Most attacks vs 1 target in 1 turn: 22? Can anyone do better?

[WaroftheCrans]

The bead that is generated by Arcane Abeyance is created out of nothing and disappears when the duration expires. It is entirely a creation of magic. If it were a non-magical bead, the bead would be required as a nonmagical component and persist after the duration expired. The SAC guidelines indicate that it is magical.

Yes. It is magical. It is a magical object, as opposed to a Magic Item. Not all objects that are magical are Magic Items. See above concerning Sage Advice from JC, the artificer's features and the general arguments.

The Deva trick works RAW and is frequently allowed in Tier 4 and in PvP. It's a magical polymorph that persists until dispelled or until the Deva is killed or reduced to zero hit points (which doesn't happen when you drop concentration).

Got a source on the "frequently allowed" part? AL for instance, the official D&D competitive play, does not allow that.

I stated before that I don't have very much experience with shapechange/magic jar/true polymorph cheese, so I'll defer to your opinion. Specifically the opinion you stated in the thread I referenced earlier.

[It] is a magical reversible conditional alteration to your "normal form" that does not permanently change what your "normal" form is. When [it] is dispelled you revert to your "normal form", ie your intrinsic physical form.

I fail to see how this is any different.

Dissonant Whispers enables an OA attack from Warcaster that can be a high attack count spell.

Sure, but it does so at the cost of casting a spell, and in your total you included it as an attack. For anyone who doesn't have the very specific wording of Laeral, you are better off just casting the spell you end up using your reaction for.

Sure, Marilith doesn't win in the specific category of highest attacks in a turn.

But, she wins in highest number of attacks in a round (great against hordes), highest melee DPR (great against regular AC), and highest number of Counterspells in a round (great against covens). You can do funky things like Magic Jar into a Nilbolg and be able to shut down a ton of damage an Unbounded number of times.

She doesn't win in the highest number of attacks in a turn. Spells like volley, and items like the two bird sling will outclass her in that combined with action surge, and you certainly can't Magic Jar into a Nilbolg and keep the non-class feature trait that allows you to have 1 reaction per turn. Shapechange, maybe, but this is entirely parenthetical and not quite relevant. Sure, marilith is useful at things. Just not this thing.

[J.C.]

It doesn't help for "in a turn" but it's a lovely trick for "in a round". There isn't anything like dissonant whisper that works on multiple targets, right?

It's fun to see all those crazy ideas, it keeps the brainstorm going!

Antipathy/Sympathy can repel/attract based on creature type. So you could use that spell to cause any creature of a type in a 60 foot radius to rush the target in their turn.

Re: dispelling, please note that Dispel Magic only has the ability to end spells, by RAW anyway. It could end Shapechange, and if that ends the polymorph then fine; but it cannot force a genuine Deva back into Deva form if it is polymorphed.

Antimagic Shell could though.

True. The reality is some 9th level spells are nerfed to allow competitive play, just like Wish - Simulacrum chaining is not allowed because it is degenerate even though it is completely okay RAW.

However, I would consider the Deva Change Shape trick to be a permanent magical effect that was created by the spell Shapechange. As such, the SAC has ruled that permanent magical effects created by spells can be dispelled.

Can permanent magical effects be dispelled? Or are they no longer considered magical effects once permanent? If the effect of a spell becomes permanent, it can be dispelled, unless its description says otherwise (such as in the wall of stone spell).

[bid]

Antipathy/Sympathy can repel/attract based on creature type. So you could use that spell to cause any creature of a type in a 60 foot radius to rush the target in their turn.

So nothing "on your turn", bummer.

[J.C.]

So nothing "on your turn", bummer.

Yes. But the combo in actual game play is Druid casts Sympathy for all vampires or something like that, high AC Paladin 2/ Divination Wizard X (already taking the Dodge Action and Shapechanged into Marilith and Magic Jarred into a Gloom Weaver) destroys all creatures of type X in a 60 foot radius as long as your hit rolls and damage rolls and your defenses hold up to the particular challenge you face. Misty Escape as necessary.

The combo is viable for PvP as well because your Simulacrum could be a duplicate of some 20th level Moon Druid you know.

[WaroftheCrans]

Yes. But the combo in actual game play is Druid casts Sympathy for all vampires or something like that, high AC Paladin 2/ Divination Wizard X (already taking the Dodge Action and Shapechanged into Marilith and Magic Jarred into a Gloom Weaver) destroys all creatures of type X in a 60 foot radius as long as your hit rolls and damage rolls and your defenses hold up to the particular challenge you face. Misty Escape as necessary.

The combo is viable for PvP as well because your Simulacrum could be a duplicate of some 20th level Moon Druid you know.

Antipathy/Sympathy is also on wizard spell list, no allies/simulacrum needed. I somehow doubt that its standard in competitive play to magic jar into monsters, seems rather odd. Especially in this scenario, where you would get no benefit from the bloom weaver.

I would love to see the 70 attack build however.

[J.C.]

Antipathy/Sympathy is also on wizard spell list, no allies/simulacrum needed. I somehow doubt that its standard in competitive play to magic jar into monsters, seems rather odd. Especially in this scenario, where you would get no benefit from the bloom weaver.

I would love to see the 70 attack build however.

Can we firm up on the rules issues? Is your Arcane Abeyance trick going to be allowed? My Deva trick is RAW so that should be okay.

[MaxWilson]

Can we firm up on the rules issues? Is your Arcane Abeyance trick going to be allowed? My Deva trick is RAW so that should be okay.

Damon_Tor already ruled that Arcane Abeyance beads cannot be triggered with Use An Object action, so no, that trick doesn't work in this thread.

I don't think it's RAW for a Deva to turn into specific NPCs. Also I don't think "it's RAW therefore should be okay" is a valid inference. Infinite Simulacra is RAW but I don't believe it is commonly allowed it in reality--remember that "RAW" is often a way of calling attention to design flaws, not a compliment. E.g. by RAW a lochlol who turns into mist is permanently incapacitated and can never turn back.

Let's get a ruling from @Damon_Tor on whether Shapechanging into a Deva and then using Deva powers to polymorph into a specific NPC permanently grants you that NPC's powers and abilities, for purposes of this thread.

[J.C.]

Damon_Tor already ruled that Arcane Abeyance beads cannot be triggered with Use An Object action, so no, that trick doesn't work in this thread.

I don't think it's RAW for a Deva to turn into specific NPCs. Also I don't think "it's RAW therefore should be okay" is a valid inference. Infinite Simulacra is RAW but I don't believe it is commonly allowed it in reality--remember that "RAW" is often a way of calling attention to design flaws, not a compliment. E.g. by RAW a lochlol who turns into mist is permanently incapacitated and can never turn back.

Let's get a ruling from @Damon_Tor on whether Shapechanging into a Deva and then using Deva powers to polymorph into a specific NPC permanently grants you that NPC's powers and abilities, for purposes of this thread.

The Deva trick is used to magically polymorph into a generic humanoid (e.g. a Gloom Weaver).

Change Shape. The deva magically polymorphs into a humanoid or beast that has a challenge rating equal to or less than its own, or back into its true form. It reverts to its true form if it dies. Any equipment it is wearing or carrying is absorbed or borne by the new form (the deva's choice).
In a new form, the deva retains its game statistics and ability to speak, but its AC, movement modes, Strength, Dexterity, and special senses are replaced by those ofthe new form, and it gains any statistics and capabilities (except class features, legendary actions, and lair actions) that the new form has but that it lacks.

Magic Jar allows you to take over a specific NPC body (e.g. the Laeral Silverhand).

[MaxWilson]

The Deva trick is used to magically polymorph into a generic humanoid (e.g. a Gloom Weaver).

Change Shape. The deva magically polymorphs into a humanoid or beast that has a challenge rating equal to or less than its own, or back into its true form. It reverts to its true form if it dies. Any equipment it is wearing or carrying is absorbed or borne by the new form (the deva's choice).
In a new form, the deva retains its game statistics and ability to speak, but its AC, movement modes, Strength, Dexterity, and special senses are replaced by those ofthe new form, and it gains any statistics and capabilities (except class features, legendary actions, and lair actions) that the new form has but that it lacks.

Magic Jar allows you to take over a specific NPC body (e.g. the Laeral Silverhand).

It's a bit like the RAW that technically seems to allow a CR 4 Couatl to polymorph into a CR 4 Warlock of the Archfey and gain at-will disguise self, mage armor (self only), silent image, speak with animals, and 1/day Conjure Fey, because those are listed as "Innate Spellcasting" instead of under Spellcasting, even though those abilities are clearly due to it being an 11th level warlock.

In any case, we need a Damon_Tor ruling on whether Shapechange => Deva => Gloomweaver permanently grants you Gloomweaver abilities, for purposes of this thread. But we already have an answer on Arcane Abeyance.

[Damon_Tor]

The Deva trick is used to magically polymorph into a generic humanoid (e.g. a Gloom Weaver).

Change Shape. The deva magically polymorphs into a humanoid or beast that has a challenge rating equal to or less than its own, or back into its true form. It reverts to its true form if it dies. Any equipment it is wearing or carrying is absorbed or borne by the new form (the deva's choice).
In a new form, the deva retains its game statistics and ability to speak, but its AC, movement modes, Strength, Dexterity, and special senses are replaced by those ofthe new form, and it gains any statistics and capabilities (except class features, legendary actions, and lair actions) that the new form has but that it lacks.

Magic Jar allows you to take over a specific NPC body (e.g. the Laeral Silverhand).

By RAW, the ability doesn't say you get to pick what the new form is. So you're just as likely to turn into a seahorse and gain its "Water Breathing" ability as you are anything else.

[MaxWilson]

By RAW, the ability doesn't say you get to pick what the new form is. So you're just as likely to turn into a seahorse and gain its "Water Breathing" ability as you are anything else.

Well played sir. But for purposes of this thread, what is your ruling? Are you sticking to that silly RAW?

[Damon_Tor]

Well played sir. But for purposes of this thread, what is your ruling? Are you sticking to that silly RAW?

In the specific case of the Deva's shapeshifting ability, yes, that's my ruling. By RAW you can accumulate as many abilities as you have forms to take on, but you have no ability to choose specific forms, and can wind up with "abilities" that are harmful, such as the inability to breathe air. And so for the purposes of this thought experiment, the ability to use this ability in this way is unreliable, and can be put in the same category as "casting Wish to gain the ability to attack 5,000,000 times per turn". Technically it could work if the DM allowed it.

A RAW argument in clear violation of RAI is fine, but it has to be iron clad. Live by the RAW, die by the RAW.

[J.C.]

In the specific case of the Deva's shapeshifting ability, yes, that's my ruling. By RAW you can accumulate as many abilities as you have forms to take on, but you have no ability to choose specific forms, and can wind up with "abilities" that are harmful, such as the inability to breathe air. And so for the purposes of this thought experiment, the ability to use this ability in this way is unreliable, and can be put in the same category as "casting Wish to gain the ability to attack 5,000,000 times per turn". Technically it could work if the DM allowed it.

A RAW argument in clear violation of RAI is fine, but it has to be iron clad. Live by the RAW, die by the RAW.

Wildshape also doesn't allow you to specifically choose/pick your form and the DM could similarly assign you a form from among the beasts you have seen. Shapechange similarly doesn't specify that you choose/pick. In those cases, the specific ability of choice is implied just as it is in Changeshape.

I don't agree with this extremely "silly [ quoting Max]" interpretion of RAW that nerfs Devas and Couatl's in a way that affects Devas and Couatls in all game play in addition to all Wildshape and Shapechange type abilities. I wonder if your ruling will now involve you spreading the news far and wide that Summon Celestial (Couatl) will need to be similarly nerfed as now Couatl's can't reliably Changeshape into a useful form and that Druids Wildshape cannot reliably pick their form and might wind up as a gerbil per DM discretion or random roll.

My tricks of adding 30ish attacks to the current solutions in this thread are not dependent on the Changeshape abilities. However, your handling of the Changeshape ability reveals a DM style of making non-neutral and arbitrary rulings without regard of the attending logical consequences in the rules elsewhere.

If people want me to share my tricks it will need to be in a thread with fair and consistent ground rules and a neutral DM.

Since you seem to be overall interested in limiting the Shapechange-ChangeShape combo, an example of a fair ruling that accomplishes what you want in my opinion would be that the Changeshape abilities simply don't persist after Shapechange goes away. That way you don't nerf Devas and Couatls and Wildshape like you do with your "silly RAW [quoting Max]".

I suggest you reconsider your ruling. Your ruling has multiple problematic logical consequences that break the game.

[WaroftheCrans]

A RAW argument in clear violation of RAI is fine, but it has to be iron clad. Live by the RAW, die by the RAW.

Does this mean that the RAW argument against Arcane Abeyance + Haste fails, as the RAI is for it to work, and the RAW argument against it is anything but iron clad?
Arcane abeyance doesn't fit with any of the definitions of a magic item found in the Magic Items section of the DMG, and unlike Artificer's Infuse Item feature, it is not called out as being a magic item.
It's obviously magical, but that's not a case for it being a magic item. Similarly, if you cast Flame Arrows on a quiver, it's a magical quiver, but not a magic item. The arrows are enchanted and magical, but not magic weapons/items.

Also, JC just post your tricks already. No one else has been holding back any ideas, you're not going to win anything if you manage to pull something off. You have to deliver, or lose all credibility.

Deva trick is almost certainly not RAW, for a number of reasons stated, and while I disagree with Damon Tor's reason for his ruling for much of the reasons you outlined, you should know that it doesn't work, for the reasons that you outlined.

[J.C.]

Does this mean that the RAW argument against Arcane Abeyance + Haste fails, as the RAI is for it to work, and the RAW argument against it is anything but iron clad?
Arcane abeyance doesn't fit with any of the definitions of a magic item found in the Magic Items section of the DMG, and unlike Artificer's Infuse Item feature, it is not called out as being a magic item.
It's obviously magical, but that's not a case for it being a magic item. Similarly, if you cast Flame Arrows on a quiver, it's a magical quiver, but not a magic item. The arrows are enchanted and magical, but not magic weapons/items.

Also, JC just post your tricks already. No one else has been holding back any ideas, you're not going to win anything if you manage to pull something off. You have to deliver, or lose all credibility.

Deva trick is almost certainly not RAW, for a number of reasons stated, and while I disagree with Damon Tor's reason for his ruling for much of the reasons you outlined, you should know that it doesn't work, for the reasons that you outlined.

We need to agree on fair and sensible ground rules for me to share my ideas.

[JNAProductions]

We need to agree on fair and sensible ground rules for me to share my ideas.

So make your own thread, with your own rules.

[J.C.]

So make your own thread, with your own rules.

Nah. I will go ahead and wait for fair and sensible ground rules as implemented by a DM other than myself.

[JNAProductions]

Nah. I will go ahead and wait for fair and sensible ground rules as implemented by a DM other than myself.

Just post what rules the Pro Tables use, then.

[Damon_Tor]

Wildshape also doesn't allow you to specifically choose/pick your form and the DM could similarly assign you a form from among the beasts you have seen. Shapechange similarly doesn't specify that you choose/pick. In those cases, the specific ability of choice is implied just as it is in Changeshape.

I agree. But that's a RAI argument, and the Deva exploit doesn't work once you start to argue about what the developers intend.

I don't agree with this extremely "silly [ quoting Max]" interpretion of RAW that nerfs Devas and Couatl's in a way that affects Devas and Couatls in all game play in addition to all Wildshape and Shapechange type abilities. I wonder if your ruling will now involve you spreading the news far and wide that Summon Celestial (Couatl) will need to be similarly nerfed as now Couatl's can't reliably Changeshape into a useful form and that Druids Wildshape cannot reliably pick their form and might wind up as a gerbil per DM discretion or random roll.

You keep making a RAI argument.

My tricks of adding 30ish attacks to the current solutions in this thread are not dependent on the Changeshape abilities. However, your handling of the Changeshape ability reveals a DM style of making non-neutral and arbitrary rulings without regard of the attending logical consequences in the rules elsewhere.

If people want me to share my tricks it will need to be in a thread with fair and consistent ground rules and a neutral DM.

Honestly I never asked to be the "DM" of this thread. It was you who was asking for "rulings" from me. You could just as easily post something like "If your DM rules X, you could do Y, and make Z number of attacks in one turn" and everyone would say "neat" and we would all go about our day. But you're acting like you're making this a contest or something. Nobody is going to send you any prize money for winning the thread. I don't get what your deal is man. Participate or don't.

Since you seem to be overall interested in limiting the Shapechange-ChangeShape combo, an example of a fair ruling that accomplishes what you want in my opinion would be that the Changeshape abilities simply don't persist after Shapechange goes away. That way you don't nerf Devas and Couatls and Wildshape like you do with your "silly RAW [quoting Max]".

I suggest you reconsider your ruling. Your ruling has multiple problematic logical consequences that break the game.

I have no interest in the "logical consequences" of said ruling. Said ruling only exists in a single context: a player arguing that the Deva shapeshange ability should be played by RAW to allow for an arbitrary number of stacked abilities instead of the clear RAI that would not. Arguing that RAW should be followed in precisely the manner that favors your tactic while falling back to the intent of the developers wherever it would hinder you isn't reasonable.

[Damon_Tor]

Does this mean that the RAW argument against Arcane Abeyance + Haste fails, as the RAI is for it to work, and the RAW argument against it is anything but iron clad?

Sure, knock yourself out.

[WaroftheCrans]

Sure, knock yourself out.

Great thanks. Of all the debates that went on in this thread, I think the arcane abeyance one is the only one I would expect to see in real play, and permitted at tables.

[MaxWilson]

Wildshape also doesn't allow you to specifically choose/pick your form and the DM could similarly assign you a form from among the beasts you have seen. Shapechange similarly doesn't specify that you choose/pick. In those cases, the specific ability of choice is implied just as it is in Changeshape.

True polymorph is explicit though that you get to choose which kind of creature.

[J.C.]

I agree. But that's a RAI argument, and the Deva exploit doesn't work once you start to argue about what the developers intend.



You keep making a RAI argument.



Honestly I never asked to be the "DM" of this thread. It was you who was asking for "rulings" from me. You could just as easily post something like "If your DM rules X, you could do Y, and make Z number of attacks in one turn" and everyone would say "neat" and we would all go about our day. But you're acting like you're making this a contest or something. Nobody is going to send you any prize money for winning the thread. I don't get what your deal is man. Participate or don't.



I have no interest in the "logical consequences" of said ruling. Said ruling only exists in a single context: a player arguing that the Deva shapeshange ability should be played by RAW to allow for an arbitrary number of stacked abilities instead of the clear RAI that would not. Arguing that RAW should be followed in precisely the manner that favors your tactic while falling back to the intent of the developers wherever it would hinder you isn't reasonable.

Nonetheless we need a fair and sensible ruling on Shapechange -Changeshape at this point in time as your ruling introduces logical consequences that break the game.

I have presented a fair and sensible ruling on the interaction. Simply have Changeshape abilities not persist once Shapechange goes away. You can adopt that fair and sensible ruling for this thread. And that is at least one of the popular rulings on the interaction in PvP where DMs are required to be fair, neutral, and sensible.

In my experience, its about 50/50 whether its ruled in PvP that the Changeshape persists after Shapechange goes away. The more comfortable the group is with high level play the more the group opts for persistent until dispelled interpretation of Changeshape since that is the plain read of the text and high level players and DMs are experienced with the power level of 9th level spells like Wish, True Polymorph, Prismatic Wall, Wish (Simulacrum), Wish (Magic Jar), Wish (Find Greater Steed), Wish (Contingency), Simulacrum (Wish), etc.

[WaroftheCrans]

Nonetheless we need a fair and sensible ruling on Shapechange -Changeshape at this point in time as your ruling introduces logical consequences that break the game.

I have presented a fair and sensible ruling on the interaction. Simply have Changeshape abilities not persist once Shapechange goes away. You can adopt that fair and sensible ruling for this thread. And that is at least one of the popular rulings on the interaction in PvP where DMs are required to be fair, neutral, and sensible.

I will second the part of this post that asks for a ruling that doesn't break the assumptions of the game. The ruling presented breaks down logic, and demands that all raw be excessively verbose just to function.

Considering shapechanges capricious nature, the ruling J. C. presents here is reasonable, but I want to state that one that terminates as soon as you stop being a diva would also fit.

Re: ground rules. I think that Damon Tor is reasonable as a DM, and arbiter, but ultimately the collective playground posting in this thread is the best neutral DM. As with every build/trick yet, your ideas will be analyzed, and the court of public opinion is as good as any in this case.

It's been 7 pages already, it's time to put up or shut up, as the expression goes.

[Valmark]

Should probably be pointed out that Damon_Tor already said that the ruling applies only to players that want to follow RAW by discarding the RAI- arguing that it breaks the assumptions of the game doesn't matter because he already said that it only applies to players that want to break them.

[J.C.]

Should probably be pointed out that Damon_Tor already said that the ruling applies only to players that want to follow RAW by discarding the RAI- arguing that it breaks the assumptions of the game doesn't matter because he already said that it only applies to players that want to break them.

And as such Damon_Tor is being unfair and unreasonable in his rulings.

As evidenced by my first post in this thread, I am looking for fair and sensible rulings before I present my solutions. Damon_Tor has expressed interest in not being the arbiter and not having to rule fairly and sensibly. He could nominate someone who is prepared to be a neutral arbiter and to rule fairly and sensibly.

[JNAProductions]

And as such Damon_Tor is being unfair and unreasonable in his rulings.

As evidenced by my first post in this thread, I am looking for fair and sensible rulings before I present my solutions. Damon_Tor has expressed interest in not being the arbiter and not having to rule fairly and sensibly. He could nominate someone who is prepared to be a neutral arbiter and to rule fairly and sensibly.

Why is "Use RAI or RAW, whichever is best for me," considered the benchmark for fair rulings?

[J.C.]

Why is "Use RAI or RAW, whichever is best for me," considered the benchmark for fair rulings?

You are definitely describing something that is not considered the benchmark for fair rulings. Who are you describing? Who rules this way?

For clarity, my view (and generally the view of the competitive scene) is that the SAC provides RAI which you use if available and the rulebooks provide RAW in the absence of RAI.

[Valmark]

You are definitely describing something that is not considered the benchmark for fair rulings. Who are you describing? Who rules this way?

For clarity, my view (and generally the view of the competitive scene) is that the SAC provides RAI which you use if available and the rulebooks provide RAW in the absence of RAI.

I mean, it's you who's saying that a DM who rules in favor of an overly strict RAW because the player is using an overly strict RAW argument is being unfair.

It definitely looks like you're considering what JNA said the benchmark, wether that's true or not is a whole other matter (doesn't seem like it is, but it's not coming across).

[J.C.]

I mean, it's you who's saying that a DM who rules in favor of an overly strict RAW because the player is using an overly strict RAW argument is being unfair.

It definitely looks like you're considering what JNA said the benchmark, wether that's true or not is a whole other matter (doesn't seem like it is, but it's not coming across).

Damon_Tor presented a ruling that was unreasonable and that breaks the game.

I never presented an overly strict RAW. I simply presented the RAW. If you think otherwise please clarify where I was overly strict and please clarify what exactly you are taking issue with.

If you want to know what I consider RAI you simply need to consult the SAC. Otherwise, the rulebook provides the way to rule based on the rules on the page (ie RAW). I adhere to that whether I am acting as a DM or Player. And that is generally the case for the high level players who come together to do PvP. Fairness, neutral arbitration, and reasonable rulings are simply key to the success of any PvP or Battle Royale.