Class and Level Geekery XVIII - Everyone's an Expert

[Kurald Galain]

The splices can have ludicrous, insane levels by DnD standards, but cannot plausibly be "level 80".

"His level! It's over 9000!!!"

We could consider that for the next thread title

[hamishspence]

Unrelated, is there a template or statblock that would enable a foe to always give exp, or some mechanism by which one could find level-appropriate foes? Because iirc, even actual end-game foes for Epic players won't give any exp at level 50.

Epic monsters can be advanced, same as regular monsters. Force dragons and Prismatic dragons have CRs in excess of 50. So it's possible for characters to encounter dragons (and DM-advanced monsters) that will give them experience, way past level 50.

[danielxcutter]

And there does exist a monster outside the epic dragons that have appropriate CRs - an Abomination, in fact. The Hecatoncheires have something like CR 56 I think? Though I believe it’s oft derided as not being worth its CR - I’ve heard that the baseline for a gish build is soloing one at ECL 20. Not sure how much cheese that involves though.

[Peelee]

"His level! It's over 9000!!!"

We could consider that for the next thread title

I'm a fan.

[Yanisa]

Relevant fun fact:

Most deities are 20 HD outsiders with 30 to 50 character levels as well.

SRD link

[TooSoon]

Relevant fun fact:


SRD link

And there are various Dragons in statted out to well over 50 CR. I recall some Great Time Wyrm one is CR 90. Plus this is a fictional setting, the Giant can make any number of foe with CR's from 50-100 across the multitude of planes of existence.

[danielxcutter]

Time dragons are from Dragon Magazine though, and many DMs view that as dubious at best.

Really the most amusing thing I find about dragons is that all the true dragons have only 10 Dexterity. It's why people half-jokingly say that Scintillating Scales(converts natural armor to deflection) is an innate ability of dragons capable of casting 2nd-level Sorcerer spells. I think time dragons aren't any different, though they can just learn that spell anyways.

[Schroeswald]

I would like to profess my support for “Nobody cares about that stuff anymore” as a thread title.
just spent the last day catching up on like ten pages of this thread to post this seemingly out of nowhere yes.

[Crusher]

I disagree with the V thing. I very much agree that there's no evidence whatsoever that X can Plane Shift et. al on his own power though.

Yeah, I agree with this and TooSoon's point on Xykon plane-shifting. I'm absolutely sure Xykon has reliable access to the ability to shift planes. But whether that's via spell, device, enslaved minion we've never seen, or big stack of scrolls of plane shift he got somewhere, I have no idea.

I'd argue Xykon handling it via his own spells is actually the least likely answer. He's a Sorcerer so he's got an extremely limited list of spells he can cast, we know he doesn't have Plane Shift or Gate (because we know his 7th and 9th level spells), and he's historically really functional in terms of his spell selection. *If* he's doing it, its almost certainly via that unknown 8th level spell which would be some kind of custom plane-traveling spell. IMO, this would fall into the "possible, but there's no evidence for it" category which is below the usual standard for character sheet notations.

Pushing on a little, its probably not via a magic item he crafted, either. Xykon's a big magic item crafter, but most of the regular planar travel items (Amulet of the Planes, Cubic Gate, Well of Many Worlds, etc) require the caster to know either Plane Shift or Gate and he doesn't. Plus, while he's talked about making items in the past, he's never mentioned working on something like this. Also, its probably also not via powerful minion. Again, its not impossible he's got a level 9+ cleric or level 13+ wizard tied up in the basement, but them having O'Chul captive for months was a really big deal. It'd be weird if Xykon had an O'Chul-grade captive and it was just never mentioned in any way.

Finally, the most likely option is that Xykon just bought either a magic item of some sort or a stack of scrolls of Plane Shift. Xykon's got deep enough pockets that he could afford either option, but the scrolls are cheaper (Amulet of the Planes is the cheapest reuseable item and its about the same price as ~50 scrolls of plane shift) and they wouldn't just be one item that could get lost or stolen. He could have bought 30 scrolls (around half the price of the amulet), carry 2-3 around on him at any time, and then have the rest stashed around in different places in case he needed them (including a dozen or whatever in his fortress).

I don't know the scroll option is probable enough to list as the official answer to *how* Xykon does his planar travel, but if its not, then Xykon doing via his own spells really isn't reliably enough established.

[Ephemera]

I would like to profess my support for “Nobody cares about that stuff anymore” as a thread title.
just spent the last day catching up on like ten pages of this thread to post this seemingly out of nowhere yes.

Seems like this one will be winning in a cakewalk (the only thing we can achieve consensus on is thread titles...which is actually also a decent thread title some day). I'm fully in support of "Nobody cares" and only a tiny bit mad that I didn't propose it myself, since as soon as I saw that in the comic I immediately thought of it. Oh well, I got to name one thread, I'll have to content myself with that.

[Peelee]

the only thing we can achieve consensus on is thread titles

All curated threads have their opening informative posts achieved by consensus.

[Crusher]

All curated threads have their opening informative posts achieved by consensus.

Good thing there's consensus or the threads wouldn't have titles!

That would be confusing.

[Schroeswald]

It would be very confusing if the next version of the thread was called “Nerding Out Like the Nerds We Are XXV - ???”

[Ephemera]

All curated threads have their opening informative posts achieved by consensus.

See, we can't even agree on exactly what "consensus" means. (Which is also a good thread title...)

But perhaps to avoid confusion I should specify that this is a rare moment of unanimity.

[Peelee]

See, we can't even agree on exactly what "consensus" means.

Sure we can. That's how it got its meaning. That's how all words get their meaning, really. By consensus.

[Ephemera]

Sure we can. That's how it got its meaning. That's how all words get their meaning, really. By consensus.

Wow, I'm really torn between two possible reactions:

a) touché, you got me there
b) telling me I'm wrong and and the consensus is on your side is like literally the opposite of what consensus means.

The truth is probably in the middle somewhere, and consensus is a slightly ambiguous word. To be clear, I'm not objecting to the way the thread actually operates, I think there will always be some ambiguity, that needs to be resolved so we can move on and that's fine. But I object to the notion that thread curators are doing nothing more than reflecting consensus once it's achieved. I also don't think that language operates by pure consensus--even though I'm personally slightly on the descriptivist side when it comes to linguistics, dictionary writers and other elites still wield a fair amount of influence when it comes to defining how language works.

[Peelee]

Wow, I'm really torn between two possible reactions:

a) touché, you got me there
b) telling me I'm wrong and and the consensus is on your side is like literally the opposite of what consensus means.

The truth is probably in the middle somewhere, and consensus is a slightly ambiguous word. To be clear, I'm not objecting to the way the thread actually operates, I think there will always be some ambiguity, that needs to be resolved so we can move on and that's fine. But I object to the notion that thread curators are doing nothing more than reflecting consensus once it's achieved. I also don't think that language operates by pure consensus--even though I'm personally slightly on the descriptivist side when it comes to linguistics, dictionary writers and other elites still wield a fair amount of influence when it comes to defining how language works.

Consensus is not unanimity. It may well shift that way in the future, but language is definitely consensus-driven. That's why things like "literally now also means figuratively" happen.

Consensus allows disagreement. It's just the voice of the majority.

[Ephemera]

Consensus is not unanimity. It may well shift that way in the future, but language is definitely consensus-driven. That's why things like "literally now also means figuratively" happen.

Consensus allows disagreement. It's just the voice of the majority.

Consensus isn't unanimity, it's true, but it's very much not the same thing as majority rule. {scrubbed} Consensus implies something greater than a majority plus one, and usually some sort of process of coming to broad agreement.

And no matter how much people mis-use literally, they are still wrong. :P

[Peelee]

Consensus isn't unanimity, it's true, but it's very much not the same thing as majority rule.

Fair. A plurality, then.

And no matter how much people mis-use literally, they are still wrong. :P

I'm sure that sentiment has been expressed about various other words that you use "wrong", according to previous generations. Languages are alive, and evolve in various directions. Welcome to the new evolution.

[Schroeswald]

Literally has been used “incorrectly” for literally forever. Colloquially a common definition of the word literally is as a way to reinforce hyperbole and metaphor, that may not be correct in formal English but thats no more real than colloquial English, it is 100% correct to say “I’m literally dying with laughter” when you are nowhere close to death.

[ziproot]

Fair. A plurality, then.

I'm sure that sentiment has been expressed about various other words that you use "wrong", according to previous generations. Languages are alive, and evolve in various directions. Welcome to the new evolution.

Just like how "sherbet" is technically pronounced the way it sounds, but that nobody in the area I live pronounces it that way.

[hungrycrow]

Fair. A plurality, then.

But a plurality is usually the largest group that's less than a majority.

Personally I also think a mere majority is enough for a consensus. Do more than 50% of us agree, and if so is that enough for a consensus?

[Ephemera]

Well, this started off as a bit of sophistry between Pelee and me, but has maybe revealed that there are actually different understandings of what consensus is supposed to mean. I really don't think there's any reasonable way to interpret "consensus" to mean a simple majority.

It doesn't need to mean unanimity, but I think in the normal sense it implies some sort of supermajority, or at least a process by which most if not all of those who don't personally agree with the decision at least agree that the group has decided. In normal real life, I would say that a consensus process usually involves seeking out everyone's opinions and convincing those who aren't on board. Unlike a majority (or plurality, which in a political sense does specifically mean that the largest group is short of a majority) voting system, consensus doesn't usually involve a formal vote--I'll stay away from the real-world politics, but I think you definitely can't call a closely contested election (especially one where the losing side is disgruntled) "reaching consensus."

I think consensus does accurately describe most of what goes on here, and we just leave things out when there isn't a consensus, but it gets squidgy when one or two (or Too...) people vehemently disagree with what everyone else thinks is a consensus (or lack thereof). I would submit though, that it looks to me like these thread rules were specifically set up not to be voting situations, so consensus meaning majority plus one (which would require a vote to determine) is obviously not the rule.

[TooSoon]

Well, this started off as a bit of sophistry between Pelee and me, but has maybe revealed that there are actually different understandings of what consensus is supposed to mean. I really don't think there's any reasonable way to interpret "consensus" to mean a simple majority.

It doesn't need to mean unanimity, but I think in the normal sense it implies some sort of supermajority, or at least a process by which most if not all of those who don't personally agree with the decision at least agree that the group has decided. In normal real life, I would say that a consensus process usually involves seeking out everyone's opinions and convincing those who aren't on board. Unlike a majority (or plurality, which in a political sense does specifically mean that the largest group is short of a majority) voting system, consensus doesn't usually involve a formal vote--I'll stay away from the real-world politics, but I think you definitely can't call a closely contested election (especially one where the losing side is disgruntled) "reaching consensus."

I think consensus does accurately describe most of what goes on here, and we just leave things out when there isn't a consensus, but it gets squidgy when one or two (or Too...) people vehemently disagree with what everyone else thinks is a consensus (or lack thereof). I would submit though, that it looks to me like these thread rules were specifically set up not to be voting situations, so consensus meaning majority plus one (which would require a vote to determine) is obviously not the rule.

Consensus really does not mean a majority, nor does it describe much of what is entered on the stat block. In practice, consensus seems to mean 'whatever the thread curator decides should be entered, based on whatever posts they were reading'. As an example, the thread curator attempted to "solve" the V telepathic bond debate by including on his entry "an unspecified item that boosts CL". This was a solution absolutely nobody had advocated, and clearly did not and could not have consensus. When I loudly complained about this the entry was (eventually) removed from V's stat block without explanation. Sometimes there is a majority, or a "consensus", but other times the thread manager just sees someone post something they agree with and thinks "that looks right" and enters it right away. 2-3 people might have commented on it, and it could be entered.

I think there should really be a better (and clearer) process hashed out for the next thread.

[Doug Lampert]

It's effectively impossible to have Epic spell slots left over after getting hit by an energy drain, assuming they are given higher priority than levelled slots. A character gets one epic spell slot for every ten ranks they have in the relevant Knowledge skill, so they scale extremely poorly; you can't have more than two epic slots until you're at least 27th level, and to get a fourth would require 37th level.

So: if you're under 27th level, you will always lose all of your epic slots. If you're between 27 and 37, you have a 1/16 chance to keep one slot (i.e., Energy Drain only gives you two negative levels). If you're in the (already absurd) heights of being level 37, you have a 1/16 chance to keep two slots and a 1/8 chance to keep one.

The only way Epic spellcasting isn't instantly prevented by an Energy Drain is if negative levels are ruled as not affecting epic slots in the first place (which is clearly not the case in the comic).

Epic Spell Levels
Epic spells have no fixed level. However, for purposes of Concentration checks, spell resistance, and other possible situations where spell level is important, epic spells are all treated as if they were 10th-level spells.

Hence, epic slots are level 10. Improved spell capacity can give level 11+ slots, which will protect the epic slots (within limits).

[danielxcutter]

How many casters would have that many 11th+ slots though? Even with Epic Spell Capacity, you're extremely unlikely to have more than one bonus spell slot above 9th. And you lose an average of 5 slots per Energy Drain, so it's easy to lose them if you get zapped.

[Doug Lampert]

Agreed, while I personally would ballpark the Law and Neutral splices as being upper 20s and Chaos as being lower 30s (give or take maybe 5 levels), any trio of Epic character levels being combined into one ECL would make it so functionally nothing could net them exp. This gets even worse when you add a teens leveled character.
Even just as one character, DnD is not a game built to have level 50 characters gaining exp even in settings that aren't sticking to "count the 9th-level Clerics in the world on one hand" environments. Hell, as you said, even level 35 is enough of a brick wall that said entity could go blow by blow through the entirety of Kraggor's Tomb and not get meaningful amounts of exp.

I would say either Epic Teleport and Familicide are the result of "Ganoron's Tome of Circumventing DCs" or are just not meant to be treated as by-the-book Epic spells to research.
Or maybe as Soul Splice candidates, they have the unique honor of being given unlimited time to research spells and not-inconsiderable supplies to do so with. Who knows, but it isn't really something we can say for sure.

I don't know about 3.5 DMG epic spells, but NONE of the epic spells in the 3.0 Epic Handbook followed the rules for DCs for epic spells.

They were literally 0 for 30 or so on actually using the rules they gave. Getting the DC wrong is using the rules as written.

I think the ABD would be fine not coming back to the Material for a very long time; most divinations aren’t interplanar and the entire point of leaving it was to prevent V from finding their children’s souls. Plus, she’d still have more of her life left than V would unless they became a lich or something. Besides, what did she have left that she couldn’t take along with her? Her family?

I still don’t think there’s any sort of proof that Xykon has an interplanar travel spell he can cast on his own power, though. There are loads of other ways for a caster of his level to do it anyways.

Edit: About Epic encounters, there’s actually a lot of monsters. Abominations, for starters.

HECATONCHEIRES
Huge Outsider (Chaotic, Evil, Extraplanar)
Hit Dice: 52d8+572 (1028 hp)
[SNIP]
Organization: Solitary or pair
Challenge Rating: 57
Treasure: Standard
Alignment: Always chaotic evil
Advancement: 53-58 HD (Huge); 59-70 HD (Gargantuan); 71-140 HD (Colossal)

Note the organization, these things are not unique, and that's the minimum CR at 57. The advancement line adds up to 88 additional outsider HD and 2 size increases, which would put the result at CR 103.

Edited to add: Note that this is in support of danielxcutter's claim that there are high CR foes in the rules.

[Doug Lampert]

How many casters would have that many 11th+ slots though? Even with Epic Spell Capacity, you're extremely unlikely to have more than one bonus spell slot above 9th. And you lose an average of 5 slots per Energy Drain, so it's easy to lose them if you get zapped.

Eh? If Xykon started with 18 Cha, added 3 for age, added 5 inherent, 6 enhancement, 2 for lich, and added 6 for levels (making him level 24-27, and he needs level 24+ to have Epic casting and ANY level 11 slots) then he has Charisma of 40, and gets bonus spells of up to level 15 (except that he only has up to level 11) and he gets TWO bonus spells of level 11.

That did not use any epic items, and is the absolute minimum level needed to have the minimum feats needed to have both epic casting and level 11 slots.

Edited to add: If you give him any level 12 slots for the maximized energy drain, then he's got 2 level 12, 3 level 11, and 3 level 10 and 2-3 epic slots (also at level 10). He can lose the five slots and not lose any of his level 10 slots. If he loses 8 slots and gets to chose which he loses for equal level slots, then he can lose the actual slots and still protect the epic slots.

[danielxcutter]

I mean besides Xykon(most PCs… or NPCs actually don’t tend to have age bonuses/penalties). And he can’t get negative levels anyways, so the point is kinda moot.

[Anteros]

Yeah, I agree with this and TooSoon's point on Xykon plane-shifting. I'm absolutely sure Xykon has reliable access to the ability to shift planes. But whether that's via spell, device, enslaved minion we've never seen, or big stack of scrolls of plane shift he got somewhere, I have no idea.

I'd argue Xykon handling it via his own spells is actually the least likely answer. He's a Sorcerer so he's got an extremely limited list of spells he can cast, we know he doesn't have Plane Shift or Gate (because we know his 7th and 9th level spells), and he's historically really functional in terms of his spell selection. *If* he's doing it, its almost certainly via that unknown 8th level spell which would be some kind of custom plane-traveling spell. IMO, this would fall into the "possible, but there's no evidence for it" category which is below the usual standard for character sheet notations.

Pushing on a little, its probably not via a magic item he crafted, either. Xykon's a big magic item crafter, but most of the regular planar travel items (Amulet of the Planes, Cubic Gate, Well of Many Worlds, etc) require the caster to know either Plane Shift or Gate and he doesn't. Plus, while he's talked about making items in the past, he's never mentioned working on something like this. Also, its probably also not via powerful minion. Again, its not impossible he's got a level 9+ cleric or level 13+ wizard tied up in the basement, but them having O'Chul captive for months was a really big deal. It'd be weird if Xykon had an O'Chul-grade captive and it was just never mentioned in any way.

Finally, the most likely option is that Xykon just bought either a magic item of some sort or a stack of scrolls of Plane Shift. Xykon's got deep enough pockets that he could afford either option, but the scrolls are cheaper (Amulet of the Planes is the cheapest reuseable item and its about the same price as ~50 scrolls of plane shift) and they wouldn't just be one item that could get lost or stolen. He could have bought 30 scrolls (around half the price of the amulet), carry 2-3 around on him at any time, and then have the rest stashed around in different places in case he needed them (including a dozen or whatever in his fortress).

I don't know the scroll option is probable enough to list as the official answer to *how* Xykon does his planar travel, but if its not, then Xykon doing via his own spells really isn't reliably enough established.

A reusable item is unlikely simply from a logical standpoint. If Xykon doesn't know the spell, he needs to have a method to leave the astral plane after dying and regenerating at his phylactery. Similarly, he needs to have the ability to actually visit his fortress when he wants to, which he can't do if he's left his plane shift item in the fortress. He would need at least 2 scrolls/items to get back and forth.