Fun Finds v7.0 - Now with +15% more reposts!

[Kethrian]

You are correct.  It also says in parentheses that most other templates can only be applied only once.

[SorO_Lost]

This is not strictly true.  The stacking rules apply to bonuses.  It says so right in the header - "Bonuses" if you're looking in the RC, or "Bonus Types" if you're looking in the DMG (in an amusing coincidence, both sections happen to fall on page 21 in their respective books).  If something isn't a bonus, then the stacking rules never come in to play.  So what's a bonus?  Conveniently, the PHB gives us a definition:  A positive modifier to a die roll.  Level Adjustment is not a positive modifier to a die roll, so it's not a bonus, and so the stacking rules do not apply.

Going to stop you right there before you go full retard on me Link.

The question is can or can't you stack a same source value by taking the same Template multiple times (minor tangent, something LM says you can't do to begin with). The two major fronts on this is if it were a bonus, then to logically follow that through it'd be unnamed and thus stacks. I refuted the possibility that it'd be a bonus, implied for all we know it'd be an effect which doesn't stack.  Your reply was to prove that it's not a bonus and then immediately attempt a propositional fallacy, if it's not a bonus then it's not an effect either. Which of course drew my response of what the fuck man? But about one third of the way into pointing out that propositional logic being one of the reasons why we should all support eugenics I actually found my self thinking what if Link is still just prattling off about stuff he doesn't know? Like I'd love to see him explain how I can't stack wearing Leather & Full-Plate together because your AC isn't a rolled value so "armor bonus" can't be a bonus 

Anyway, I figured when I said effect you simply have no idea what I meant. The Stacking Effects govern most everything in the game, and it's what I meant by effects. All items be it magical or alchemical or not as well as breath effects, draconic auras, soulmelds, invocations, martial powers, mysteries, psionic powers, utterances, and even vestiges all directly follow those rules even through many of their respective sources didn't initially say such and many of those are not even magical (like many maneuvers are extraordinary abilities).

If Templates were also meant to be treated as such, which the Evolved Entry in Libris Mortis supports, that would mean attempting to take the same Template again wouldn't change your LA. But more to the point, it also wouldn't provide you with another set of bonuses to your Ability Scores or new Special Abilities since none of those stack to begin with. To copy the Feat entry, "in general, having a template twice is the same as having it once."

It that interpretation directly supported by RAW? No.
But it's better than falsely summarizing bonuses then claiming Templates are not one as support to concluding that Templates are not effects and pushing that pile of self-disrespecting shit on people like it's fact.

[linklord231]

SorO, have you ever heard of the Canons of Construction?  It's the set of basic guidelines that judges use when adjudicating legal cases, and it works really well for interpreting RPG rules (because when it comes down to it, the law is just a set of rules).  You're violating a couple of those canons here.

When the books give us a definition for a word, we should use that definition before going to a dictionary.  This principle is called "Terms of Art."  Words like "Bonus" or "Template" are all Terms of Art that the books define for us, and we should use those definitions unless doing so would lead to an absurdity.  (As an aside, Armor Bonus is a type of bonus because the book says it is, despite not fitting the definition of Bonus.)

There's also the principle of "Ejusdem generis", which means "of the same nature."  When you say that "effect" in the "Stacking Magical Effects" rule can mean literally anything, you're going against this principle.  "Effects" should be interpreted to mean "things that act like magic."  Psionics, Maneuvers, Truenaming, Incarnum... these are all things that act like magic.  Templates and Level Adjustment do not act like magic. 

[Chemus]

Linklord, you would appear to have a point, in general. Recall, however, that some subscribe to the paradigm 'If the rules don't say that I can, then I cannot.' Also, in this particular instance, please note geniussavant and Kethrian's mentions of parenthetical rules in Libris Mortis regarding the inability to re-apply most templates. SorO also refers to this, but then apparently dismisses it in favor of the effects rules, and making feat's fit templates (which look fine as house-rules).

There appear to be no other rules regarding re-applying a template. If this is actually the case, then TO could use the 'squid-DM' rules and let infinite templating happen, but actual usage would require some sort of ruling. The LM reference makes me lean toward one-time Templating, unless the template allows otherwise, or there are multiple non-exclusive versions of said template (half-dragon, for example)

[linklord231]

Linklord, you would appear to have a point, in general. Recall, however, that some subscribe to the paradigm 'If the rules don't say that I can, then I cannot.' Also, in this particular instance, please note geniussavant and Kethrian's mentions of parenthetical rules in Libris Mortis regarding the inability to re-apply most templates. SorO also refers to this, but then apparently dismisses it in favor of the effects rules, and making feat's fit templates (which look fine as house-rules).

In my defense, I dropped the specific issue of taking the same template multiple times as soon as that quote was brought up.  Whether or not that line implies that Evolved Undead is the only template that can be taken multiple times is an entirely different debate. 

Mostly my argument is with SorO's insistence that things don't stack unless they say they do; when in point of fact it's the opposite:  Things stack unless they don't. 

[Kethrian]

Linklord, you did not look up "Stack" in the glossary of the PHB, did you?  That covers much more than just bonuses.

stack: Combine for a cumulative effect.  In most cases, modifiers to a given check or roll stack if they come from different sources and have different descriptors (or no descriptors at all), but do not stack if they have the same descriptors or come from the same source (such as the same spell cast twice in succession).  If the modifiers to a particular roll do not stack, only the best bonus or worst penalty applies.  Dodge bonuses and circumstance bonuses however, do stack with one another unless otherwise specified.  Spell effects that do not stack may overlap, coexist independently, or render one another irrelevant, depending on their exact effects.

Notice that while it does cover bonuses, it also covers penalties and other roll modifiers, as well as spell effects or the like, which do not have to modify rolls at all.  While it does not expressly state templates, it would appear that the stacking rules would apply to them as well.  Ergo your argument against SorO is, in effect, invalid, as you had not applied your "Canons of Construction" to your own argument.

[linklord231]

Linklord, you did not look up "Stack" in the glossary of the PHB, did you?  That covers much more than just bonuses.

I did, in fact.  I didn't mention it because it doesn't say anything new.  Nothing in that quote goes against my claim. 

Notice that while it does cover bonuses, it also covers penalties and other roll modifiers, as well as spell effects or the like, which do not have to modify rolls at all.  While it does not expressly state templates, it would appear that the stacking rules would apply to them as well.

The only time it mentions spells that do not modify a roll is to say how they might interact outside of the stacking rules, such as by "coexisting independently."  I fail to see how this supports the notion that templates would act like spells that give a bonus or penalty. 


This thread has been derailed enough.  If the mods wish to move this conversation to a different thread, I would be happy to continue the conversation.  Otherwise I'll make no further comments on the matter.

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

Random Question: What is it going to take to have people go to the MetaCompendium (in my sig) first before trying any other D&D 3.5 resource? I literally just searched inside the folders for 'jordain.' It was in the unsorted area that I had to personally grab, but still.

To answer your question (at least for me): It's going to take not having to download it.

You'd rather, what, post it on a boards and hope the internet archive gets to it? If you download it, you'll have it personally forever even when you don't have an internet connection!

Also I don't want to have important information (spell indexes, for instance) interrupted by nonimportant information (homebrew pathfinder PrCs) and neither would anyone else who actually used the metacompendium. Therefore I first asked the mods for a subforum. They refused. Spamming the handbooks area with mmmm 1,178 sorted, searchable files/entries was not really an option.

You are welcome to do the above for me, though.

It's not entirely clear what's in it.  Is it D&D Tools plus handbooks?

And indexes, and lists, and errata and FAQ and unofficial author entries and builds to show people how to list/build good D&D characters and ...

Yeah it's everything my sig says and more. If you find something you actually use while building 3.5 characters that isn't in the MetaCompendium, I want to know what it is. I'll add it.

It's also 3.5 fix[ed]. 

Yup. Every DM who ever said "I wish someone would just balance all of 3.5 without making something else" is secretly searching for the MetaCompendium. 

But fine I'll add an outline people who are too timid to download a flat-file D&D resource or don't read sigs...

[altpersona]

Therefore I first asked the mods for a subforum. They refused. Spamming the handbooks area with mmmm 1,178 sorted, searchable files/entries was not really an option.

Everyone knows the mods here are half again worse than the GitPG mods... 

[Kerrus]

You'd rather, what, post it on a boards and hope the internet archive gets to it? If you download it, you'll have it personally forever even when you don't have an internet connection!

You could always put it on a wiki. I'm really surprised there hasn't been a concerted effort to put everything on a wiki, tbh.

[Nanshork]

You'd rather, what, post it on a boards and hope the internet archive gets to it? If you download it, you'll have it personally forever even when you don't have an internet connection!

You could always put it on a wiki. I'm really surprised there hasn't been a concerted effort to put everything on a wiki, tbh.

Yeah, I don't care about having an offline copy.  The only things that I have offline copies of are official stuff Wizards put on their boards.  I've lived this long without the MetaCompendium so I'm not going to do any work to see if I can use it now.  Also, I have no need of your homebrew fixes which is a lot of what you reference.

[Amechra]

You'd rather, what, post it on a boards and hope the internet archive gets to it? If you download it, you'll have it personally forever even when you don't have an internet connection!

You could always put it on a wiki. I'm really surprised there hasn't been a concerted effort to put everything on a wiki, tbh.

Yeah, I don't care about having an offline copy.  The only things that I have offline copies of are official stuff Wizards put on their boards.  I've lived this long without the MetaCompendium so I'm not going to do any work to see if I can use it now.  Also, I have no need of your homebrew fixes which is a lot of what you reference.

Same.

And given what I've seen of your homebrew, I'm... unsure... as to whether or not your fixes are what I'd be looking for.

[Quillwraith]

I downloaded it, but I honestly usually find the internet easier to search than my own computer, so I'm not particularly in the habit of using it.

[Amechra]

Here's one I doubt most people know... and it's in the SRD too!

If you check the table for armor for unusually sized creatures, creatures who are Tiny or smaller halve the armor bonus of any armor they wear.

[TC X0 Lt 0X]

Random Question: What is it going to take to have people go to the MetaCompendium (in my sig) first before trying any other D&D 3.5 resource? I literally just searched inside the folders for 'jordain.' It was in the unsorted area that I had to personally grab, but still.

To answer your question (at least for me): It's going to take not having to download it.

You'd rather, what, post it on a boards and hope the internet archive gets to it? If you download it, you'll have it personally forever even when you don't have an internet connection!

Also I don't want to have important information (spell indexes, for instance) interrupted by nonimportant information (homebrew pathfinder PrCs) and neither would anyone else who actually used the metacompendium. Therefore I first asked the mods for a subforum. They refused. Spamming the handbooks area with mmmm 1,178 sorted, searchable files/entries was not really an option.

You are welcome to do the above for me, though.

It's not entirely clear what's in it.  Is it D&D Tools plus handbooks?

And indexes, and lists, and errata and FAQ and unofficial author entries and builds to show people how to list/build good D&D characters and ...

Yeah it's everything my sig says and more. If you find something you actually use while building 3.5 characters that isn't in the MetaCompendium, I want to know what it is. I'll add it.

It's also 3.5 fix[ed]. 

Yup. Every DM who ever said "I wish someone would just balance all of 3.5 without making something else" is secretly searching for the MetaCompendium. 

But fine I'll add an outline people who are too timid to download a flat-file D&D resource or don't read sigs...

I dont know if OneDrive does, but DropBox does have a preview option for pdfs that lets you look at the document before downloading it. It might be more useful that way so people can just click the link or scroll through.
Alternatively, GoogleDocs might be a decent option too, dont know how friendly it is with pdfs though.

Whatever gets it viable easily in a browser over having to download and reopen and such will probably help though.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

It's also 3.5 fix[ed]. 

Yup. Every DM who ever said "I wish someone would just balance all of 3.5 without making something else" is secretly searching for the MetaCompendium. 

I* once was lost but now I*m found.
* hey, I didn't know my kitty avatar's Tail  could sing?

Or maybe it's like Morpheus looking for Neo.

[Garryl]

If you're immune to Con damage (or can cast Body Ward or shape Strongheart Vest to absorb it), have an odd-numbered Con score, or otherwise don't care about 1 point of Con damage, a Gal-Ralan (Fiend Folio, pg. 151) is basically a Cloak of Resistance for 62.5% of the normal price that also gives an extra +2 on saves against death effects, energy drains, and effects that affect the wearer's soul.

[Amechra]

Mastery of Twisted Shadows is an excellent feat for any Illusionist, since it turns any Illusion spell you cast into a defensive buff.

It's also is great for Beguilers. Or would be, if bluffing to distract people wasn't a god-damn standard action.

[Nytemare3701]

Combust seems pretty solid for a familiar to deliver.

"A hummingbird lands on the duke's shoulder. He pauses for a moment to marvel at this rare moment, then promptly bursts into flames and dies horribly"

[linklord231]

Combust seems pretty solid for a familiar to deliver.

Combust is also a fantastic base spell for metamagic stacking.  It's a spell level higher than Lesser Orb of Fire, but damage scales twice as fast.  It's a Touch spell, but as you noted you can pass it to a familiar or a Spectral Hand.