Fun Finds v6.0

[Kethrian]

Here's a problem with "RAW".  And the reason why can be found here, specifically:

3. RAW is a myth.
This is one of the dirty little secrets of the board. The Most Holy RAW is invoked continuously by those who want to give their arguments the veneer of officiality. The problem is, RAW is generally applied not as "The Rules as Written," but rather as "The Rules As I Interpret Them And You Can't Prove I'm Wrong, Nyeah." The RAITAYCPIWN. Not quite as catchy an acronym, granted, but that's what it boils down to. This game cannot be played without interpretation and the judicious application of common sense. Try to play the game strictly and exclusively by the rules as written, and you have an unplayable game. Using "RAW" as a defense is similarly meaningless--particularly when your defense rests on interpretation. If you're going to claim that your build is RAW, you'd better be able to make sure that the rules specifically uphold your claim...not simply that they're sort of vague and COULD be interpreted in such a way as to not FORBID your claim.
This becomes particularly important when your claim is especially controversial. Yes, builds should adhere to the rules as written. Yes, any exceptions to that should be noted. But the RAW as some sort of entity unto itself, capable of rendering a build immune to criticism, is not a useful construction, and causes more problems than it solves.

[brujon]

There's some instances where things can be interpreted in more than one way by "RAW" and in some instances they're not, additionally, in some instances where there are more than one interpretation of "RAW", some arguments are stronger than others. To me, the problem arises only once someone can't bear to withstand the fact that they might, in fact, be wrongly reading the "RAW", and then they try to attack other people in order to win the argument.

RAW is a tool. Sometimes the rules are not clear cut, and when there's no indication of which direction the game wants to take, RAI is not an option, and so RAW it is. It won't always point to the one and true be-all-end-all interpretation - people will argue GRAMMAR in order to get another RAW interpretation, for fuck's sake - but, when it's all we've got, then it's all we've got.

It's not a big problem for an experienced GM as he holds command in the table, and is the one that accepts, or doesn't, any given interpretation, but in a forum, and in the community, and even when arguing IRL with friends, one can't let the fact that they have more rules mastery than others go in over his head. Even when you're right, it doesn't warrant going and attacking someone, making them feel bad, or making them look like an idiot - except when they provoke you first, then it's fair game (just like if someone punches you in the face you have every right to throw one right back).

That's my 2cp. RAW gave us Pun Pun, and even though some disagree on the RAW reading of the Sarrhuk's ability, and dispute the fact that Pun Pun is even possible, Pun Pun is fun - and a staple of TO. The same is true for many of the other classics of CO/TO, and if you disagree with one interpretation, hey, fine, explain why you don't, and if everyone else disagrees with you and the conversation isn't going anywhere, fine, no one changed your mind, you didn't change anyone else's mind, but in the end, who lost anything? Definitely no one.

It's absolutely inconsequential to life as a whole, and it won't change a damn thing - no need to get worked up over it, or try to argue it into oblivion even when obviously it won't accomplish a damn thing.

[Aliek]

For some extra creamy gouda, in Eberron Campaign Setting, P.102, the rules for celestial channeling are outlined. A willing host who channels a willing celestial can, amongst others, cast the spells the celestial knows. So ice assassin of a solar, instant cleric 9s!

[Chemus]

...It is indeed silly-RAW, but it's fun to contemplate as a way to get a few more invocations on teh brokenzzz warlock/DfA chassis...

I was mostly making a joke, highlighting that a more critical eye is needed. It does read that you 'get an invocation no more than two levels lower than your highest'. That's misleadingly phrased and without the example, which I called out as demonstrating RAI, it would be being shouted about to this day.

RAW is the starting point; "what do the rules say?" RAI/RAU(sable) gets into the game after the foundation is in place. T.O. uses RAW to hell-and-gone.

I snarked at SorO about citations because he decided to get personal, rather than argue a point. Again.

[Unbeliever]

That's my 2cp. RAW gave us Pun Pun, and even though some disagree on the RAW reading of the Sarrhuk's ability, and dispute the fact that Pun Pun is even possible, Pun Pun is fun - and a staple of TO. The same is true for many of the other classics of CO/TO, and if you disagree with one interpretation, hey, fine, explain why you don't, and if everyone else disagrees with you and the conversation isn't going anywhere, fine, no one changed your mind, you didn't change anyone else's mind, but in the end, who lost anything? Definitely no one.

Just out of curiosity, what RAW disallows Pun-Pun?  I'm sure there's some dodginess with the earliest entry versions of the TO build, but I was pretty sure the crazy Sarrhuk ability was just well, crazy.

[Keldar]

Yeah, Manipulate Form was just written terribly.  Awfully.  Abysmally.  Poorly.  Stupidly. 
Because the writer presumed players couldn't get monster abilities.  When they were basing it around an older edition spell(s) that was balanced around the fact that is was intended for players to get their munchkiny little hands on it.  So it had actual limits beyond "whatever, man."   

It was so badly written they had to throw out the whole edition to solve the problem.   

[brujon]

That's my 2cp. RAW gave us Pun Pun, and even though some disagree on the RAW reading of the Sarrhuk's ability, and dispute the fact that Pun Pun is even possible, Pun Pun is fun - and a staple of TO. The same is true for many of the other classics of CO/TO, and if you disagree with one interpretation, hey, fine, explain why you don't, and if everyone else disagrees with you and the conversation isn't going anywhere, fine, no one changed your mind, you didn't change anyone else's mind, but in the end, who lost anything? Definitely no one.

Just out of curiosity, what RAW disallows Pun-Pun?  I'm sure there's some dodginess with the earliest entry versions of the TO build, but I was pretty sure the crazy Sarrhuk ability was just well, crazy.

I don't remember specifically what it was, it's been several years since i've read the original thread by Khan, and i might be wrong and the problem wasn't with the Sarrukhs ability, but rather another aspect of some of the early versions of the build and the RAW interpretations that made ascension possible. I remember some arguments about whether only Sarrukhs could use the abilities, because the wording specifically says "The Sarrukh can...", so Pun Pun & his familiar would have to at least be polymorphed as a Sarrukh to use manipulate form. Like i said, memory is quite dodgy, anyway...

The point is, most of the community agreed that, by RAW the build was possible, but there were still a LOT of nitpicking going on, even though almost everyone agreed that the thought exercise is still a LOT of fun.

[Ice9]

IIRC, one of the main points of ambiguity is the Manipulate Form itself.

It may also choose to make a much more significant alteration, such as converting limbs into tentacles, changing the overall body shape (snake to humanoid, for example), or adding or removing an appendage. Any ability score may be decreased to a minimum of 1 or increased to a maximum equal to the sarrukh's corresponding score. A sarrukh may also grant the target an extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like ability or remove one from it.

So it mentions some fairly minor stuff like tentacles, and then says "extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like ability" with no qualifications. 

There are three readings of that:
1) It doesn't say what abilities it can grant, so that's up to the GM (or that it's an incomplete part of the ability which does nothing).
2) You can get any existing ability.
3) You can get any ability that could exist.

The difference between #2 and #3 is just between "becomes arbitrarily powerful" and "becomes more powerful than other forms of arbitrary power" - you can still smash anything normal without effort. 

If you went with #1, then Pun-Pun would still have NI stats, but not much else.

[Unbeliever]

Honestly, reading (1) above strikes me as pretty tortured.  Setting aside the obvious Rule 0 stuff, which I'll get back to in a minute, the power reads awfully clear:  you may grant the target one of these types of abilities.  Those are large, but defined sets of things in D&D, and things that, ideally, fit into distinct niches (i.e., a supernatural ability has distinct rules and styles from extraordinary ones). 

That's a silly ability, befitting for a plot device monster.  And, the abilities may be absurd, cheaty, etc.  But, that's a Rule 0 type of judgment.  And, that would apply regardless of whether the power was crystal clear, written in the least ambiguous language conceivable to mankind. 

[SorO_Lost]

There are three readings of that:
1) It doesn't say what abilities it can grant, so that's up to the GM (or that it's an incomplete part of the ability which does nothing).
2) You can get any existing ability.
3) You can get any ability that could exist.

Going to expand on Ice9 here.

1. The idea that something like Manipulate Form doesn't say what it does (which you can plainly see it does) is based on reading the introductory text and ignoring everything quantified afterwards. If you need to ignore any part of the rules structure then you're already moving into talking about houserules and homebrew and some people cannot accept that. To be honest, houserules and homebrew are not a bad thing and sometimes it's needed to make things work on the tabletop so no one should really  feel insulted that if it is.
2. This is the default and 'correct' option. All through here and MMX boards we try to adapt to any DM rulings so if you have a special case, such as a DM wanting to rule in favor of 1 or 3 or even that you want to know what'd happen if you or your DM were to do such, then mention it and we'd be happy to help. And sometimes, being a little nice and asking, before asserting, can make a huge difference in how people respond.
3. This is often what people call "RAW". Let's say you wanted Manipulate Form to grant Summon Ice Cream, a magical effect that you believe should be a Supernatural Ability and put forth the premise it does this on the forum. There is no such thing as that ability and so you have no rules supporting your arguement(s) even through you think the ability should work like that, after it says such right? Actually it don't, quoting nothing and asserting it's fact is a logical fallacy. And since it is impossible to win the debate that's been set up some consider this synonymous with trolling since all it does is create and perpetuate arguments.


When in doubt, recall the DMG on teaching new players.

As long as you know the rules, the players need be concerned only with their characters and how they react to what happens to them in the game. Have players tell you what they want their characters to do, and translate that into game terms for them. Teach them how the rules work when they need to learn them, on a caseby- case basis. For example, if the player of a wizard wants to cast a spell or the player of a fighter wants to attack, the player tells you what the character is attempting. Then you tell the player which modifier or modifiers to add to the roll of a d20, and what happens as a result. After a few times, the player will know what to do without asking.

All ideas and concepts must be put into game terms and therefor you must have an existing game term to put them in. Not only to avoid logical fallacies and have citations, but because that is really what the Rules as Written demand to happen.

Now D&D is a very complex game, it's sometimes impossible to remember what applies to something and what doesn't. Often you have to cross index stuff, the source rules to the idea, all inherited rulings which may be in other books, Rule Compendium based alterations to those rules, applicable errata, FAQ entries, and who knows what else. Instead of pretending you've checked them all, or read someone's post that tells you the book and page number before you complained you need a citation, just admit to your self that you didn't and get into the idea that out of everyone on here someone may be able to reference something in the pile that you missed and you'll take your first step into using a community to support you. And I will look forward to your participation helping others who come looking for help as well.

[Snowbluff]

Here's a problem with "RAW".  And the reason why can be found here, specifically:

3. RAW is a myth.
This is one of the dirty little secrets of the board. The Most Holy RAW is invoked continuously by those who want to give their arguments the veneer of officiality. The problem is, RAW is generally applied not as "The Rules as Written," but rather as "The Rules As I Interpret Them And You Can't Prove I'm Wrong, Nyeah." The RAITAYCPIWN. Not quite as catchy an acronym, granted, but that's what it boils down to. This game cannot be played without interpretation and the judicious application of common sense. Try to play the game strictly and exclusively by the rules as written, and you have an unplayable game. Using "RAW" as a defense is similarly meaningless--particularly when your defense rests on interpretation. If you're going to claim that your build is RAW, you'd better be able to make sure that the rules specifically uphold your claim...not simply that they're sort of vague and COULD be interpreted in such a way as to not FORBID your claim.
This becomes particularly important when your claim is especially controversial. Yes, builds should adhere to the rules as written. Yes, any exceptions to that should be noted. But the RAW as some sort of entity unto itself, capable of rendering a build immune to criticism, is not a useful construction, and causes more problems than it solves.

The veracity of that statement is what's a myth. 

[awaken_D_M_golem]

a few other things ...

2b) there was a  Sarrukh page on the wotc web site that had a depowered version of what the other one had

3b) the crew figured how to add any ability and hypothetical abilities, without needing the Sarrukh ability alone or exclusively ; and not without dispute 
3c) LoP's Omni getting the Infinite Knowledge check, got a batch of fancy(-ish) math guys to go:  oh that's a real infinite instead of fiddling around.

But yeah RAW starts looking rather shaky up at the toppest T.O. top end.

[Ice9]

For anything except reading #3, you don't need the Sarrukh specifically - Fusion + Astral Seed "form laundering" is a way to get existing abilities, for example.  Sarrukh just makes the process significantly faster.

Not sure what other way there is to get hypothetical abilities that don't exist in print though.  Extremely liberal reading of Ice Assassin?

[awaken_D_M_golem]

Epic seed: Transform , was one way.
The epic book gave a specific example of making a new creature with a new ability.

iirc there's a seed maybe called Mythal that could do it (but I never had access so idk the details).

The Breaking The Core thread used "Ghost Clown Cars" to cycle through the MM
(I could never figure out what/how exactly that one worked).

[Nifft]

Chameleon (Eberron) plus Priest of the Waste feat (Sandstorm p.51)

The build: Rogue 4 / Cloistered Cleric 1 (must have Fire, Summer, Sun, Travel, or Water domain) / Chameleon ++

The benefit: you can spontaneously convert any of your prepared non-Domain spell slots into one of the Priest of the Waste spells. That means: all of your Arcane Focus and Divine Focus slots are more flexible. It's not game-breaking, but stuff like protection from energy can be useful, and it's a nice synergy with the adaptability of the Chameleon.

[Snowbluff]

Epic seed: Transform , was one way.
The epic book gave a specific example of making a new creature with a new ability.

iirc there's a seed maybe called Mythal that could do it (but I never had access so idk the details).

Yeah, there's this. Of course, by then you have to have made that creature with the new, made up ability in the first place. That means you have epic level spells anyway, so making up new abilities isn't really a big deal by that point.

[deadkitten]

Ascetic Psion
 
Prerequisite(s): Improved Unarmed Strike, Narrow Mind, Wis 13+, Manifester level 1+
 
Benefit: You can become psionically focused as a standard action that doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity. If you have levels in psion and monk, those levels stack for the purpose of determining your AC bonus. For example, a kalashtar 4th-level psion/1st-level monk would have a +1 bonus to AC as if he were a 5th-level monk. If you would be allowed to add your Wisdom bonus to AC (such as for an unarmored/unencumbered monk), you can instead add your Intelligence bonus to your AC. In addition, you can multiclass freely between the psion and monk classes.

ASCETIC MAGE
You practice an unusual martial art that mixes self-taught spellcasting and melee attacks to great effect.
Prerequisites: Improved Unarmed Strike, ability to spontaneously cast 2nd-level arcane spells.
Benefit: As a swift action that doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity, you can sacrifice one of your daily allotment of spells to add a bonus to your unarmed strike attack rolls and damage rolls for 1 round. The bonus is equal to the level of the spell sacrificed. The spell is lost as if you had cast it.If you have levels in sorcerer and monk, those levels stack for the purpose of determining your AC bonus. For example, a human 4th-level sorcerer/1st-level monk would have a +1 bonus to AC as if she were a 5th-level monk. If you would normally be allowed to add your Wisdom bonus to AC (such as for a unarmored, unencumbered monk), you instead add your Charisma bonus (if any) to your AC. In addition, you can multiclass freely between the sorcerer and monk classes. You must still remain lawful in order to continue advancing as a monk. You still face the normal XP penalties for having multiple classes more than one level apart.

So funny thing I just noticed is that these feats would work on the Swordsage and its Wisdom to AC.

Now I feel like an idiot when I told my DM that he was being cheesy when he used these feats with characters who wore monks belts.
After rereading it, these feats just don't care where the source of the AC bonus comes from as long as it uses Wisdom.

(P:S: Just as a little fun fact about my playstyle, I do not approve of the line of thinking that lets you use magic items to qualify for stuff, but that's just me.)

[snakeman830]

However, you can't  have both feats to add your Int and Charisma to AC.  You would have to choose one or the other.

[Wingboner]

With Mulhorandi Divine Minion, Aberration Wildshape  and Disjunction Ray it's possible to have disjunction up at ECL 2 (with two flaws and a faustian pact for a bonus feat). ECL 3 if two flaws and human paragon, no faustian pact.

Inspire Greatness + Words of Creation with Planar Touchstone: Catalogues of Enlightment lets you cast three spells (per recharge) from a cleric domain four levels earlier than usual.

[Nifft]

However, you can't  have both feats to add your Int and Charisma to AC.  You would have to choose one or the other.

That's surely the intent, but the actual wording doesn't seem to enforce that.

The intent is (presumably): If the only thing preventing you from having a Wisdom bonus to AC is that this feat gives you an X bonus to AC instead, then you get an X bonus to AC.

The actual wording is: If you would normally be allowed to add your Wisdom (...)

Unfortunately, that means the following argument could be constructed:
- "Normally" clearly must mean "if a feat weren't giving you a different bonus to AC instead". Otherwise, the feats would prevent themselves from working.
- However, the "if a feat weren't giving you a different bonus" test applies equally to both feats, no matter which you choose first.
- Therefore, you can choose both feats, and get both your Int and your Cha to AC.

This is a horrible argument, and can be extended in other horrible way:
- "Normally" I would get my Wisdom to AC, except now I don't because I took Ascetic Psion and put on armor. Therefore now I get armor to AC and Intelligence to AC.

(etc.)