Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Found something new in the good-old DMG:Excellent find. I'll add it to my handbook and add you to the acknowledgements section.Quote from: DMG pg 166, Wilderness of the Beastlands, Karasuthra Hunters GlenAmong the most famous game in the place are the white stags. These elusive creatures (treat as celestial chargers; see page 250 of the Monster Manual) live for the thrill of the chase and consider the hunt part of their life cycle. Even the most devoted defender of good can hunt a white stag, for the stag knows the consequences and is willing to be prey. But white stags don’t give themselves up. They take great glee in using their wiles and unparalleled knowledge of the forest to confound hunters from other planes. No creatures native to the Beastlands will attack a white stag. Instead, they turn on the hunters with unbridled ferocity.
The antlers of a white stag stretch wide enough that it’s possible to fashion a composite longbow out of them using the Craft (bow-making) skill (making checks against DC 30). Such a bow is considered of masterwork quality, and magical enhancements placed on the bow cost 10% less because the antlers have an affinity for magic.
A 10% discount on bow enhancements? I'll take it!
Spellcasting Services: Mantle Of The Icy SoulFB & Mantle Of The Fiery SpiritSSThat doesn't work anymore. Mantle of the Icy Soul was updated in the Spell Compendium so as to not work if you have the fire subtype (and to make the spell's effects only last 1 hour/level).
Immunity to fire/cold.
I'd like to point out another way to get (nearly) unlimited crafting xp by using planar binding. The Kocrachon from Book of Vile Darkness has Liquid Pain as an SLA at will. The feat (which would be a perfect fit for the missing feat of the monster, if not, there's always PsyRef) Supernatural Transformation reduces the casting time of an SLA to a standard action (following standard Supernatural Ability rules). The Orthon from Fiendish Codex II is in constant pain and a perfect subject for the ability. If you can make the fairly reasonable charisma checks, this is a substantially lower cost method of generating liquid pain than the current one. It isn't quite as cheap as the Level Drain method but it does allow you to craft in the middle of a level. It also is more likely to be allowed than spell traps of non-offensive spells (that way lies tippyverse). Total cost before reduction assuming you use scrolls is 2,225 GP and requires you to be level 5, assuming you use the spells off the Demonologist's list. It also uses lesser devil labor, which is generally considered your best bet when dealing with evil outsiders. Something to consider at least.While using Supernatural Transformation the Kocrachon's SLA is a good idea, using the Orthon will not really help you all that much. It is not hard to put someone in pain and no matter how you do so the subject can only produce as much liquid pain as it has points of constitution.
Anyone have any improvements or ideas?
EDIT: Cost is 2,630 GP before crafting, assuming you have to hire a psion to PsyRef the Kocrachon for 405 GP.
^^I'm aware that it mainly throttles versatility instead of raw power, however sheer versatility is one of the major problem with casters anyways. I was unsure of how to deal with raw power without removing much of the flavor. I like your suggestions, I think they go well with mine.
Nope, single form summon only throttles it's versatility, but not it's power. It still turns you into a powerful fighter by dint of replacing all the stats involved, and when you turn the FIGHTER into a dragon...he doesn't really gain much either.
What polymorph needs to do:
-Grant benefits from a constrained list. Some monster abilities are fine to have, others are never meant for PC hands.
-Benefits derive from your base capabilities. If you are a wimpy human, you become a wimpy dragon(which granted, isn't all that wimpy), if you're a beefy human you become a beefy dragon.
-Cost/benefit, pay for abilities as you get them. Natural weapons are one thing, special abilities are another. If a monster have a dozen special abilities, you need to allocate the spell resources to each ability, rather than getting all of them with the form.
I would argue that instead of nerfing the Druid with the Shapeshift variant, the same thing that should be done with the Wizard should be done to it, split it into different classes. The classes would likely be an elemental focused caster, a shapeshifter (in the vain of Master of Many Forms), and an animal companion focused class (which would subsume much of the Ranger class including its name and minus the spellcasting).
- Don't let the druid be good at everything. As Veekie mentioned, the PHB2 Shapeshift variant cuts it down quite a bit. Granted, I think it could have been implemented better, but it is a quick and dirty fix.
- Cut certain spells or mechanics from the game entirely. Polymorph is too hard to get working in its current version. It needs to be cut or replaced. Planar Binding and Gate allow casters to gain access to things way above what they normally could. The trope of demon-binding is a really good one from a thematic perspective, but it needs to be reigned in from a mechanical perspective.
Check out the post above yoursThe post above mine had pretty much nothing to do with the conversation I was having. We were discussion how many corpses could be added together. The post above mine was discussing type changing.
make a Sharn Chronotyryn Chocker Phane
No it doesn't work by the semantics. The restriction is based off corpses, not bodies and the spell explicitly defines composite bodies as collections of corpses.It does have an explicit limit: "Bone craft can only be used to combine a number of corpses equal to the caster’s Intelligence modifier into one composite body". So without infinite stats, you can't make Un-Pun.Mercantile Background saves you like 80k
edit:
make your own customized undead!(click to show/hide)
Wow... That's so broken it's not even funny. The spell explicitly states that there is NO LIMIT. You can continue the madness forever. Just... Just no. The way this spell is worded, you can create Undead-Pun, you just need an arbitrarily large number of actions and a sure-fire way of getting an arbitrarily large caster level for at least one round, in which you cast animate dead.
Make other composite bodies, a composite body is still a body that can be added to another composite body. It's semantics, but if we're doing TO, it's par for course.
It does have an explicit limit: "Bone craft can only be used to combine a number of corpses equal to the caster’s Intelligence modifier into one composite body". So without infinite stats, you can't make Un-Pun.Mercantile Background saves you like 80k
edit:
make your own customized undead!(click to show/hide)
Wow... That's so broken it's not even funny. The spell explicitly states that there is NO LIMIT. You can continue the madness forever. Just... Just no. The way this spell is worded, you can create Undead-Pun, you just need an arbitrarily large number of actions and a sure-fire way of getting an arbitrarily large caster level for at least one round, in which you cast animate dead.
Seriously, why?Because they want to create cool options for DMs but they don't want players to be able to take them (possibly for balance reasons, not that it really helps to actually do that but oh well).
The root of 'manipulate' is manus or hand. Manipulate means handle. You have to have the components in hand, or be able to retrieve them, as from a spell pouch.*facepalm* Just because a word's root means something, doesn't mean that the word most follow that meaning. Here's a list of definitions for manipulate (note "handle or control")
ma·nip·u·late
verb /məˈnipyəˌlāt/
manipulated, past participle; manipulated, past tense; manipulates, 3rd person singular present; manipulating, present participle
Handle or control (a tool, mechanism, etc.), typically in a skillful manner
- he manipulated the dials of the set
Alter, edit, or move (text or data) on a computer
Examine or treat (a part of the body) by feeling or moving it with the hand
- a system of healing based on manipulating the ligaments of the spine
Control or influence (a person or situation) cleverly, unfairly, or unscrupulously
- the masses were deceived and manipulated by a tiny group
Alter (data) or present (statistics) so as to mislead
I agreed with you until I looked further into it. The problem is parts of the rules agree with you and parts don't. The Craft Construct feat calls them items (which is likely just a copy paste error but it is how it is written) and the glossary entry refers to constructs as "animated object(s) or artificially constructed creatures(s)" (the animated objects bit is likely only referring to the creatures made by the spell, as hinted at by the srd, but does not actually specify and given the wording of Craft Construct, it is fairly ambiguous). Most everywhere else simply refers to them as creatures so as far as I can tell we are left with constructs being both items and creatures at the same time.The closest thing is Retain Essence, but I don't believe you can break down constructs.You can only break down magical items and as far as I can tell it is unclear if constructs are magical items or simply like magical items in many ways.
At the OP: You don't gain anything from breaking down anything that wasn't made by sacrificing XP. And you only get exactly as much Crafting XP as was spent, even if the item normally requires more. Also, note Warforged have no know XP cost.
Constructs aren't items or objects at all. They just share certain immunities, and certain effects that affect one are specifically able to affect the other as well.
The closest thing is Retain Essence, but I don't believe you can break down constructs.You can only break down magical items and as far as I can tell it is unclear if constructs are magical items or simply like magical items in many ways.
Dug up the rest of the specific cost reducers:Thanks. Fixed the fey cherry wood mistake, added this to the to-be-further-integrated section of the handbook, and added your name to the credits list.
Templates (DMGII): explicitly do not reduce component costs.
Portal Master: 50% "normal cost" but does not stack with magical artisan.
The Caster Shield is only for raw materials and is another instance where that term is differentiated from material components.
Blood Artisan: 75% "normal cost" for Magic Arms and Armor as well as Wondrous Items, but all items you create have a randomly determined curse.
Fey Cherry wood's phrasing was somewhat ambiguous:Quote from: Dragon Magazine 357... items made from fey cherry wood cost 10% less gp and XP to enhance magically.(Also Bastian, you have the Dragon Mag number as 257 in your guide.)
Unbound Scroll has almost identical phrasing, followed by mentioning that this discount stacks with that of Extraordinary Artisan which does not discount material component costs.
Tangentially related would be that different item types require different amounts of material components for crafting. Wands and Staves of course require 50 times the amount it would cost to cast the pertinent spell once. Weapons, Rods, and Wondrous Items do not require material components at all for their crafting processes. Potions will only require enough for one casting. Armor and scrolls have me a bit hung up though: either they only need enough of the appropriate component for one casting, or they need enough components to cast the spell each day of crafting and I'm not sure which it is.
EDIT: Oh, and I get that it's there for thoroughness, but is it even possible to get Divine Rank as a PC? It has a similar "the cost" wording to fey cherry wood and unbound scroll but I somehow don't think it much matters...
Except when discussing things that are blatantly abusing RAW, if you resort to RAI to make it work instead of admitting you don't know how to do so, you look extremely immature.And my point is that if your DM allows it in the first place you're going to get the feats as soon as you meet the minimum CL. Yes, he could rule that "near" means at CL 1000. But then he's basically just saying, "No, that's stupid and abusive and you can't have it."So what you saying is you can't really think of an argument so Theoretical DM. Stop trying to bring RAI into an argument about RAW.
If your DM is allowing this reading to begin with, the reading that's going to get used is "at".
More that I don't think there needs to be an argument because the +1000 CL interpretation doesn't make sense by any definition of "near" used in this context.
This is the sort of thing a DM is going to throw out the window or, in an intentionally high-power game, accept at face value.
I'm not making a RAW argument, and never stated that I was. I'm making a RAI argument in absence of a precise RAW definition of the phrase "or near".
So what you saying is you can't really think of an argument so Theoretical DM. Stop trying to bring RAI into an argument about RAW.But how else do you determine when you get all the rest of the item creation feats? Your definition of 'near' is different than mine which is different from their list in the ability.My point was you can't if you choose a RAW reading. "The only logical way" is not to bring RAI into a discussion that is trying to make a RAW trick work.
notice how ~1/2 the feats listed are at a different CL than the min?
the only logical way is to just use the listed CL, otherwise everyone would want something different.
also, the reason I think we need to exclude the ones w/o CL prereqs is because otherwise it would depend on too many factors to determine the level it is granted.
And my point is that if your DM allows it in the first place you're going to get the feats as soon as you meet the minimum CL. Yes, he could rule that "near" means at CL 1000. But then he's basically just saying, "No, that's stupid and abusive and you can't have it."
If your DM is allowing this reading to begin with, the reading that's going to get used is "at".
I need to do more thinking (and looking up the specifics of each word) to try to determine if you are indeed right but for now I'll concede that you are likely right.It isn't a matter of if you meet one of the requirements you get it, since they aren't worded as requirements. The sentence is a descriptive sentence saying when you get the feats and as a result of the "or" in this context it is indicating which time you get each feat at is undefined.
I used to get paid vast sums of money to find loop holes in contracts. Trust me. It's a requirement for qualification.
You get X when you meet requirement A or B.
You get any given item creation feat when you are:
(A) "at" the level that any spellcaster would qualify for it,
OR
(B) "near" the level that any spellcaster would qualify for it.
We cannot define B. We can only define A. Therefore, you get it whenever you qualify for A. Nobody will ever get an item creation feat from qualification B.
Just because we cannot define B is besides the point. From a RAW point of view, we do not care if one can actually ever meet said requirements, just that the requirements exist. RAW has nothing to do with common sense. Everyone is getting bogged down in trying to figure out what "near" means when "near" is only one of two qualifications for defining when we get any given item creation feat.
A real world example:
When I used to work for fleet credit card services, we don't like charging off credit cards. It looked bad to our stock holders. Well, there was a program where the federal government allowed accounts less then 6 months past due to be hand-waived and brought "current" if they met 3 criteria. On the books, it was like printing money. But, the process was very difficult. The three criteria were difficult to reach.
However, I did something nobody else did. I actually read the original law. On one page, there was a typo. An "OR" instead of an "AND". The typo was on the original law passed by congress. That meant we only had to meet ONE criteria. I ran it by the lawyers and they were thrilled. Nobody had ever noticed the typo before. (It's a gift I have. Flaws just jump out at me, even if it's in a thousand page document.)
In one month I managed to create 743,000 dollars out of thin air. True, the money only existed for 30 to 65 days, but it didn't matter. I still got a bonus check of over six grand for my imaginary money. We got to tell the stock holders that we collected the money. Then I got my own department where all we did was create a rolling amount of imaginary money on the books. At any given time we created somewhere between 2 to 5 million dollars out of smoke and mirrors. All. Perfectly. Legal.
Then they over inflated the stock price and sold the company, firing everyone, including me. Over 6,000 people lost their jobs because of the word "or". Well, that and investing in Argentina right before the bank collapse. And Enron. And K-mart before the bankruptcy restructuring... Fleet Bank had some stupid people running it.
But how else do you determine when you get all the rest of the item creation feats? Your definition of 'near' is different than mine which is different from their list in the ability.My point was you can't if you choose a RAW reading. "The only logical way" is not to bring RAI into a discussion that is trying to make a RAW trick work.
notice how ~1/2 the feats listed are at a different CL than the min?
the only logical way is to just use the listed CL, otherwise everyone would want something different.
also, the reason I think we need to exclude the ones w/o CL prereqs is because otherwise it would depend on too many factors to determine the level it is granted.
It isn't a matter of if you meet one of the requirements you get it, since they aren't worded as requirements. The sentence is a descriptive sentence saying when you get the feats and as a result of the "or" in this context it is indicating which time you get each feat at is undefined.Quote from: Artificer: bonus featsAn artificer gains every item creation feat as a bonus feat at or near the level at which it becomes available to spellcasters.
He gets Scribe Scroll as a bonus feat at 1st level, Brew Potion at 2nd level, Craft Wondrous Item at 3rd level, Craft Magic Arms and Armor at 5th level, Craft Wand at 7th level, Craft Rod at 9th level, Craft Staff at 12th level, and Forge Ring at 14th level.
So, we have two parts here. The first part and the second. Now, if we look at this section as a whole. RAI clearly indicates that the intent of the first part is fluff text. The meat of this is that you get scribe scroll, brew potion, blah blah blah. The intent was never to give you every creation feat ever, or they would have listed them all.
But by RAW, what we have here is an OR. At OR near. Not, at AND near. So, from a RAW point of view, the way it reads is, you get every item creation feat when you meet either of the conditions. In this case, since we cannot define "near" we can only meet the criteria of "at" and therefore, as it is read, you get every item creation feat at the level that it becomes available for other spellcasters.
The problem I see with that is the "near" clause. While they may actually get the feat by the literal reading, we don't know what level they actually get them. For all we know they could get all the feats at level 1000 because that is near to the level that spellcasters get them when looked at from a perspective broad enough perspective.
the artificer gets too many bonus feats, as said in the following...Quote from: Bonus FeatsAn artificer gains every item creation feat at or near the level at which it becomes available for spellcasters.*snip*
this means you get many more feats than listed. They only name the PHB ones in the ability.
ex- Attune Gem, Craft Psionic Arms and Armor, etc.
the heckling using Bluff in Races of Stone is confusing, it wants your foe to make a Perform check vs. your Bluff check, but then takes a penalty based on how much your Bluff beats their Concentration check?!?
(I don't have the errata available on my phone to see if this is fixed)
Well, judging by the (I guess now "example") feats on the table, at-the-level. you meat the CL requirements. Every feat is gained at the level you meet its minimum CL (thanks to Wand being errata'd), and if your DM doesn't throw a book at you for pointing this out, that's the most likely level you'd pick them up.
Now, here's a question: do you bypass other requirements for the feat? For example, Craft Fiendish Graft requires you to be a fiend.
Partial ninjaTrying to pretend near only applies to certain things, means something specific, or that things you claim as examples from the table actually are, doesn't actually change what it means by RAW (specifically the complete ambiguity). At this point both of you seem to be trying to argue a RAI meaning for the near clause so that rest of your RAW trick actually works.
it doesn't say you bypass the prerequisites besides the inability to cast arcane or divine spells, so you wouldn't.
the "near" would apply to the listed feats that aren't at the CL required, like Brew Potion (1 level early).
also, you only get feats that have a CL prereq (you don't get epic item creation feats, because they don't have a CL)
but do you keep getting the feats at that level if you're not taking artificer levels?
The problem I see with that is the "near" clause. While they may actually get the feat by the literal reading, we don't know what level they actually get them. For all we know they could get all the feats at level 1000 because that is near to the level that spellcasters get them when looked at from a perspective broad enough perspective.
the artificer gets too many bonus feats, as said in the following...Quote from: Bonus FeatsAn artificer gains every item creation feat at or near the level at which it becomes available for spellcasters.*snip*
this means you get many more feats than listed. They only name the PHB ones in the ability.
ex- Attune Gem, Craft Psionic Arms and Armor, etc.
the heckling using Bluff in Races of Stone is confusing, it wants your foe to make a Perform check vs. your Bluff check, but then takes a penalty based on how much your Bluff beats their Concentration check?!?
(I don't have the errata available on my phone to see if this is fixed)
