and they are gained, (added) to those that you currently have (which includes those of the previous forms, since you haven't lost them).


This is fun, but we're just talking in circles, eh? After all, I think we both agree what it should say.

[RedMage125]

No, that's backwards. It's predicated on the presence of text defining what you do lose.



Not so much that the gains 'change,' but that you now gain a different set, but don't lose the old set, since they aren't part of what's defined as what you lose.

I'm not saying that you "don't lose your own Su abilities", though.



It explicitly does say what you do lose, though, and they aren't part of that, so it's defining the spell's effects by what it does say.

It doesn't say that those abilities carry over. Period.

The abilities gained are those of the assumed form. Any abilities not of the assumed form are not "gained" over the caster's own, because the text does not grant them.

At no point to abilities "gained" from a spell effect become "your own". And the text only parses "what is lost" in terms of the caster's own abilities.

Because there is no text explicitly stating that abilities "carry over " from previous forms, you are making an inference based on the lack of text saying they don't.




It would take more interpretation to see it that way, but that's not what I was saying. Not 'you gain all the Ex and Su abilities of all forms you've taken since casting the spell.' Just 'you gain all Ex and Su abilities of the assumed form' and they are gained, (added) to those that you currently have (which includes those of the previous forms, since you haven't lost them).

No, powers "gained" from a spell are always respective to prior to casting the spell. That is the only coherent way to read the description of any spell's effects.

To continue my example, once the form of a black dragon is changed out for a red dragon, the caster no longer gains the powers of a black dragon, only that of a red dragon.

All powers granted by any form during the spell are "gained" with respect to the caster's own abilities. But you can only gain the powers "of the assumed form". As soon as you have violated the tenet of the form, you no longer "gain" them. I think that's the disconnect. The spell is constantly supplying the caster with those abilities. They do not "become his" and that is why I've been saying that.



This is fun, but we're just talking in circles, eh? After all, I think we both agree what it should say.

Oh, I know we agree there.

[ericgrau]

The only thing I could find in that book was that the Simulacrum Iggwilv has the Simulacrum subtype.

She's a human Wizard, though, so she wouldn't have any other subtypes.

Unless you can get more specific?

I found it out of curiosity. It says "humanoid (simulacrum)", which is probably where the person thought the creature copied the type. It also says with true seeing you see an animated statue made of ice and snow, which implies it's some sort of animated being similar to a construct or undead.

So... still unknown, and that's all I could find. Eh, too much trouble at this point. I'd just ask the DM. I'm inclined to buy it from the Iggwilv type example, but it's still only slightly clearer than mud.

[RoboEmperor]

I don't think simulacrum is a subtype but just a notifier that it's a simulacrum.

I will say if a banish spell sends a simulacrum back to the abyss, there should be no reason it doesn't provide essence. There is simply no distinction between a simulacrum and the real creature other than after they die.

[Crichton]

I'm not saying that you "don't lose your own Su abilities", though.

Neither am I. You do lose your own Su abilities, just as it says. My argument is predicated on that being the only abilities you lose, though. You had said my argument was predicated on a lack of text saying you lose the abilities of previous forms. That's not correct. My argument is predicated on the spell text 'you lose your own supernatural abilities' being a total authoritative list of the only abilities you lose at all.


It doesn't say that those abilities carry over. Period.

And again, it doesn't have to say that they carry over, IF it's defining a list of all that you lose, and they aren't on it.


The abilities gained are those of the assumed form. Any abilities not of the assumed form are not "gained" over the caster's own, because the text does not grant them.

That's true. You don't gain the abilities of forms you don't assume


At no point to abilities "gained" from a spell effect become "your own". And the text only parses "what is lost" in terms of the caster's own abilities.

They don't have to become 'your own'. This is the actual point of disconnect between us, I think. You're saying that because the text talks about what you lose in terms of 'your own,' which is different than how it talks about what you gain, that the text isn't setting up a list of all that you lose, and I'm saying that because it uses constrastive language (you gain X, BUT, you lose Y), that the text is defining a total list of the only thing that you lose (your own Su abilities, and nothing else, at all, period).


Because there is no text explicitly stating that abilities "carry over " from previous forms, you are making an inference based on the lack of text saying they don't.

Once again, IF the text is defining a list of the only abilities you lose, it doesn't have to explicitly say that they carry over, because that would be redundant. (I'm giving you a dagger, but I'm taking your crossbow. Ok, now I'm giving you a longsword, but I'm (still)taking your crossbow. There's no need for me to mention that you still have the dagger.) In fact, because it defines all that you gain and all that you lose, the spell would have to explicitly say that you do lose them, otherwise you don't.



No, powers "gained" from a spell are always respective to prior to casting the spell. That is the only coherent way to read the description of any spell's effects.

Yes? That's how it works. You gain the abilities of the form you assume. To 'gain' abilities is to have them added to your list of abilities. So unless they're taken back off that list somehow, they're still on that list. See my dagger/longsword analogy earlier.


To continue my example, once the form of a black dragon is changed out for a red dragon, the caster no longer gains the powers of a black dragon, only that of a red dragon.

Sort of true? You no longer 'gain' the powers of a black dragon, but since you already 'gained' them and haven't lost them, you still have them. IF, and only if, the authors had said 'You have access to all extraordinary and supernatural abilities (both attacks and qualities) of the assumed form, but you lose access to your own supernatural abilities' then your argument would be true, but they didn't they said 'gain,' and the meaning of the word gain makes it an additive process, when combined with them defining a total list of the only abilities the spell makes you lose.


All powers granted by any form during the spell are "gained" with respect to the caster's own abilities. But you can only gain the powers "of the assumed form". As soon as you have violated the tenet of the form, you no longer "gain" them. I think that's the disconnect. The spell is constantly supplying the caster with those abilities. They do not "become his" and that is why I've been saying that.


They don't need to 'become his.' And yes, the spell is constantly supplying the abilities, until it expires. Thing is, it also defines the only thing you lose, and by the time you make your second change, you've already lost that. So you 'gain' the abilities of the first form you assume, then you 'gain' the abilities of the second form, and so on, but you don't ever lose any of them. You don't have to continue to gain them, you've already gained them. They've been added to your list of abilities, and nothing has removed them from that list of abilities. This is, of course, dependent on my claim that by using the contrastive language, the spell text is defining the only set of things that you ever lose from this spell.

[RedMage125]

Neither am I. You do lose your own Su abilities, just as it says. My argument is predicated on that being the only abilities you lose, though. You had said my argument was predicated on a lack of text saying you lose the abilities of previous forms. That's not correct. My argument is predicated on the spell text 'you lose your own supernatural abilities' being a total authoritative list of the only abilities you lose at all.



And again, it doesn't have to say that they carry over, IF it's defining a list of all that you lose, and they aren't on it.


I get that, but whether you realize it or not, your argument is also predicated on the idea that once an ability is "gained" through the assumed form (which is of course, only an effect of the spell), that the caster in question has any kind of "ownership" of it that can even be "lost".

My argument is predicated on the principle that the spell must be granting you the ability in order to use it, and the spell only grants the abilities of "the assumed form". So it's not even a matter of "needing text saying you 'lose' it". Because it does not belong to you. The spell quite simply stops granting abilities not of the assumed form. This is because the text only specifies that it does grant the abilities of the assumed form.



That's true. You don't gain the abilities of forms you don't assume
"Assumed form". That's form, singular. Not "forms". The only things the caster "gains" over his normal abilities, are those of the assumed form.




They don't have to become 'your own'. This is the actual point of disconnect between us, I think. You're saying that because the text talks about what you lose in terms of 'your own,' which is different than how it talks about what you gain, that the text isn't setting up a list of all that you lose, and I'm saying that because it uses constrastive language (you gain X, BUT, you lose Y), that the text is defining a total list of the only thing that you lose (your own Su abilities, and nothing else, at all, period).



Once again, IF the text is defining a list of the only abilities you lose, it doesn't have to explicitly say that they carry over, because that would be redundant. (I'm giving you a dagger, but I'm taking your crossbow. Ok, now I'm giving you a longsword, but I'm (still)taking your crossbow. There's no need for me to mention that you still have the dagger.) In fact, because it defines all that you gain and all that you lose, the spell would have to explicitly say that you do lose them, otherwise you don't.

Those powers are not "yours" to lose. Is the point. Once they are longer being "gained", you stop having them.




Yes? That's how it works. You gain the abilities of the form you assume. To 'gain' abilities is to have them added to your list of abilities. So unless they're taken back off that list somehow, they're still on that list. See my dagger/longsword analogy earlier.

And THAT is our disconnect. It's what I've been trying to clarify for the last few posts. The part I bolded is neither explicitly supported in the text, not is it a coherent reading when we're discussing what the effects are of spells with a duration. Not in the way you're meaning it.

Remember when I said that reading it as such is diminishing the importance of the words "of the assumed form" in the text? The spell allows you to "gain" (that is, above your own normal abilities) of the assumed form only. When a form is no longer the one being assumed, you do not "gain" the powers of it any longer. And since they were never actually yours, you don't hold on to them, either.

And, as always, the clincher: There is zero explicit text saying that you do hold onto them.



Sort of true? You no longer 'gain' the powers of a black dragon, but since you already 'gained' them and haven't lost them, you still have them. IF, and only if, the authors had said 'You have access to all extraordinary and supernatural abilities (both attacks and qualities) of the assumed form, but you lose access to your own supernatural abilities' then your argument would be true, but they didn't they said 'gain,' and the meaning of the word gain makes it an additive process, when combined with them defining a total list of the only abilities the spell makes you lose.

They don't need to 'become his.' And yes, the spell is constantly supplying the abilities, until it expires. Thing is, it also defines the only thing you lose, and by the time you make your second change, you've already lost that. So you 'gain' the abilities of the first form you assume, then you 'gain' the abilities of the second form, and so on, but you don't ever lose any of them. You don't have to continue to gain them, you've already gained them. They've been added to your list of abilities, and nothing has removed them from that list of abilities. This is, of course, dependent on my claim that by using the contrastive language, the spell text is defining the only set of things that you ever lose from this spell.

No, once the spell stops supplying them, you no longer have them because they are not "yours" to "lose" in the first place.

This idea that this works is based on 2 fundamental flaws that are underlying foundations here:

1-"abilities of the assumed form" somehow does not indicate that the abilities one gains are only of the form currently being assumed.
2- That once Ex and Su abilities of a form are even available to the caster, that he somehow claims ownership of those powers.

You keep saying that #2 isn't what you're saying, but it has to be. This "exploit" as Cosi postulated it, states that you "stack Ex abilities", implicitly acknowledging that you don't keep the Su ones, which means he is including the Su abilities of previous forms under the heading "your own".

Let me put it this way...I'll humor you for a moment and let's examine this. Human Sorcerer, not immune to acid, uses shapechange to become a black dragon. A few rounds later, he changes form again, turning into a red dragon. You have acknowledged my point about how the spell must be constantly supplying these powers, as they are not "[the caster's] own". Is this ability "Ex: Acid Immunity" an ability "of the assumed form"? If not, how is it that the caster is "gaining" this power from the spell? Since the power is not innately "his", it must be "gained" from the spell at any given time, right? Once his "assumed form" is a red dragon, how would the spell allow him to "gain" Ex:Acid Immunity?

Please answer using support from the text.

[Crichton]

We're going round and round and round. My head is spinning, but this is still fun.


I get that, but whether you realize it or not, your argument is also predicated on the idea that once an ability is "gained" through the assumed form (which is of course, only an effect of the spell), that the caster in question has any kind of "ownership" of it that can even be "lost".

Not so! The spell is what's granting you the ability, and the spell's text is what says you have gained it, and haven't lost it. There's no need at all for it to be in any way innately 'your own' or have any 'ownership' of it.


My argument is predicated on the principle that the spell must be granting you the ability in order to use it, and the spell only grants the abilities of "the assumed form". So it's not even a matter of "needing text saying you 'lose' it". Because it does not belong to you. The spell quite simply stops granting abilities not of the assumed form. This is because the text only specifies that it does grant the abilities of the assumed form.

The problem with that assertion is that the spell doesn't say it only grants you the abilities of your current assumed form. What it says is you gain the abilities of your assumed form, and lose the Su abilities of your own form. It does say what you lose, but in that list of what you lose is not included the abilities that you've gained from the spell. It doesn't say 'while in your assumed form you temporarily have access to its abilities.' It says you 'gain' them. Again, additive language.


"Assumed form". That's form, singular. Not "forms". The only things the caster "gains" over his normal abilities, are those of the assumed form.

Yes, it only adds the abilities of the form you actually do assume. Then you don't lose those when you assume the next form. So you still have the abilities of the forms you've actually assumed, but you don't have any abilities from any form you haven't assumed.




Those powers are not "yours" to lose. Is the point. Once they are longer being "gained", you stop having them.

Again, they don't have to be yours. The spell has given them to you, and has excluded them from the list of abilities the spell has made you lose.




And THAT is our disconnect. It's what I've been trying to clarify for the last few posts. The part I bolded is neither explicitly supported in the text, not is it a coherent reading when we're discussing what the effects are of spells with a duration. Not in the way you're meaning it.

Remember when I said that reading it as such is diminishing the importance of the words "of the assumed form" in the text? The spell allows you to "gain" (that is, above your own normal abilities) of the assumed form only. When a form is no longer the one being assumed, you do not "gain" the powers of it any longer. And since they were never actually yours, you don't hold on to them, either.

You don't have to continue to 'gain' something you've already gained. And they don't have to be 'actually yours' to retain them, since the spell says it has given them to you, and has said what it takes away (not them).


And, as always, the clincher: There is zero explicit text saying that you do hold onto them.

But there IS explicit text saying that you HAVE GAINED them and that you DON'T LOSE THEM, so any text explicitly saying you keep them would be redundant.




No, once the spell stops supplying them, you no longer have them because they are not "yours" to "lose" in the first place.

That's just it though: the spell doesn't stop supplying them. Once again, it doesn't say you gain temporary access to the abilities of the form you're in. It says you GAIN the abilities of a form you assume. That's WAY different.


This idea that this works is based on 2 fundamental flaws that are underlying foundations here:

1-"abilities of the assumed form" somehow does not indicate that the abilities one gains are only of the form currently being assumed.
2- That once Ex and Su abilities of a form are even available to the caster, that he somehow claims ownership of those powers.

You keep saying that #2 isn't what you're saying, but it has to be. This "exploit" as Cosi postulated it, states that you "stack Ex abilities", implicitly acknowledging that you don't keep the Su ones, which means he is including the Su abilities of previous forms under the heading "your own".

No, it doesn't have to be. And while those who've previously posted about stacking Ex abilites may be misreading the 'your own' line, the fact is that, by the most literal interpretation of the words of the spell, both Su And Ex abilities 'stack,' since the spell defines precisely what you gain, and precisely what you lose. Yes, you don't have ownership of them. Yes, the spell continues to supply them. It continues to supply them because the text of the spell says you have gained them, and it says what you lose, and what you lose doesn't include them.


If not, how is it that the caster is "gaining" this power from the spell?

It's not that the caster 'is gaining' this power. It's that the caster 'has gained' it. It's been added to his list, and not taken off.


Since the power is not innately "his", it must be "gained" from the spell at any given time, right?

It doesn't need to be innately his, it's supplied by the spell. He 'has gained' it from the spell, and the spell, which defines all that the caster gains AND loses, continues to supply it because he 'has gained' it.


Once his "assumed form" is a red dragon, how would the spell allow him to "gain" Ex:Acid Immunity?

Because he 'has gained' it from his previous assuming of the form of a black dragon. If he only assumed the form of a red dragon, he wouldn't 'have gained' it.

New analogy using the same textual structure. Let's use the most classic of classics: apples and oranges.

Change just only that sentence in the spell text to this: You gain {an apple}, but you lose your own {oranges}. Leave the rest of the spell text in there.


Round 1: You cast the spell and assume the form of a black dragon. You gain an apple, but lose your own oranges.
Round 2: You now assume the form of a red dragon. You gain an apple, but lose your own oranges.
Round 3: You now assume the form of a bugbear. You gain an apple, but lose your own oranges.


At this point, how many apples do you have? Three! They're magically granted apples that will cease to exist when the spell's duration expires, and your own oranges will return to you, but right now, as of Round 3, you have 3 apples!



Please answer using support from the text.

I have, and I did again.


The spell text defines a list of all that the spell causes you to gain (additive word), and all that it causes you to lose. It's dumb and broken that they worded it that way. It would have been the tiniest of efforts to have worded it in a less dumb and broken way, but they didn't, and so that's what the spell' text says it does. Not the first example of such, and not the last.

[RedMage125]

Not so! The spell is what's granting you the ability, and the spell's text is what says you have gained it, and haven't lost it. There's no need at all for it to be in any way innately 'your own' or have any 'ownership' of it.

Yes, there is. The only coherent way to read the effects of any spell is with respect to what is different about the spell from before the spell was cast.

Therefore, if an ability wasn't "your own" to begin with, removal of that ability is not "losing" it. To wit: the spell Tenser's Transformation. Only specifies which of the caster's own abilities are "lost".



The problem with that assertion is that the spell doesn't say it only grants you the abilities of your current assumed form. What it says is you gain the abilities of your assumed form, and lose the Su abilities of your own form. It does say what you lose, but in that list of what you lose is not included the abilities that you've gained from the spell. It doesn't say 'while in your assumed form you temporarily have access to its abilities.' It says you 'gain' them. Again, additive language.


Remember when I said we can only determine a spell's effects by what it does say?


You gain all extraordinary and supernatural abilities (both attacks and qualities) of the assumed form

You gain no other abilities other than those of the assumed form. And since spell descriptions are always written with respect to what is changed by the spell, those abilities are still "gained" with respect to the caster's own.

You are, in fact, assuming that "gain" means "they're yours now", completely disregarding that the abilities are "of the assumed form". You therefore do not "gain" (that is, over and above your own abilities) the abilities of any form other than the one that is assumed.



Yes, it only adds the abilities of the form you actually do assume. Then you don't lose those when you assume the next form. So you still have the abilities of the forms you've actually assumed, but you don't have any abilities from any form you haven't assumed.
That's not in the text. The abilities were never "yours" to "lose". Once the form changed, the abilities granted by the spell changed, because the spell only says it grants the abilities "of the assumed form".



Again, they don't have to be yours. The spell has given them to you, and has excluded them from the list of abilities the spell has made you lose.
Which is only true if those abilities are inherent to you after assuming the form, instead of being tied to the form. And since the text says "of the assumed form", they are tied to the form.


You don't have to continue to 'gain' something you've already gained. And they don't have to be 'actually yours' to retain them, since the spell says it has given them to you, and has said what it takes away (not them).
These two sentences are nonsensical next to each other. And the first one is explicitly false. The spell ties which abilities you get to which form is "assumed", hence the ONLY abilities you gain over your own abilities are those of the assumed form.



But there IS explicit text saying that you HAVE GAINED them and that you DON'T LOSE THEM, so any text explicitly saying you keep them would be redundant.
There is not "explicit text saying you don't lose them". That would be text with the words "you lose the abilities of one assumed form when you assume another form". THAT is explicit. So there is only an explicit lack of text saying that. And once again, Munchkin Fallacy.



That's just it though: the spell doesn't stop supplying them. Once again, it doesn't say you gain temporary access to the abilities of the form you're in. It says you GAIN the abilities of a form you assume. That's WAY different.

You have no text to support the claim that the spell continues to supply you with the abilities of a form which is not the assumed form.



No, it doesn't have to be. And while those who've previously posted about stacking Ex abilites may be misreading the 'your own' line, the fact is that, by the most literal interpretation of the words of the spell, both Su And Ex abilities 'stack,' since the spell defines precisely what you gain, and precisely what you lose. Yes, you don't have ownership of them. Yes, the spell continues to supply them. It continues to supply them because the text of the spell says you have gained them, and it says what you lose, and what you lose doesn't include them.
You are assuming that "gain" means "they're yours now", as if they belong to you, and are not "of the assumed form". Which is not stated in the text, and is, in fact, in direct conflict with the text.



It's not that the caster 'is gaining' this power. It's that the caster 'has gained' it. It's been added to his list, and not taken off.
False. You have no text to support the claim that "gaining an ability of an assumed form" means those powers belong to the individual himself regardless of form. No text says that, and such is not a coherent reading of any spell of the alter self, polymorph, shapechange chain of spells.


It doesn't need to be innately his, it's supplied by the spell. He 'has gained' it from the spell, and the spell, which defines all that the caster gains AND loses, continues to supply it because he 'has gained' it.
It is established that it is not innately his. To use the black dragon > red dragon example again, Ex: Acid Immunity is not his, he gains that power of the black dragon when a black dragon is the assumed form. The powers are never "gained" in the sense that they are "added to his list of abilities", because that is not in the text. You have no RAW support for this claim, other than claiming that "gain" can somehow "only mean what you claim". But since there isn't any actual text, as either a General nor a Specific rule anywhere that does say that, you are extrapolating a meaning of the text outside of what it says.



Because he 'has gained' it from his previous assuming of the form of a black dragon. If he only assumed the form of a red dragon, he wouldn't 'have gained' it.

New analogy using the same textual structure. Let's use the most classic of classics: apples and oranges.

Change just only that sentence in the spell text to this: You gain {an apple}, but you lose your own {oranges}. Leave the rest of the spell text in there.


Round 1: You cast the spell and assume the form of a black dragon. You gain an apple, but lose your own oranges.
Round 2: You now assume the form of a red dragon. You gain an apple, but lose your own oranges.
Round 3: You now assume the form of a bugbear. You gain an apple, but lose your own oranges.


At this point, how many apples do you have? Three! They're magically granted apples that will cease to exist when the spell's duration expires, and your own oranges will return to you, but right now, as of Round 3, you have 3 apples!

Your analogy, once again, fails to account for the textual importance of the words "of the assumed form".

I quite understand what you are claiming.

I am contesting the assumptions you have made and built these arguments on, because those assumptions are not supported by the text.




I have, and I did again.


The spell text defines a list of all that the spell causes you to gain (additive word), and all that it causes you to lose. It's dumb and broken that they worded it that way. It would have been the tiniest of efforts to have worded it in a less dumb and broken way, but they didn't, and so that's what the spell' text says it does. Not the first example of such, and not the last.

You did not use the text. You did not use any RAW from anywhere that supports this idea. And although you try to claim otherwise, the claim that "it says everything you do lose, and abilities gained from previous forms are not on that list" is, in fact, making a claim based on what the text does not say. It is literally that, in every way. It can only ever be that.

Your entire claim is based upon the idea that "you lose your own Su abilities" is a phrase that encompasses the sum total of anything lost, but that very idea is founded on the assumption that once the caster assumes a form, that any "abilities of the assumed form" that he was able to use in that form count as part of his own suite of abilities. Not only is this idea not supported by actual, written words in the RAW (other than a myopic reading of the word "gain" the requires ones to diminish the significance of other text, specifically "of the assumed form"); I am telling you this is a nonsensical way to read a spell's description, because for a spell to describe a caster as "losing" something, it could only be an ability that the caster had before casting the spell. Any abilities granted by the spell must be constantly "gained" from the spell. When the assumed form changes, the abilities gained change. Since the previous form's abilities are not the caster's own, he no longer has them, as he no longer meets the "assumed form" requisite in the spell description.

[Asmotherion]

Gate: As a Sorcerer i need to be able to summon whatever i want. There's also the Plane Shift+Gate in to banish a creature whose true name you happen to know.

Disjunction: Dispell all other Spell effects.

Time Stop: Together With Greate Celarity and Arcane Fusion (Greater) gives me plenty of Time to do what i want.


Alternatively:

Wish: Couldn't Decide between it and Gate; That Said i do have Access to Limited Wish and using it for actual Wishes other than spell duplication/listed effects is unstable. The Final reason i chose gate over it was because i can Gate in things that can use their Wish SL Ability for me if i need it as a balancing factor (or really planar-bind those creatures).

[Crichton]

Oh dear goodness, here we go again.


Remember when I said we can only determine a spell's effects by what it does say?

Not sure how to type this as politely as I mean it, but did you actually read the quote of my text that you posted before you wrote that little bit of friendly snark? The part I wrote that it 'doesn't say' is a reference to your assertion. I then immediately went on to point out what it does say. I think you just snarked yourself, inadvertently.



You gain no other abilities other than those of the assumed form. And since spell descriptions are always written with respect to what is changed by the spell, those abilities are still "gained" with respect to the caster's own.

You are, in fact, assuming that "gain" means "they're yours now", completely disregarding that the abilities are "of the assumed form". You therefore do not "gain" (that is, over and above your own abilities) the abilities of any form other than the one that is assumed.

I'm not assuming at all that they are 'your own.' You're assuming that when the spell says you 'gain' the abilities of the assumed form, that it's actually 'granting you temporary access to them' instead of you actually, you know, 'gaining' them. The only thing that matters with respect to 'the assumed form' is that if you don't assume a particular form, you don't gain those powers. 'The assumed form' defines the set of abilities that you gain. But then since it DOES SAY what you lose, and in that definitive list of what the spell takes away is not the abilities it just made you gain, you don't lose those abilities when you assume the next form. You just 'gain' the abilities of the new assumed form.



That's not in the text. The abilities were never "yours" to "lose". Once the form changed, the abilities granted by the spell changed, because the spell only says it grants the abilities "of the assumed form".

Here we have you assuming something the text doesn't say. You're assuming that the spell is 'granting' you the abilities of the assumed form. That's not what the text says. You're also assuming that the abilities the spell 'grants' you change when you change form. It doesn't say that. At all.


Which is only true if those abilities are inherent to you after assuming the form, instead of being tied to the form. And since the text says "of the assumed form", they are tied to the form.

There is no need whatsoever, from the text of the spell, for the abilities to somehow be 'your own' in order for the spell, which has caused you to gain them, to continue to supply you with them. I have no idea where you're coming to that conclusion, but it's not in the text at all.


These two sentences are nonsensical next to each other.

In what way? There's no semantic or grammatical reason they would be nonsensical.


And the first one is explicitly false.

You've completely lost me. To gain something is an additive state. There's no such thing as an ongoing process of continuing to gain something in order to still have it after you have gained it.


The spell ties which abilities you get to which form is "assumed", hence the ONLY abilities you gain over your own abilities are those of the assumed form.

That's not an untrue statement, but you're missing the fact that after the spell has caused you to 'gain' the abilities of the assumed form, it also causes you to 'gain' the abilities of the next assumed form. Additively, since, for the umpteenth time, the spell defines a total list of what the spell causes you to gain, and what it takes away.



There is not "explicit text saying you don't lose them". That would be text with the words "you lose the abilities of one assumed form when you assume another form". THAT is explicit. So there is only an explicit lack of text saying that. And once again, Munchkin Fallacy.


Again, it would be redundant to have explicit text saying you don't lose them, after it's laid out a total list of what it says you do lose.
To nitpick, your words that I've bolded above, are what would be required for your position to be true, but they're not required for my position to be true. Again you've seemingly partially rebutted yourself.



You have no text to support the claim that the spell continues to supply you with the abilities of a form which is not the assumed form.

Aside from the definition of the word 'gain' you mean?
And aside from that, you have no text to support the claim that the spell doesn't continue to supply you with the abilities it says you have 'gained'


You are assuming that "gain" means "they're yours now", as if they belong to you, and are not "of the assumed form". Which is not stated in the text, and is, in fact, in direct conflict with the text.

No, I'm not assuming that. I've never assumed that, and I don't see how you're reading my words and thinking that I assume that. They aren't yours, they belong to the form that you've assumed, and are supplied by the spell that says you've gained them. There is no conflict in the text of the spell.


False. You have no text to support the claim that "gaining an ability of an assumed form" means those powers belong to the individual himself regardless of form. No text says that, and such is not a coherent reading of any spell of the alter self, polymorph, shapechange chain of spells.

And again, they don't 'belong to the individual himself regardless of form.' He only gets them if he does actually shapechange into that form. It's just that he continues to get them for the duration of the shapechange spell, regardless of what other forms he takes after that, because the spell says he 'gains' them.

As for the other spells, the other spells don't provide the ability to change into additional forms inside the duration of the spell, so they're completely irrelevant to this discussion.


It is established that it is not innately his.

You did read the text that you quoted, right? The part where I say 'It doesn't need to be innately his'??



To use the black dragon > red dragon example again, Ex: Acid Immunity is not his, he gains that power of the black dragon when a black dragon is the assumed form.

So far there's no disagreement. IF the caster doesn't actually assume the form of a black dragon, he doesn't gain a black dragon's abilities.






The powers are never "gained" in the sense that they are "added to his list of abilities", because that is not in the text. You have no RAW support for this claim, other than claiming that "gain" can somehow "only mean what you claim".

Maybe this is our problem? What do you think the verb gain means? It literally means to acquire or get possession of, to procure, to get. Seriously take a second and look it up at Merriam Webster. Every sense of the verb 'gain' is additive and in no way temporary. It's not a synonym for 'temporarily have access to' which is the way you seem to be interpreting it.





But since there isn't any actual text, as either a General nor a Specific rule anywhere that does say that, you are extrapolating a meaning of the text outside of what it says.

I've shown repeatedly that it's a matter of the text saying you 'gain' the abilities and then don't lose them. That's what the text says, literally, at face value.


Your analogy, once again, fails to account for the textual importance of the words "of the assumed form".

As I've said multiple times at this point, the only textual importance of the words 'of the assumed form' are that you gain the abilities of forms you actually assume, and not of any forms you don't spend a round assuming.





I quite understand what you are claiming.

Based on your responses, which seem to talk cross-ways to what I'm actually claiming, and your lack of responses to specific points I've made, I'm really starting to doubt that you do. I mean that with great respect and sincerely appreciate your time and discussion, but I'm really not sure we're understanding each other's points.





I am contesting the assumptions you have made and built these arguments on

I have to say, I haven't seen this at all. You've contested what you seem to think I'm saying, but not what I'm actually saying.


You did not use the text.

I've literally used nothing BUT the text.



You did not use any RAW from anywhere that supports this idea. And although you try to claim otherwise, the claim that "it says everything you do lose, and abilities gained from previous forms are not on that list" is, in fact, making a claim based on what the text does not say. It is literally that, in every way. It can only ever be that.

Thing is, that's exactly what the text DOES say. You're claiming that the text doesn't say something that it very simply states.



Your entire claim is based upon the idea that "you lose your own Su abilities" is a phrase that encompasses the sum total of anything lost,

Close, but not quite. My claim is based on the combination of the additive word 'gain,' followed by the contrastive word 'but.'

You GAIN _____, BUT lose _____.

The idea that the list of abilities the spell makes you is a definitive and total one comes from the additive and contrastive nature of that sentence. By, in the same sentence, detailing a list of things you gain, then immediately contrasting that list against a list of 'but you lose ____' the text is claiming full authority over what the spell says you gain and lose, and it's clearly stating that the only thing the spell causes you to lose is your own Su abilities. Since gain is an additive word with no sense of temporariness, once you've gained something, you don't lose it.




but that very idea is founded on the assumption that once the caster assumes a form, that any "abilities of the assumed form" that he was able to use in that form count as part of his own suite of abilities.


No, it's not at all founded on that assumption. Here we are again with you seemingly not understanding what I'm claiming. I've not counted the number of times I've stated that the abilities don't have to become your own, but it's a lot, and I have no idea why you think they would.



Not only is this idea not supported by actual, written words in the RAW (other than a myopic reading of the word "gain" the requires ones to diminish the significance of other text, specifically "of the assumed form");

The word 'gain' means what the word 'gain' means. I'm reading that word in its most common, face value sense.

And again, 'of the assumed form' has no bearing at all on whether or not the spell continues to supply those abilities. It only matters to define which lists of creatures' abilities you 'gain'


I am telling you this is a nonsensical way to read a spell's description, because for a spell to describe a caster as "losing" something, it could only be an ability that the caster had before casting the spell.

You can tell me it's nonsensical if you want, but that's your opinion, not what the text says. It's silly, ridiculous, and broken, but it's what the text says. As for 'losing' something only being able to be an ability the caster had before, you're the one trying to tell me that the caster 'loses' the abilities he's 'gained', so that's self-contradictory.

You might, might, be able to make a case that because the list of things you lose doesn't include any of the abilities it just said you've gained, that the text isn't, in fact, claiming that list is a total and definitive one. But that's assuming that there'd be some reason for them to say that you lose an ability it just said you gained, so that both wouldn't make sense, and more importantly, would be defining the spell's effects by what it DOESN'T say, which again makes my claim the more reasonable, the more literal, the more 'face value' reading of the words of the text.


Any abilities granted by the spell must be constantly "gained" from the spell. When the assumed form changes, the abilities gained change. Since the previous form's abilities are not the caster's own, he no longer has them, as he no longer meets the "assumed form" requisite in the spell description.

First, that's not what the word 'gained' means, but I'll give you that the spell's power is what's supplying the caster with the abilities of the assumed form.
Second, as I've repeatedly said, based on the way the text is worded, it doesn't matter at all if the previous form's abilities are the caster's 'own.' It only matters that the spell continues to supply them after the caster changes to another form.
Third, the 'assumed form' isn't a requisite for whether the spell continues to supply them, it's only a requisite for if the spell begins to supply them. That's because the word the spell uses is 'gains,' and not 'temporarily grants access to'

Let's take a look at your own example:


Round 1: Form-black dragon. You gain all extraordinary and supernatural abilities [of a black dragon], but you lose your own supernatural abilities.
Round 2: Form-red dragon You gain all extraordinary and supernatural abilities [of a red dragon], but you lose your own supernatural abilities.
Round 3: Form-white dragon You gain all extraordinary and supernatural abilities [of a white dragon], but you lose your own supernatural abilities.


At this point, still within the duration of the spell, the spell is supplying you with all the abilities you've GAINED. Which abilities are those? Well, you've assumed the form of a black, a red, and a white dragon, so the spell says you've gained all the extraordinary and supernatural abilities of each. Having GAINED them, you still have them until the spell's duration ends and it's power can no longer supply them. What abilities does the spell say it's taken away? Your own supernatural abilities. None of the abilities of the assumed forms are your own supernatural abilities, so, as per the text of the spell, you've gained them and haven't lost them.


Seriously, can we stop going round and round here? I love a good discussion about the finer points of rules, but at this point I feel like I've had the same one a dozen times, and you're not rebutting my claim with anything I haven't already re-rebutted(is that a word?), and honestly I'm not sure you're quite understanding my claim. The author of the spell really really really should have worded it another way, but they didn't, so this is what it says.

[razorback]

Seriously, can we stop going round and round here? I love a good discussion about the finer points of rules, but at this point I feel like I've had the same one a dozen times, and you're not rebutting my claim with anything I haven't already re-rebutted(is that a word?), and honestly I'm not sure you're quite understanding my claim. The author of the spell really really really should have worded it another way, but they didn't, so this is what it says.


Maybe take it to your own thread instead of muddying up someone elses?

[ColorBlindNinja]

Maybe take it to your own thread instead of muddying up someone elses?

It doesn't really bother me. :smallsmile:

[RoboEmperor]

It doesn't really bother me. :smallsmile:

Probably because everyone's choice of 3 9th level spells are identical.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Probably because everyone's choice of 3 9th level spells are identical.

That and we haven't gotten many posts about "what 9th level spells would you pick" in a while.

[Crichton]

It doesn't really bother me. :smallsmile:

Appreciate that, but I do feel bad. I tried to shut it down 3 or 4 posts ago, not expecting it to continue, but thanks for your grace and understanding. :)

[Powerdork]

Wish isn't a wizard spell in my games, so it's not on the sorcerer/wizard spell list, thus it can't be learned by sorcerers.
Thus, my picks would probably be unbinding (the final penetration spell), instant refuge (contingent get out of dodge), and because I'm a battle sorcerer, nothing else.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Appreciate that, but I do feel bad. I tried to shut it down 3 or 4 posts ago, not expecting it to continue, but thanks for your grace and understanding. :)

No problem. :smallsmile:

[RedMage125]

Look, Drysdan, I get what you're claiming. What you seem not not get is that I am telling you that some of your founding assumptions are incorrect.

You are saying this:
1-The spell says you "lose" your own Su abilities, since it does specify anything else you lose, you "lose" nothing else. You say that this is because that text is the full and final authority on all things "lost".
2-"Gain" means that it is added to your repertoire of abilities. You even used the analogy of "gaining" physical weapons that would appear "in your inventory" so to speak.

I get that. What I am trying to tell you is that #1 is, above everything else, defining the effects of a spell by what it does not say. As soon as you claim "the spell doesn't explicitly say I lose those powers, so I don't", you are doing just that. No amount of word semantics avoids this fact.
And #2...I have finally figured out how to phrase what I have been telling you. And that is, that you are conflating conversational use of "gain" with rules text use of "gain". To wit: The spell Bull's Strength gives a +4 enhancement bonus to STR, right? Have you "gained" 4 points of STR? Conversationally, yes; by rules text, no, you are "granted an enhancement bonus to strength". The distinction may be pedantic, but I assure you it is not. When the spell expires, do you "lose" 4 points of STR? Again, conversationally, yes; by rules text, no...you simply no longer have the enhancement bonus. The only times a spell specifies anything as "you lose x" are abilities that are the caster's own. Case in point, Tenser's Transformation (or just Transformation in the SRD).

So what I have been saying, for the umpteenth time, is that the spell does not need to specify that powers from previous forms are "lost" in order for you to not get them, because they are not your own. Once you cease to "gain" them from the spell, you do not have them.

You are also reading "gain Ex and Su abilities" as somehow distinct from the words "of the assumed form". Again, form, singular. At any given instance, only one form is assumed. And that is all a part of only one sentence. Which means, unequivocally, that it is a whole, cohesive rule, not to be broken down into sentence fragments to suit one's own preference. Form is singular, not plural. So you do not "gain the Ex and Su abilities of assumed forms", but rather "of the assumed form".

I've tried to cut down on repeating myself, so I've left out points of your response that would just be me re-iterating the same things.


Not sure how to type this as politely as I mean it, but did you actually read the quote of my text that you posted before you wrote that little bit of friendly snark? The part I wrote that it 'doesn't say' is a reference to your assertion. I then immediately went on to point out what it does say. I think you just snarked yourself, inadvertently.
Look you said "the spell doesn't say it only grants you the abilities of your current assumed form". I pointed out that since it does say "the abilities of the assumed form", and since form is singular, only one form is ever the "assumed form", and since we both agree that spells only do what is in the text, and do not do what is not in the text, it does, in fact, say exactly that.



You've completely lost me. To gain something is an additive state. There's no such thing as an ongoing process of continuing to gain something in order to still have it after you have gained it.
This is why you and I disagree. You believe that "gain" is used in a conversational sense, I am insisting that it is rules text, and as such, must adhere to a cohesive reading of spell descriptions. Which means when a spell says "you gain the Ex and Su abilities of the assumed form, but lose your own Su abilities" (again, once, complete sentence and singular form), I can only read that in the most literal sense. Which is that for whatever form I am assuming, which is only ever one at a time, I gain the Ex and Su abilities of it, and lose the ones that are my own. When I later change forms again, I "gain the Ex and Su abilities of the assumed form, and lose [my] own Su abilities". I am no longer in Form #1, so the spell is no longer causing me to "gain" them. As they were not "my own" to begin with, I therefore do not have them.



That's not an untrue statement, but you're missing the fact that after the spell has caused you to 'gain' the abilities of the assumed form, it also causes you to 'gain' the abilities of the next assumed form. Additively, since, for the umpteenth time, the spell defines a total list of what the spell causes you to gain, and what it takes away.
Except that the spell does not "define a total list" of what the spell gave you that it "took away", because it does not need to. Once a spell is no longer causing you to "gain" it through the parameters defined by the text of the spell, you do not have it.


Again, it would be redundant to have explicit text saying you don't lose them, after it's laid out a total list of what it says you do lose.
To nitpick, your words that I've bolded above, are what would be required for your position to be true, but they're not required for my position to be true. Again you've seemingly partially rebutted yourself.

:confused:
I think you got lost in nested text. You said:
"there IS explicit text saying that you HAVE GAINED them and that you DON'T LOSE THEM"
To which I replied:
"There is not 'explicit text saying you don't lose them'." And then clarified what "explicit text saying you don't lose them" would look like. There actually is not "explicit text" saying "you don't lose powers from previous forms". That is not what "explicit text" means.

The whole point is that this claim is moot for 2 reasons. It is making a claim of a spells effects predicated on lack of text, and what I have been saying about the meaning of "you gain/lose x" as far as rules text.



Aside from the definition of the word 'gain' you mean?
And aside from that, you have no text to support the claim that the spell doesn't continue to supply you with the abilities it says you have 'gained'
I don't need to "prove the text doesn't do what it doesn't say it does". That's not how RAW works.

I have not contested what the spell description DOES say. I maintain that it ONLY does what it DOES say. That is the basis for my stance.



As for the other spells, the other spells don't provide the ability to change into additional forms inside the duration of the spell, so they're completely irrelevant to this discussion.
Those other spells are absolutely not "irrelevant" to this discussion. What's the first line of the spell Shapechange? It's "This spell functions like Polymorph except...". The first line of THAT spell is "this spell functions like alter self except...". Shapechange inherits from those spells and only things that are different between polymorph and shapechange are further noted in shapechange. For example, even though shapechange does not say in its own spell block, every time you change your shape (including the first shape), you regain hit points as if you had rested. Why? Because Polymorph says so, and that is not one of the "exceptions" in Shapechange.

ANY time a spell says "as [other spell] except..." all the rules of that other spell not noted as exceptions apply. True Resurrection, for example, is a Touch range spell that requires the body unless the body has been destroyed. Because it inherits from Raise Dead. You will note that it does not inherit from Resurrection (which also inherits from Raise Dead, but specifies you can have just a piece of the corpse). Which means, by a strict RAW reading, if the body exists, and you only have a finger which you cut off, you cannot cast True Resurrection on it, only Resurrection.



Maybe this is our problem? What do you think the verb gain means? It literally means to acquire or get possession of, to procure, to get. Seriously take a second and look it up at Merriam Webster. Every sense of the verb 'gain' is additive and in no way temporary. It's not a synonym for 'temporarily have access to' which is the way you seem to be interpreting it.

This is our problem, but the disconnect is you seem to believe it's "additive without any connection between the abilities and the form which is assumed". Since "the assumed form" is singular, only one form is assumed at a time. And the Ex and Su abilities "of that form" are "gained". Also, order of operations from the text in the spell. The first thing that happens is that your form changes. Then (unlike polymorph) you gain the Ex and Su abilities of the assumed form".

I need to apologize for something here, because I must have accidentally deleted some text in that paragraph, and I didn't catch it until I saw what of mine you quoted and thought you cut out what I said, and then saw that my own post cut it out, so my example was incomplete.

So Bob the Sorcerer casts shapechange to turn into a black dragon. He "gains the Ex and Su abilities of a black dragon, and loses his own Su abilities". Now, those abilities are not, in any way, inherent to Bob, himself. The spell says he "gains the Ex and Su abilities of the assumed form". The abilities belong to the form. When Bob later assumes the form of a red dragon, he "gains the Ex and Su abilities of a red dragon". I think we're both on board up until this point.

The clincher, is that if something is true of a RAW reading of text of a spell, the text of the spell will be true at any point during the duration being examined. My question, for you, is: "Is Ex:Acid Immunity 'an Ex or Su ability of the assumed form' at that point in time?" Yes or no?

You see, your claim is that "gain" is not only "additive" but "cumulative". And I object on 2 premises:
1-The text of the spell does not explicitly say it is cumulative, and you have no authority to say that it is.
2-The very act of claiming that it "is cumulative" is to diminish the significance of the words "of the assumed form" as rules text with mechanical weight. And I reject any claim that you make that basically says "these words aren't as important as the word 'gain'", because you once again have no authority to claim such.



I've shown repeatedly that it's a matter of the text saying you 'gain' the abilities and then don't lose them. That's what the text says, literally, at face value.
The spell doesn't just grant you "abilities", though. It's not Veil of Undeath. The spell, at its most basic level, is an advanced polymorph that allows you to assume one form at a time. Only one form can ever be "the assumed form". And you gain that form's Ex and Su abilities (that is "the abilities of the assumed form"). To continue with the Bob example, at no point does the spell say that Bob, himself adds those abilities to "his own" repertoire of abilities, thus when bob changes form again, those abilities are not "lost" in game rules parlance. He has simply ceased to gain them from the spell.



As I've said multiple times at this point, the only textual importance of the words 'of the assumed form' are that you gain the abilities of forms you actually assume, and not of any forms you don't spend a round assuming.
You once again, have no authority to diminish the significance of the text. Especially when it's the latter half of the same sentence that discusses the "gain" of those abilities in the first place.

You might have a case if the text said "forms", plural.

It does not.



I've literally used nothing BUT the text.

Thing is, that's exactly what the text DOES say. You're claiming that the text doesn't say something that it very simply states.

Untrue.

The text does not say "losing your own Su abilities is the complete sum total of all things you could lose during use of this spell". It does not say "you retain abilities of forms you had assumed previously". It does not say "all Ex and Su abilities gained from any assumed forms are cumulative with respect tot he caster". None of those things are "simply stated".

I'm something of a grammar nazi. And for something to be "explicit" or "simply stated", exact wording of such would need to be in the text.



No, it's not at all founded on that assumption. Here we are again with you seemingly not understanding what I'm claiming. I've not counted the number of times I've stated that the abilities don't have to become your own, but it's a lot, and I have no idea why you think they would.

Because you compared "gaining the abilities of a form" to "being handed a dagger, and then a longsword". Which means you are comparing them to objects in your possession, as opposed to recognizing the significance of the words "of the assumed form" meaning that those abilities belong to the form, and the caster's ability to access those abilities is tied to which form is "the assumed form" at any given time.



You can tell me it's nonsensical if you want, but that's your opinion, not what the text says. It's silly, ridiculous, and broken, but it's what the text says. As for 'losing' something only being able to be an ability the caster had before, you're the one trying to tell me that the caster 'loses' the abilities he's 'gained', so that's self-contradictory.

You might, might, be able to make a case that because the list of things you lose doesn't include any of the abilities it just said you've gained, that the text isn't, in fact, claiming that list is a total and definitive one. But that's assuming that there'd be some reason for them to say that you lose an ability it just said you gained, so that both wouldn't make sense, and more importantly, would be defining the spell's effects by what it DOESN'T say, which again makes my claim the more reasonable, the more literal, the more 'face value' reading of the words of the text.

First, that's not what the word 'gained' means, but I'll give you that the spell's power is what's supplying the caster with the abilities of the assumed form.
Second, as I've repeatedly said, based on the way the text is worded, it doesn't matter at all if the previous form's abilities are the caster's 'own.' It only matters that the spell continues to supply them after the caster changes to another form.
Third, the 'assumed form' isn't a requisite for whether the spell continues to supply them, it's only a requisite for if the spell begins to supply them. That's because the word the spell uses is 'gains,' and not 'temporarily grants access to'

Let's take a look at your own example:


Round 1: Form-black dragon. You gain all extraordinary and supernatural abilities [of a black dragon], but you lose your own supernatural abilities.
Round 2: Form-red dragon You gain all extraordinary and supernatural abilities [of a red dragon], but you lose your own supernatural abilities.
Round 3: Form-white dragon You gain all extraordinary and supernatural abilities [of a white dragon], but you lose your own supernatural abilities.


At this point, still within the duration of the spell, the spell is supplying you with all the abilities you've GAINED. Which abilities are those? Well, you've assumed the form of a black, a red, and a white dragon, so the spell says you've gained all the extraordinary and supernatural abilities of each. Having GAINED them, you still have them until the spell's duration ends and it's power can no longer supply them. What abilities does the spell say it's taken away? Your own supernatural abilities. None of the abilities of the assumed forms are your own supernatural abilities, so, as per the text of the spell, you've gained them and haven't lost them.

Look, when reading the description of a spell, only what the spell does different from not casting it is written. But we must assume that everything written in the spell is rules text. Since "Ex and Su abilities of the assumed form" (again, form, singular) is what the spell says you gain, then in your example, the caster has only "gained" (that is, gained above what he had before casting) are the abilities of the form (singular) that can be identified as "the assumed form". In your example, "the assumed form" is a white dragon, so he "gains" the white dragon's abilities. When black and red dragon, respectively ceased to be "the assumed form", he no longer "gained" the abilities of those forms over and above his own, prior to casting it. If they did not belong to him, it was not a "loss" in rules text parlance. Much like what I said about Bull's Strength at the beginning of the post.


Seriously, can we stop going round and round here? I love a good discussion about the finer points of rules, but at this point I feel like I've had the same one a dozen times, and you're not rebutting my claim with anything I haven't already re-rebutted(is that a word?), and honestly I'm not sure you're quite understanding my claim. The author of the spell really really really should have worded it another way, but they didn't, so this is what it says.

I hope I have established that I quite understand what you've been claiming. What I think you haven't been understanding is that I challenge some of your initial assumptions that you haven't been stressing in your words, but that would be necessary to accept your claim. Things like diminishing the significance of the words "of the assumed form", your assumption that "gain" is not only "additive with respect to the caster's own abilities" but "cumulative", and somehow not connected to "of the form".

[Awakeninfinity]

Probably because everyone's choice of 3 9th level spells are identical.

Not everyone...


I mainly play Gishes so...
Efflugent Epuration the ability to deny single target effects on demand is handy
Timestop- because buffing and combat prepping
Greater Dimension Jumper- because being able to nope away after a full attack is pretty funny.

Those are what I would pick.


I know I chose timestop; but I haven't seen anyone else choose either Efflugent Epuration or Greater Dimension Jumper.

[Crichton]

Ok listen, I'm done. This is silly and gone on long enough. This will be the last post I respond to on this subject. You're still failing to rebut the one core assertion that my entire position rests on, and instead are talking all around it, giving importance to words and phrases that are secondary at best and don't have any effect on whether abilities gained from previous forms are retained, and bringing in examples from other spells that are completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, because those spells don't use the same language as the sentence in question.



Look, Drysdan, I get what you're claiming. What you seem not not get is that I am telling you that some of your founding assumptions are incorrect.

You are saying this:
1-The spell says you "lose" your own Su abilities, since it does specify anything else you lose, you "lose" nothing else. You say that this is because that text is the full and final authority on all things "lost".

Close, but not quite. It's not just because it doesn't specify anything else you lose. It's because the sentence has used contrastive language (gains___ BUT loses___) to indicate that the list of things that follows 'loses' is the only things that the spell causes you to lose. Not 'all things lost' as you say, but only a total list of what the spell causes you to lose, and not because of what it does or doesn't specify, but because the structure of the sentence sets the list of lost things up as a contrast to the list of gained things. This is important because if the spell, which causes you to gain a set of abilities, doesn't also cause you to lose it, then you still have it.


2-"Gain" means that it is added to your repertoire of abilities. You even used the analogy of "gaining" physical weapons that would appear "in your inventory" so to speak.

"Gain" does mean added, acquired, or gotten. There's no way around that. Dictonary.com say: 'to get' or 'to acquire as an increase or addition.' Has nothing to do with it being a 'conversational sense' that's just what it means. You'll also recall from my apples analogy that even in the analogy I pointed out that the apples you gained were magically provided and would disappear when the spell ended, but for the duration of the spell, yes, you have them, additively.


I get that. What I am trying to tell you is that #1 is, above everything else, defining the effects of a spell by what it does not say. As soon as you claim "the spell doesn't explicitly say I lose those powers, so I don't", you are doing just that. No amount of word semantics avoids this fact.

Again, you're mistaking my meaning. It's not 'the spell doesn't explicitly say I lose those powers' it's that the spell does explicitly list the powers that the spell itself takes away. Since the spell is causing you to gain them, the spell is what has to cause you to lose them.


And #2...I have finally figured out how to phrase what I have been telling you. And that is, that you are conflating conversational use of "gain" with rules text use of "gain"

There aren't two ways to read it. The word means what it means. It's not like it's a word with a particularly complex or nuanced meaning to argue over.


To wit: The spell Bull's Strength gives a +4 enhancement bonus to STR, right? Have you "gained" 4 points of STR? Conversationally, yes; by rules text, no, you are "granted an enhancement bonus to strength". The distinction may be pedantic, but I assure you it is not. When the spell expires, do you "lose" 4 points of STR? Again, conversationally, yes; by rules text, no...you simply no longer have the enhancement bonus.


This example doesn't seem relevant to whether Shapechange causes you to retain the abilities of forms you've previously assumed.
1)Bull's Strength doesn't use the word 'gain'
2)why are you referencing the word lose here? When the spell's duration expires, you no longer have the benefits it provided. That's exactly the same with Shapechange, we just don't agree on what those benefits are.
3)Bull's Strength doesn't allow iterative, repeated application of its spell text with varying applicable benefits that may or may not stack


The only times a spell specifies anything as "you lose x" are abilities that are the caster's own. Case in point, Tenser's Transformation (or just Transformation in the SRD).

1)Tenser's Transformation doesn't allow multiple changes, for an iterative, additive effect, so it's irrelevant to the discussion of whether Shapechange does
2)Have you done an exhaustive research of all spell texts from all spells to make that claim? I haven't, but if you're gonna make that assertion... Not that it would matter, since only losing the caster's own abilities doesn't preclude retaining abilities the spell causes you to gain.



So what I have been saying, for the umpteenth time, is that the spell does not need to specify that powers from previous forms are "lost" in order for you to not get them, because they are not your own. Once you cease to "gain" them from the spell, you do not have them.

They don't have to be your own. That's not required. You have access to them because you've 'gained' them. Being 'your own' isn't required for the spell to continue to supply them. See the apples analogy earlier.


You are also reading "gain Ex and Su abilities" as somehow distinct from the words "of the assumed form". Again, form, singular. At any given instance, only one form is assumed. And that is all a part of only one sentence. Which means, unequivocally, that it is a whole, cohesive rule, not to be broken down into sentence fragments to suit one's own preference. Form is singular, not plural. So you do not "gain the Ex and Su abilities of assumed forms", but rather "of the assumed form".

I'm not reading it as distinct. I've already explained that. You don't gain abilities of a form you don't spend a round assuming. 'Form' singular, since you can only assume one form at a time. That's not relevant to whether or not you still have access to them, after having gained them. I'm not breaking the sentence down into fragments at all. You don't 'gain the Ex and Su abilities of assumed forms', you 'gain the Ex and Su abilities of the assumed form' repeatedly. Nothing about that breaks down the sentence. It's just that the later sentence allowing you to change form again allows you to apply that sentences effects, again.



I pointed out that since it does say "the abilities of the assumed form", and since form is singular, only one form is ever the "assumed form", and since we both agree that spells only do what is in the text, and do not do what is not in the text, it does, in fact, say exactly that.

The difference between Shapechange and other spells that cause you to gain a set of abilities drawn from an outside list (assumed form) is that Shapechange allows you to do it again and again with new assumed forms, each round. The only question is whether, because you have 'gained' those abilities, the spell continues to supply them to you. Logically? No. By the text? Yes!


You believe that "gain" is used in a conversational sense, I am insisting that it is rules text, and as such, must adhere to a cohesive reading of spell descriptions.

There's only one sense of the word 'gain'



Which means when a spell says "you gain the Ex and Su abilities of the assumed form, but lose your own Su abilities" (again, once, complete sentence and singular form), I can only read that in the most literal sense.
The most literal sense of 'you gain X' is that you gain X, you have X, and until something takes X away (in this case, the spell's duration ending, since X is a magically suppied set of abilities), you still have X.


When I later change forms again, I "gain the Ex and Su abilities of the assumed form, and lose [my] own Su abilities". I am no longer in Form #1, so the spell is no longer causing me to "gain" them. As they were not "my own" to begin with, I therefore do not have them.

Except that the spell does not "define a total list" of what the spell gave you that it "took away", because it does not need to. Once a spell is no longer causing you to "gain" it through the parameters defined by the text of the spell, you do not have it.


To gain is not an ongoing process with needed upkeep. Once you 'gain' something, you have gained it, and you don't need to continue to gain it to still have it. The spell has already caused you to gain it, so it doesn't need to continue to cause you to gain it.



I think you got lost in nested text. You said:
"there IS explicit text saying that you HAVE GAINED them and that you DON'T LOSE THEM"
To which I replied:
"There is not 'explicit text saying you don't lose them'." And then clarified what "explicit text saying you don't lose them" would look like. There actually is not "explicit text" saying "you don't lose powers from previous forms". That is not what "explicit text" means.

Except that the text you typed, which I bolded in the quote, was explicit text saying you DO lose them. Your 'example' text was actually contradictory to your intended illustration. Probably a typo on your part, but still didn't serve to strengthen your case.


The whole point is that this claim is moot for 2 reasons. It is making a claim of a spells effects predicated on lack of text, and what I have been saying about the meaning of "you gain/lose x" as far as rules text.


Except the text does say you 'gain' the abilities, and the text does say that you can change form again and again, thereby applying the rules sentence regarding gaining abilities again and again.
Even your point about only defining what you lose with respect to the caster's innate abilities doesn't do anything to make you lose abilities you've gained.


I have not contested what the spell description DOES say. I maintain that it ONLY does what it DOES say. That is the basis for my stance.
Funny, that's the basis for my stance too! Except my stance brings less interpretation and outside meaning with it.



Those other spells are absolutely not "irrelevant" to this discussion. What's the first line of the spell Shapechange? It's "This spell functions like Polymorph except...". The first line of THAT spell is "this spell functions like alter self except...". Shapechange inherits from those spells and only things that are different between polymorph and shapechange are further noted in shapechange. For example, even though shapechange does not say in its own spell block, every time you change your shape (including the first shape), you regain hit points as if you had rested. Why? Because Polymorph says so, and that is not one of the "exceptions" in Shapechange.

They wouldn't be irrelevant in a complete detailing of the effects of Shapechange, because yes, they all inherit from each other, up the chain. They ARE, however, irrelevant to this discussion, because Shapechange is the only one that allows for multiple form changes, and thus needs clarity in the sentence defining what abilities you gain.




This is our problem, but the disconnect is you seem to believe it's "additive without any connection between the abilities and the form which is assumed". Since "the assumed form" is singular, only one form is assumed at a time. And the Ex and Su abilities "of that form" are "gained". Also, order of operations from the text in the spell. The first thing that happens is that your form changes. Then (unlike polymorph) you gain the Ex and Su abilities of the assumed form".



Not without any connection. How can you say that after reading me repeatedly say that you only gain abilities of the forms you actually spend a round to assume? The singular nature of the word form is irrelevant, not because the spell simultaneously causes you to gain abilities of multiple forms, but because the spell allows you to repeatedly change form, thus gaining the abilities of multiple forms in sequence, without losing the abilities of the forms before.



So Bob the Sorcerer casts shapechange to turn into a black dragon. He "gains the Ex and Su abilities of a black dragon, and loses his own Su abilities". Now, those abilities are not, in any way, inherent to Bob, himself. The spell says he "gains the Ex and Su abilities of the assumed form". The abilities belong to the form. When Bob later assumes the form of a red dragon, he "gains the Ex and Su abilities of a red dragon". I think we're both on board up until this point.

Yes, agreed.


The clincher, is that if something is true of a RAW reading of text of a spell, the text of the spell will be true at any point during the duration being examined.

And the text is still true. Bob has assumed the form of a black dragon, so he has 'gained' those abilities. And he has assumed the form of a red dragon, so he has 'gained' those abilities too


My question, for you, is: "Is Ex:Acid Immunity 'an Ex or Su ability of the assumed form' at that point in time?" Yes or no?

Your question isn't relevant to whether or not Bob still has the abilities of the first form. Bob has 'gained' the abilities of the first form, AND Bob has 'gained' the abilities of the second form too.

The only thing that's relevant to whether or not Bob still has the abilities of the first form is whether to 'gain' something is a temporary state of being, and it's not. That's not what the word means.



You see, your claim is that "gain" is not only "additive" but "cumulative". And I object on 2 premises:

Allow me to rebut on 3 premises:

A - 'additive' and 'cumulative' are literally synonyms. They're the same thing, so I guess technicaly I am claiming that 'gain' is both? But why would you say that like it's a part of your argument?


1-The text of the spell does not explicitly say it is cumulative, and you have no authority to say that it is.
B - The text of the spell says you 'gain' a set of abilities. It then provides a means for you to 'gain' another set of abilities. Based on the literal, true, and only meaning of the word 'gain' the spell would need to specify that you no longer have access to that first set of abilities, otherwise you still do.



2-The very act of claiming that it "is cumulative" is to diminish the significance of the words "of the assumed form" as rules text with mechanical weight. And I reject any claim that you make that basically says "these words aren't as important as the word 'gain'", because you once again have no authority to claim such.
C - It's not diminishing the significance in any way. The words 'of the assumed form' serve to define which set of abilities you gain from any given form you assume. And it's not that they are less important than gain, it's that the prepositional phrase 'of the assumed form' is subordinate to the noun 'abilities' which is in turn subordinate to the verb 'gain.' That's how sentence structure works. 'Abilities' is the transitive object of 'gain,' and 'of the assumed form' serves to define which abilities are being referenced, which you then gain.


The spell doesn't just grant you "abilities", though. It's not Veil of Undeath. The spell, at its most basic level, is an advanced polymorph that allows you to assume one form at a time. Only one form can ever be "the assumed form". And you gain that form's Ex and Su abilities (that is "the abilities of the assumed form"). To continue with the Bob example, at no point does the spell say that Bob, himself adds those abilities to "his own" repertoire of abilities, thus when bob changes form again, those abilities are not "lost" in game rules parlance. He has simply ceased to gain them from the spell.

No idea why you still think I think they need to be 'your own.' They don't.


You once again, have no authority to diminish the significance of the text. Especially when it's the latter half of the same sentence that discusses the "gain" of those abilities in the first place.
I'm not diminishing it, I'm reading it as it's written, using the most common and least interpretive meanings of the words that have been used, and the structure of the parts of speech to define the relationships between them.


You might have a case if the text said "forms", plural.

It does not.

And again, the plurality comes from the ability to repeatedly change from one form to the next, thus accruing (synonym for 'gain) multiple sets of abilities.



Untrue.

No no, it's quite true that I've used only the text and the text itself.



I'm something of a grammar nazi.

(EDIT: I responded too snarkily here at first. Line removed to prevent this from being a credentials measuring contest.)


And for something to be "explicit" or "simply stated", exact wording of such would need to be in the text.
The exact wording in the text is 'you gain X'


Because you compared "gaining the abilities of a form" to "being handed a dagger, and then a longsword". Which means you are comparing them to objects in your possession
Not 'being handed' and not a mundane dagger. Again, reference the apples example. Not a mundane object that you then own. The analogy is that it's a magically created object that ceases to exist when the spell manifesting it ends. Just like your access to the abilities you 'gain' from Shapechange.



and the caster's ability to access those abilities is tied to which form is "the assumed form" at any given time.
That's not what the spell text says. Don't define the spell effect by what it doesn't say.

A caster's ability to access those abilities is tied to the power of the spell which has caused him to 'gain' the abilities of the assumed form. Having gained those abilities, though, the spell doesn't say it takes them back away when he repeats the process. They're only tied to which form is the assumed form insomuch as he doesn't gain abilities from a form he doesn't spend a round to assume.


Look, when reading the description of a spell, only what the spell does different from not casting it is written. But we must assume that everything written in the spell is rules text. Since "Ex and Su abilities of the assumed form" (again, form, singular) is what the spell says you gain, then in your example, the caster has only "gained" (that is, gained above what he had before casting) are the abilities of the form (singular) that can be identified as "the assumed form". In your example, "the assumed form" is a white dragon, so he "gains" the white dragon's abilities. When black and red dragon, respectively ceased to be "the assumed form", he no longer "gained" the abilities of those forms over and above his own, prior to casting it. If they did not belong to him, it was not a "loss" in rules text parlance.

Again, it all comes back to you seeming to think that 'to gain' is instead some sort of temporary, dependent state of being. It's not, in any sense of the word. Thus you can't 'no longer gain' something. You can have it removed, but the spell doesn't say it does that. It should have, I think we both agree. It should have either specified that the abilities are lost, or better still, used a different word from 'gain' (perhaps 'you have access to the abilities of the form you're assuming). But it didn't, so we're stuck with what it actually does say.


Much like what I said about Bull's Strength at the beginning of the post.
As I pointed out, Bull's Strength both doesn't use the word 'gain' and also doesn't allow you to repeatedly change shape and thus repeatedly apply the rule about which bonuses you gain.


I hope I have established that I quite understand what you've been claiming.
I'm not sure you have, and here's why:


What I think you haven't been understanding is that I challenge some of your initial assumptions that you haven't been stressing in your words, but that would be necessary to accept your claim. Things like diminishing the significance of the words "of the assumed form",
I've pretty clearly defined what 'of the assumed form' means and what it relates to and how it's subordinate to the noun it attaches to, but that it doesn't have any bearing on whether repeated form changes allow you to retain sets of abilities that you've gained.


your assumption that "gain" is not only "additive
I'm not 'assuming' that gain is additive. It is. That's what 'gain' means. That's the only way to take the meaning of the word 'gain,' used as a transitive verb.


with respect to the caster's own abilities"
Caster's own abilities are also not related to whether Shapechange allows you to retain sets of abilities it has caused you to gain from repeated form changes.


but "cumulative",
Cumulative is literally a synonym of additive, so....??


and somehow not connected to "of the form".
See above about what the form does and doesn't relate to. Not relevant to whether repeatedly changing forms allows you to retain abilities from previous changes, only relevant to define which abilities are gained in each change.





You gain all extraordinary and supernatural abilities (both attacks and qualities) of the assumed form, but you lose your own supernatural abilities. You can change form once each round as a free action.

Based on what it means 'to gain' something, where in that set of text (there's other text in the spell's rules, but none that would apply here), does it say anything about no longer having access to the sets of abilities you've already gained.

Clearly they didn't INTEND for it to work this way, but they chose those words, and so we're stuck with what those words mean.

You want the spell to say what it should say, not what it does say, so you're reading it as if that's the only possible meaning, but the way you're interpreting it isn't the meaning of the words in the sentence.
You want it to say 'you have access to the abilities of the form you're assuming' or something to that effect, but that's not what it says, that's not what 'gain' means, and no amount of going round and round is gonna change what it says.

Now I'm done, really and truly. If there's a specific thing you want me to answer, PM me or something, but I'm not gonna take up more of CBN's thread with us talking crossways to each other.
And again, thanks!

[RedMage125]

Once again, I am shortening my quotes from you in an attempt to minimize repeating myself.

And I'm still going to post in the thread because anyone reading this that may be swayed by your faulty reasoning may go on thinking that what you're saying is factual.


Close, but not quite. It's not just because it doesn't specify anything else you lose. It's because the sentence has used contrastive language (gains___ BUT loses___) to indicate that the list of things that follows 'loses' is the only things that the spell causes you to lose. Not 'all things lost' as you say, but only a total list of what the spell causes you to lose, and not because of what it does or doesn't specify, but because the structure of the sentence sets the list of lost things up as a contrast to the list of gained things. This is important because if the spell, which causes you to gain a set of abilities, doesn't also cause you to lose it, then you still have it.
No other spell in the game specifies abilities "granted" or "gained" from the spell as being "lost". The only spells which quantify what you "lose" are in regards to your own abilities. Or they specify those things as changes (i.e. Veil of Undeath specifies that negative and positive energy work on you as if you were undead, but do not say you "lose" the ability to be healed by Cure spells).




"Gain" does mean added, acquired, or gotten. There's no way around that. Dictonary.com say: 'to get' or 'to acquire as an increase or addition.' Has nothing to do with it being a 'conversational sense' that's just what it means.
The caster is still "gaining the Ex and Su abilities of the assumed form" when they have the Red Dragon's Ex and Su abilities but not those of the previously assumed Black Dragon.



You'll also recall from my apples analogy that even in the analogy I pointed out that the apples you gained were magically provided and would disappear when the spell ended, but for the duration of the spell, yes, you have them, additively.
Your apple analogy, while illustrating your opinion quite well, is not in the text, and is therefore not "proof".



Again, you're mistaking my meaning. It's not 'the spell doesn't explicitly say I lose those powers' it's that the spell does explicitly list the powers that the spell itself takes away. Since the spell is causing you to gain them, the spell is what has to cause you to lose them.

There aren't two ways to read it. The word means what it means. It's not like it's a word with a particularly complex or nuanced meaning to argue over.
Powers gained from a spell effect are subject to all conditions of that spell's descriptions. To include specifications of what abilities are "gained". Which means "the abilities of the assumed form" of which there is only one at any given time, and only those powers are "gained" over the caster's own. That's all that is in the text. To infer that other powers are "gained" (or "retained" in the case) is going off-text.



This example doesn't seem relevant to whether Shapechange causes you to retain the abilities of forms you've previously assumed.
The example was to illustrate the difference in "lose" used conversationally, vis rules text. So you unfortunately completely missed my point. Perhaps that's my fault.


1)Tenser's Transformation doesn't allow multiple changes, for an iterative, additive effect, so it's irrelevant to the discussion of whether Shapechange does
2)Have you done an exhaustive research of all spell texts from all spells to make that claim? I haven't, but if you're gonna make that assertion... Not that it would matter, since only losing the caster's own abilities doesn't preclude retaining abilities the spell causes you to gain.

Tenser's Transformation is the only other spell in the PHB (or SRD) that specifies "you lose x ability". Raise Dead and Resurrection specify that the target "loses" one level (or one Hit Die). And it is relevant, because it highlights that any effect that a spell causes one to "gain" is not contingent on specific "you lose" text, because such does not exist anywhere else. It is not a General Rule, and claiming that this is a unique Specific Rule is a claim you have no authority to make.




They don't have to be your own. That's not required. You have access to them because you've 'gained' them. Being 'your own' isn't required for the spell to continue to supply them. See the apples analogy earlier.

I'm not reading it as distinct. I've already explained that. You don't gain abilities of a form you don't spend a round assuming. 'Form' singular, since you can only assume one form at a time. That's not relevant to whether or not you still have access to them, after having gained them. I'm not breaking the sentence down into fragments at all. You don't 'gain the Ex and Su abilities of assumed forms', you 'gain the Ex and Su abilities of the assumed form' repeatedly. Nothing about that breaks down the sentence. It's just that the later sentence allowing you to change form again allows you to apply that sentences effects, again.

The difference between Shapechange and other spells that cause you to gain a set of abilities drawn from an outside list (assumed form) is that Shapechange allows you to do it again and again with new assumed forms, each round. The only question is whether, because you have 'gained' those abilities, the spell continues to supply them to you. Logically? No. By the text? Yes!

You know the spell doesn't actually just grant "abilities", right? That's why I used the analogy of Veil of Undeath (from the Spell Compendium). Because that spell does.

Shapechange allows you to change your form. All further anything comes from that. Polymorph, which our spell inherits from, specifies "Upon changing, the subject regains lost hit points as if it had rested for a night...[further down, we have:] The subject gains the STR, DEX, and CON scores of the new form, but retains its own INT, WIS and CHA scores. It also gains all Ex special attacks possessed by the new form but does not gain the Ex special qualities possessed by the new form or any Su or Sp abilities". Now, obviously, Shapechange has specific text that falls under "except", in that "you gain all Ex and Su abilities (both attacks and qualities) of the assumed form...". But that doesn't mean you abrogate any sense of what initially happens in polymorph that isn't noted as an exception. So the only abilities that a caster has "gained" are "of the new (assumed) form". And again, this "gain" is always in reference to the caster's own.

The point of pointing out that "form" is singular is to highlight that if, hypothetically, you were correct, the caster would have "gained the abilities of multiple forms". Which the text does not explicitly allow.



The most literal sense of 'you gain X' is that you gain X, you have X, and until something takes X away (in this case, the spell's duration ending, since X is a magically suppied set of abilities), you still have X.
That's still taking the words "you gain the abilities" out of context, as if the spell just granted abilities. The spell allows you to assume a form and "gain the abilities of the form". "Of" also has a dictionary definition:
For your convenience, I have bolded all that could be taken to be relevant here.


Definition of of (Entry 1 of 3)

1 —used as a function word to indicate a point of reckoning
//north of the lake


2a —used as a function word to indicate origin or derivation
//a man of noble birth

b —used as a function word to indicate the cause, motive, or reason
//died of flu

c : by
//plays of Shakespeare

d : on the part of
//very kind of you

e : occurring in
//a fish of the western Atlantic


3 —used as a function word to indicate the component material, parts, or elements or the contents
//throne of gold

//cup of water


4a —used as a function word to indicate the whole that includes the part denoted by the preceding word
//most of the army

b —used as a function word to indicate a whole or quantity from which a part is removed or expended
//gave of his time


5a : relating to : about
//stories of her travels

b : in respect to
//slow of speech


6a —used as a function word to indicate belonging or a possessive relationship
//king of England

b —used as a function word to indicate relationship between a result determined by a function or operation and a basic entity (such as an independent variable)
//a function of x

//the product of two numbers


7 —used as a function word to indicate something from which a person or thing is delivered
//eased of her pain

or with respect to which someone or something is made destitute
//robbed of all their belongings


8a —used as a function word to indicate a particular example belonging to the class denoted by the preceding noun
//the city of Rome

b —used as a function word to indicate apposition
//that fool of a husband


9a —used as a function word to indicate the object of an action denoted or implied by the preceding noun
//love of nature

b —used as a function word to indicate the application of a verb
//cheats him of a dollar

or of an adjective
//fond of candy


10 —used as a function word to indicate a characteristic or distinctive quality or possession
//a woman of courage


11a —used as a function word to indicate the position in time of an action or occurrence
//died of a Monday

b : before
//quarter of ten


12 archaic : on
//a plague of all cowards

— William Shakespeare
Especially definition 6 (both of them). All the ones I highlighted can work, but 6 is the clincher.

The powers are not "gained" by the caster, from the spell, independent of the form. Which would have to be true for your claim to be true.

I have tried, multiple times, to express this. I even used the term "independent/dependent variables" before when stressing the significance of "abilities of the assumed form"

To wit (vis "gain"): It's not that what you "gain" is somehow "taken away" when you change form, but what you "gain" also changes. The abilities that a shapechanged character can use are not independent of the form. Since those abilities belong to the form, your "gains" change when your form does.



Except that the text you typed, which I bolded in the quote, was explicit text saying you DO lose them. Your 'example' text was actually contradictory to your intended illustration. Probably a typo on your part, but still didn't serve to strengthen your case.
I'm going to have to revert to full grammar Nazi here. You said (copy/pasted quote): "there IS explicit text saying that you HAVE GAINED them and that you DON'T LOSE THEM".

There is no "explicit text saying you don't lose them".

"Explicit text" ALSO has a very specific meaning. "Explicit text" can only mean "the exact words in printed text". Anything else is Implicit.

/grammar lecture

Sorry to get up on a soapbox there, but it is a provable fact that there is no "explicit text saying you don't lose powers gained from previous forms". Those exact words would have to be in the text for that statement to be true.



Funny, that's the basis for my stance too! Except my stance brings less interpretation and outside meaning with it.
Funny, because the text doesn't actually say that abilities from previous forms stay with caster. My stance doesn't require me to disassociate the "abilities" with the "assumed forms" that those abilities are "of". My stance applies the logic that all the words in a single sentence of rules text have mechanical weight and are relevant to the same subject, instead of breaking down a sentence and extracting something that is not coherent with any other General or Specific Rule anywhere else in the RAW.



They wouldn't be irrelevant in a complete detailing of the effects of Shapechange, because yes, they all inherit from each other, up the chain. They ARE, however, irrelevant to this discussion, because Shapechange is the only one that allows for multiple form changes, and thus needs clarity in the sentence defining what abilities you gain.
And yet the description of the spell Shapechange is literally only the ways in which it differs from Polymorph. Shapechange used "assumed form" instead of "new form" precisely because it allows for later iterations of possible forms. But "assumed form" is still singular, and all "Ex and Su abilities" are still "of the assumed form".



Not without any connection. How can you say that after reading me repeatedly say that you only gain abilities of the forms you actually spend a round to assume? The singular nature of the word form is irrelevant, not because the spell simultaneously causes you to gain abilities of multiple forms, but because the spell allows you to repeatedly change form, thus gaining the abilities of multiple forms in sequence, without losing the abilities of the forms before.
The first bolded sentence is a statement you have no authority to claim. Ergo it is not fact. The claim doesn't even follow logically. All spell descriptions are rules. Finding RAW dysfunction is about finding ways that what is stated in the RAW makes something other than RAI happen. You have no authority to dismiss the significance of the intentional choice to use the singular of "form". It's especially absurd when it comes to this spell, which is one that was revised so many times, the errata re-prints the whole spell. First printings of the 3.5e PHB (of which I have in a box in my garage, signed by a bunch of the devs) have this spell be radically different. And yet the updated text still says "form", singular.
The second bolded part is not explicit in the RAW text. It just isn't. And only by dismissing the significance of the latter half of the same sentence can you even claim that it is implicit of the RAW. But you don't have the authority to say "these words are less important or less relevant". They are all equally relevant, and my stance does not require me to dismiss anything.



Your question isn't relevant to whether or not Bob still has the abilities of the first form. Bob has 'gained' the abilities of the first form, AND Bob has 'gained' the abilities of the second form too.

The only thing that's relevant to whether or not Bob still has the abilities of the first form is whether to 'gain' something is a temporary state of being, and it's not. That's not what the word means.

You avoided answering the question. I will simply pose it again.

"At the point in time when Bob has assumed his second form, a red dragon, is Ex: Acid Immunity an 'ability of the assumed form'?" Yes or no?

Simple question.



C - It's not diminishing the significance in any way. The words 'of the assumed form' serve to define which set of abilities you gain from any given form you assume. And it's not that they are less important than gain, it's that the prepositional phrase 'of the assumed form' is subordinate to the noun 'abilities' which is in turn subordinate to the verb 'gain.' That's how sentence structure works. 'Abilities' is the transitive object of 'gain,' and 'of the assumed form' serves to define which abilities are being referenced, which you then gain.
This is the closest you've come to making a case for your stance. So for that, I salute you. I really do, that is not snark.

You are, however, incorrect.

'Abilities of the assumed form' is the direct object of 'gain'. You don't gain the abilities in a vacuum, irrespective of the form. You first assume the form, then you gain the abilities which are "of" that form. "Of the assumed form" means those abilities stem from, belong to, relate to, result from, et cetera ad nauseum, the form.

The abilities are a dependent variable of the independent variable. Even you must acknowledge that. Form can change, it therefore must be the independent variable. Even you would not argue that taking on a white dragon form first grants "Acid Immunity", therefore the abilities are the dependent variable. That the caster "gains the Ex and Su abilities of the assumed form" is part of the exception from Polymorph (where the subject only gained Ex attacks). Nothing about the text of Shapechange ever divorces the dependent variable from the independent variable.

Therefore, when the independent variable changes, so do dependent variables. It's not that something "gained" was "lost", it changed

To wit (algebra again, whee)- spell as expression of (2x=y)
My stance is:
When you choose your first form, x=2, therefore you gain y abilities (equaling 4)
Second form, x is now equal to 3, I maintain that all you have (y) is now 6.

Your stance:
When you choose your first form, x=2, therefore you gain y abilities (equaling 4)
Second form, x is now equal to 3, y then equals 6, you have 10 (because 4+6 equals 10)

The text of the spell doesn't change the "formula" of what the spell's effect is based on how many iterations of form changes you have undergone. You only get the dependent variable of whichever independent variable (i.e the form) you have chosen.

The last paragraph, the one about changing forms again, once per round, is what makes the independent variable able to be mutable (as opposed to polymorph or alter self, which is chosen once at the time of casting). That the variable is mutable does not make the dependent variable able to be "stacked" upon each iteration of change of the independent one. The dependent variable "abilities of the assumed form" are still "gained" by the caster after each form change.



I'm not diminishing it, I'm reading it as it's written, using the most common and least interpretive meanings of the words that have been used, and the structure of the parts of speech to define the relationships between them.
Except you do not in any way acknowledge the significance of the words "of the assumed form" used as a function word to indicate belonging or possession of the preceding word "abilities". You have chosen to interpret the "abilities" as being utterly divorced from "of the assumed form", save that you think it's simply some kind of check in a box that you have to do to get the ability and keep it.

Which is not using "structure and parts of speech to define the relationship between them", because it requires you to intentionally choose to diminish or ignore them completely.

Look at it this way, if you have one way of reading that sentence which requires you to say "this part of the sentence has less mechanical weight than the other", and/or "the use of singular instead of plural is irrelevant for determining what the texts says it does"...which gives you a function that runs contrary to RAI.
And another way of reading that sentence which says "looking at all of the words as a whole (instead of breaking down individual words out of context), and assuming they are all relevant and hold mechanical weight"...which leads to RAW and RAI aligning...

Which is more likely, just objectively? That the way the first reading is done is incorrect? That the second reading is somehow "less detailed", because it assumes that a single sentence is a cohesive thing instead of lending weight to only one word, and dismissing others as "less relevant"? Or that the second is correct?



And again, the plurality comes from the ability to repeatedly change from one form to the next, thus accruing (synonym for 'gain) multiple sets of abilities.

But the text remains singular. Which you can think is a mistake, if that's your opinion, but a "strict RAW reading" must assume only singular is meant when only singular is written.


I'm not sure you have, and here's why:


I've pretty clearly defined what 'of the assumed form' means and what it relates to and how it's subordinate to the noun it attaches to, but that it doesn't have any bearing on whether repeated form changes allow you to retain sets of abilities that you've gained.
And that's why I've been challenging your founding assumptions. Because "of the assumed form" is not "subordinate", "abilities" are subordinate to "the assumed form", because 1- they stem from the assumed form and 2- the form is what the spell actually gives the caster power to assume. When you cast this spell you don't say "I want something immune to fire" (the ability), and then get a form which has that ability (which could be a fire elemental, a magmin, a red dragon, an efreet, etc). You choose the form first, and then get those abilities which are "of the form". Metagame-wise, your thought process may be focused on abilities first, because you want certain abilities that you did not have. But in terms of order of operations in-game, it goes 1-Cast Shapechange, 2-Declare Form, 3-Assume abilities.

This has been a crucial point which I have been trying to make for several posts now. I hope I am finally getting through. It is assumptions like this that I am trying to tell you I am challenging. It is precisely because "abilities" are subordinate to "assumed form" that they are not cumulative.

Does reading it that way make more sense now? It's still not extrapolating anything out of the text that isn't there, it's just changing how you grammatically read that sentence. And now you see that subsequent form changes only change what is gained, and do not need to "take it away".

All your subsequent analysis at the end did was show how divorced you think "abilities gained" are. The spell doesn't straight-up grant "abilities" by themselves. You first assume a form "as polymorph, except...you gain the Ex and Su abilities of the assumed form". Almost every sentence in the description of Shapechange can have "As polymorph, except..." put in front of it, and it still makes sense. But not by your stance. If your stance was a coherent reading of the text of RAW, you would be able to parse it in context with the spell that it inherits from. Which you cannot do without reading the part at the end, and then trying to go back and change what the second paragraph says.

[Endarire]

Shapechange.

Use some means to get an arbitrary amount of wishes, each granting me at least 1 Knowstone or Runestaff of a Sorcerer spell I want to know.

Proceed.

[RoboEmperor]

Shapechange.

Use some means to get an arbitrary amount of wishes, each granting me at least 1 Knowstone or Runestaff of a Sorcerer spell I want to know.

Proceed.

Another reason to go Wish if free wishes aren't allowed. You can make Runestaves of all the 9th level spells you want without relying on outside help.

[Âmesang]

So an amusing bit of information I happened to notice while perusing the Epic Level Handbook: one of the qualifications needed for Epic Spell Focus is the ability to cast a 9th-level spell of the chosen school of magic; my sorceress happens to already have Spell Focus (abjuration and transmutation), and, as it just so happens, Slerotin's fortitude — originally an AD&D spell — belongs to both the abjuration and transmutation schools.

…and fortunately the Player's Handbook II and Dragon Magic brought back the concept of "duo school" spells.

(Admittedly there are better epic feats to choose from, but I found the coincidence to be neat.)

[ColorBlindNinja]

So an amusing bit of information I happened to notice while perusing the Epic Level Handbook: one of the qualifications needed for Epic Spell Focus is the ability to cast a 9th-level spell of the chosen school of magic; my sorceress happens to already have Spell Focus (abjuration and transmutation), and, as it just so happens, Slerotin's fortitude — originally an AD&D spell — belongs to both the abjuration and transmutation schools.

I think you still need to be level 21+ to take epic feats.

[Âmesang]

Yes? I don't think I suggested otherwise…

EDIT: To provide further context, Slerotin's fortitude was one of my planned 9th-level spells for her, since she's a Pureblooded Suel sorceress and Slerotin was the Last Mage of Power of the WORLD OF GREYHAWK'S® Suel Imperium.

EDIT²: So I've got the most scathingly brilliant idea; in lieu of actually learning time stop, how about spending 'bout 130,000 gp for a CL20 command word-activated pocket watch that replicates time stop twice per day. :smallcool:

[ColorBlindNinja]

Yes? I don't think I suggested otherwise…

Very well.