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.


Messages - OutlawPhilosopher

Pages: [1] 2 3
1
Nota Bene: Acid Arrow is not an Evocation.

2
Min/Max 3.x / Re: [3.P] Teleporting madness!
« on: May 11, 2013, 05:58:51 PM »
Scroll/other item/fast progression casting class for the eleven unfilled levels? But fair enough, if that kind of stuff is considered cheese.

3
Min/Max 3.x / Re: [3.P] Teleporting madness!
« on: May 11, 2013, 02:57:56 AM »
Some of this might be cheese/TO, but some initial thoughts:

Metamorphic Transfer / Assume Supernatural Ability / Shapechange should get you some more, either from extra standards (choker, chronobird) or something like a Blink Dog with free action teleport.

If you have 13 levels of duskblade, you could arcane channel a dimension hop into your full attack gained from shadowpouncing, and attack yourself to get extra telepor... wait, does that work? Because that would be ridiculous. Also silly and outside the scope of this question.

4
Min/Max 3.x / Re: How to build a blaster caster?
« on: March 10, 2013, 06:14:01 PM »
There's a PrC in Eberron somewhere... escalation mage or something like that that gets some fairly blasty free metamagic, as I recall.

5
Min/Max 3.x / Re: Battle: Angel Summoner vs BMX Bandit
« on: February 22, 2013, 02:49:53 PM »
Also, linklord, an argument containing a fallacy does not necessitate a false conclusion. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

It doesn't necessitate a false conclusion, but it's still an invalid argument.  And if that's the only reason you have to believe something...

Technically false (though irrelevantly, in the context of current argument.) Consider the argument
1. "All x such that x=x are P"
2. "Fred is P"
C. "therefore, Fred is Fred."

This is valid, and, depending on whether Fred is P, sound. However, it is based on a fallacy - affirming the consequent (well, a dequantified version of). It gets to be valid only because (C) is a logical truth.

A sillier example would be
1. "If Fred is a Liar, then Fred is not Fred"
2. "Fred is not Fred"
C. "Therefore, Fred is a Liar"

This is valid because (2) is a contradiction, so there is no model in which (~C) but (1) and (2). It is also based on a fallacy - affirming the consequent again. Obviously this argument can never be sound.

6
Min/Max 3.x / Re: Battle: Angel Summoner vs BMX Bandit
« on: February 19, 2013, 12:41:44 AM »
So, I've been following this discussion with some amusement. I confess that I am now utterly lost:
Think back to your entire argument on you leave an Encounter by not being in one. It's built on the concept if you are not one, then you can only be the other. Deities & uniques are under no Compulsion from Gate, so then by the same logical everyone else it. YEah, you should know where that can go form there.

What is this supposed to say? I suspect that you are trying to get at something interesting, but I can't quite figure out what it is (I suspect there's a language barrier operating here?)

7
Min/Max 3.x / Re: Method for bypassing 1 contingent spell limit
« on: December 30, 2012, 01:33:49 PM »
I noticed that. I don't think it's at all clear though that the rules of the universe/game dispelling your spell is equivalent to you dispelling it.

8
Min/Max 3.x / Method for bypassing 1 contingent spell limit
« on: December 30, 2012, 03:18:28 AM »
So, there's something really weird in the text of contingency. Contingency says that
"You can use only one contingency spell at a time; if a second is cast, the first one (if still active) is dispelled."

Now, I'm not sure if what I'm about to propose works. The reason I'm not sure is that "useing" a spell is not a normal term in the game rules. However, in my view, the natural way to take this is that the second clause explains the first. The reason you can only use one contingency at a time is that whenever you cast a new one, the old one is dispelled.

Exhibit b) "Spell Rebirth." Lexicon of the Evolving Mind 4. This restores one effect that was "dispelled" in the previous round.

So, we cast a contingent fireball (for some reason.) Then we cast another contingent fireball. Once the second one finishes casting, the first is dispelled. We immediately use Spell Rebirth. The old contingency, which was, after all, "dispelled," is immediately "restored" and "resumed." It is not, however, "cast." This means that the dispelling clause does not kick in, and both the restored contingency and the second cast contingency are now in effect.

Getting more than two requires either a) multiple spell rebirths or b) taking literally the clause that says that if a second contingency is cast the first is dispelled. If this is all that is true, then casting a third contingency will not dispel anything. Even if it dispels only the previous one, one spell rebirth will allow us to continue the contingency chain.

(At epic levels, "Tenacious Magic (contingency)" would do this far more effectively)

What say (well, I mean, this is pretty clearly stupid and few DMs would allow it, but is it technically RAW? Or have I already stretched RAW in my attempt to figure out what the 1-contingency clause actually means in game terms?)

9
Min/Max 3.x / Re: Battle: Angel Summoner vs BMX Bandit
« on: December 28, 2012, 02:29:39 AM »
Derp. Yeah, you're all quite right. Initiative is a dex check, but not an opposed one. (There's no way for initiative to "succeed" so it's quite impossible for its success to be dependent on another character's roll.) My bad. I also made casual reference to some weapon properties from MIC, which is not, in fact, in core. I'm stupid at certain times of day.

I do think the psionics workaround for the lack of Celerity is pretty legitimate, though.

10
Min/Max 3.x / Re: Battle: Angel Summoner vs BMX Bandit
« on: December 27, 2012, 04:46:39 PM »
I suppose you could try to lower the level of Time Stop via stupid tricks (Sanctum Spell, metamagic reduction below 0). Alternatively, Craft Contingent Spell (hideously borked, but whatever) doesn't seem to have a level limit on the contingent effect. Also, you could have 20 of them.

Moment of prescience (possibly made contingent via tricks or CCS, but you can also just cast it in advance) could probably give you +25 to your initiative roll (I think initiative is technically an opposed ability check). Foresight can prevent you from being flatfooted. Eager Warning // Spellstrike Defending Quarterstaff w/ greater magic weapon is +7 (and various other bonuses.) Shapechange into a Gloom is +18 more. Shouldn't be too hard to get more than +50 on your init check.

Another suggestion is psionic contingency + anticipatory strike (or indeed synchronicity). You can easily hit the UPD check to use the dorjes (even with 1 rank, limited wish for divine insight is +15, plus a rank, plus 3 CHA (Eagle's Splendour, if you need it) is +19.) I actually think this might be the best method of all.



11
Planar Ally for Kelvezu?

12
Min/Max 3.x / Re: Battle: Angel Summoner vs BMX Bandit
« on: December 23, 2012, 12:53:53 AM »
Attached to the top of your staff is a ring gate. On the other side of the ring gate is a room. That room is filled entirely with the results of greater planar bindings (with a reliable control method) for planetars, all of whom have been polymorph any object-ed into fine-sized diamonds. Before being PAO-ed, they were ordered to use miracles to replicate contingency on themselves (with a sensible trigger.) Assuming you use 1/10th of an inch diameter diamonds, you can easily fit a few thousand into line of effect of the ring gate.

Combat begins. 2000 contingent spells trigger. The glowing ring atop your staff explodes in a maelstrom of magic as the fighter is simultaneously targeted with a thousand or so greater dispels and save or dies. Three hundred Gates open from which a legion of Solars swoop forth to protect you. Every cleric buff or buff that can be replicated with miracle springs into existence around you all at once.

Then you start casting.

I don't think this should be that difficult with unlimited preparations, somehow...

EDIT: Ring gates do not work across planar boundaries. Oh well. A room works just fine.


13
Oslecamo's Improved Monster Classes / Re: Skaven
« on: December 01, 2012, 03:38:14 AM »
Some thoughts on Grey Seer spells (take with a grain of salt)

Warp Lightning scales rather extremely. At, say, CL 16 with 20CHA (and 26+ seems more likely at this point) it is doing ~130 damage divided pretty much as you wish, which is quite a lot for a 2nd level spell. On the other hand, I guess it's still going to do absolutely nothing against even 5 electricity resistance. I'm not sure if this is the dynamic you're looking for, maybe it is, but it's definitely unusual. Also, the backfire just isn't that scary, doing at most 5xCHA at CL20 with a massively unlikely quintuple 1 roll.

Cracks Call is a giant line area SR(no) reflex save or die without the death or mind-affecting descriptors which also destroys objects and has a 15% chance of forcing rerolled saves. This is probably not more powerful than really broken effects, but is kind of out of line with, say, disintegrate or destruction.

Can the non-13 version of skitterleap target enemies? If so, it's probably borked, being SR(no) and no save.

Vermintide is going to cause distraction DC of 10+1/2CL+CHA vs nauseated, which is, again, probably not broken but quite unusual.

That's all for now.

14
Min/Max 3.x / Re: True Strike & Other Combat Divs
« on: November 09, 2012, 01:19:03 PM »
There's... unluck, I think it's called?

15
Min/Max 3.x / Re: Leadership Followers Sans Cohort
« on: September 11, 2012, 07:34:09 PM »
I think by "metafaculty" he meant "metaconcert," since that actually does what we want.

16
Gaming Advice / Re: Looking High and Low.
« on: September 04, 2012, 07:13:33 PM »
Technically speaking, I suppose the Chosen of Mystra and Magister templates from Forgotten Realms would let you pick polymorph as your 4th level SLA. 

 :tongue

17
D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / Re: Arrowsplit and volley archers
« on: September 04, 2012, 01:49:30 PM »
In theory you ought to be able to empower and maximize it, too, right? 7 arrows per shot seems okay.

18
D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / Re: Bypassing immunity to Mind-Affecting
« on: September 03, 2012, 05:32:22 PM »
Trait Removal may work on some things (if they are legal targets and have ex- or su- sources of the immunity). Manipulate Form (yes, that one) could remove the immunity from anything that happened to be a scaled one native to Toril.

19
D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / Re: The Importance of Trained-Only Skills
« on: September 03, 2012, 05:20:26 PM »
Does the simplicity of eliminating the tag really make that option more attractive than just shuffling to which skills the tag applies? I don't see that it does.

Because had I not said that there are skills like UMD, people would have seen fit to argue about those skills that would require formal training.

Because had I not said that it would be easier to remove the tag all-together, then it would just start a list of which skills are or are not deserving of that tag, that would then turn to argumentation about which skills do or do not belong on said list.

Because by saying it both ways myself, I get to have my cake and eat it too, while you all go and argue about cows for five more pages.

I'm sorry. What do these explain, exactly? I take it from the use of "because" that they are being offered as reasons for something. What is that something? I don't understand why you are quoting me, or what you are saying in response. It is very strange.

20
D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / Re: The Importance of Trained-Only Skills
« on: September 02, 2012, 09:33:20 PM »
The fact that some skills, such as UMD, by your own admission should be trained only, argues in favor of the tag. Surely, if you think knowledges ought to be usable untrained, we could simply make knowledges usable untrained, while, I don't know, Autohypnosis and Iaijutsu Focus remained trained-only, as seems to be intuitively necessary. Does the simplicity of eliminating the tag really make that option more attractive than just shuffling to which skills the tag applies? I don't see that it does.

Pages: [1] 2 3