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

[Ithamar]

But Selective Spell doesn't exclude an area, like Sculpt Spell or whatnot does.  It excludes one creature.  So basically you are wearing a skin tight AMF.  So all of your own items and spells should still work fine.  You can walk up to the polymorphed fighter or wild shaped druid and suddenly all of their buffs disappear with no loss to your own.   

[awaken_D_M_golem]

Antimagic field says it suppresses "any spell or magical effect used within, brought into, or cast into the area," which doesn't include spells cast through the area, and Rules Compendium p11 clarifies that antimagic areas don't block line of effect.  So offensive spells can be cast into the hole in the AMF just fine.

  ...  ...  ... I think this nerfs the CPsi nerf of Crystal Shard.


to the '73 The Hues Corporation tune Rock The Boat :

Nerf the Nerf
don't nerf the nerf baby
Nerf the Nerf
don't nerf the nerf over
Nerf the Nerf

[Chemus]

But Selective Spell doesn't exclude an area, like Sculpt Spell or whatnot does.  It excludes one creature.  So basically you are wearing a skin tight AMF.  So all of your own items and spells should still work fine.  You can walk up to the polymorphed fighter or wild shaped druid and suddenly all of their buffs disappear with no loss to your own.   

You're not covered by the protection if you're not affected by the spell. It doesn't matter if it's 'skin-tight' or your 5' square, except for targeting your square; you can still be targeted, and affected, by target or ray spells.

[SorO_Lost]

You're not covered by the protection if you're not affected by the spell.

That's not entirely true.

Also do no be mislead by the title, a Selective Spell isn't "skin tight", Selective spell does not actually alter the area of a Spell, but alters an area-based Spell so it does not to affect a creature. The AMF field still permeates the square the creature is in thus suppressing all magical effects that are not directly tied to the unaffected creature.

We're also getting into a gray area that ultimately leads to two rulings.

A. "Clear Cut" the Creature is immune the Spell is not.
In this the creature's buffs are treated as separate entities that do not share the properties of their owner. This is a little against intent (see B) and does lead to further questions like where is the line drawn? Say you Wished for Inherent Bonuses, which are a magical effect, are those suppressed in an AMF? Golems would suggest no, but again it's a line in the sand that you'll be required to draw with every new question.

B. The simple solution, Magic Items already use Spell Rules so why not finish things and inversely apply what's missing?
In this ruling, Spell Effects are treated like worn items and inherent the properties of the "wearer". This is of course not a simulation answer because the rules are illogical in this area (imaging a pixie holding a 20ft step ladder gets fireballed, 95% of the time the ladder is unharmed). In this type of ruling the creature using this trick keeps his buffs, but any Spell capable of making the crossover also affects him. Like you can't hit him with a Lightning Bolt since it's Instantaneous, you can't hit him with Slow since your Touch Attack is suppressed, but Ray of Enfeeblement? Technically the Spell is only suppressed while in an AMF and as noted an AMF does not block the line of effect, once the Ray is loaded onto the target is gains the same immunity to AMF and affects the creature normally.

You can ultimately rule however you like. I personally favor B because if you go A's route Invoke Magic & Initiate of Mystra become way too powerful as you're creature an totally magic-immune creature that's fully able to use it's own magic just fine. In B's route while it seems a little abusive, at least a Spellcaster can still offensively attack the abuser without exclusively relaying on a few key blasting Spells. Like under B a Balor's Blasphemy is still just as deadly as ever even if it's sword is a little less useful than normal. But I don't think officially there is a clear indication which way to go.

[vaz]

It's not really new, but something I like to keep people aware of is the Ardent, and his Alternate Class Feature to choose within reason what powers he can add to his mantles. Not only can you add, but you can Substitute also. Don't like the 3rd level power? Get rid of it, replace it with something better/more appropriate. You can be as practical, or theoretical with this as you wish.

Now, within reason is something that obviously needs to be interacted with your DM, and I can't make a comment over what your DM can or cannot expect. Most people are pretty okay with the idea of putting any Psychic Power to fit the theme of the mantle. Many (most?) mantles don't actually include 9 powers, so you've already got the leeway, but as mentioned, you can substitute if you wish.

Where this gets fucky, is when you include the abilities of a Spell To Power Erudite. Now, I'm sure many of you think "oh, it's just a Spell to Power Psion, we know all about that", but it's the fact that unlike other StP shenanigans, you don't need the StP Erudite present. (Technically, the Expanded Knowledge trick can do the same, but until you turn epic, that limits you to 8th level spells). However, Epic Manifesting and Epic Psionic Powers are treated in the same manner as spells, effectively Level 10's. This means that all that's needed is an Epic StP Erudite who is able to Manifest Epic Powers, which would let him learn Level 9 Spells as Powers.

Combine that with Divine to Arcane tricks like Wyrm Wizard/Recaster, and suddenly, every spell, Ever, is theoretically an option for a Spell to Power Erudite. Because of the existence of spells like Travel Through Time, and planes with non-typical time traits, this means that as long as at some point in the games setting, an Epic Spell to Power Erudite (or multiple) who have managed to learn every single spell and turned it into a power (it doesn't have to be that one dude, but there has to be at least one Epic StP capable of Epic Manifesting, who collectively have turned/will turn every spell into a power), you can select it as a Power Known.

[Amechra]

A few things:

1) A Fighter can replace their proficiency with Tower Shields with proficiency with the Exotic Shield Proficiency feat - could be useful.

2) One such exotic shield, the Shield Gauntlet, leaves your off-hand empty. By RAW, you can use a Shield Gauntlet and stuff like Einhander at the same time.

3) Divine Shield lets you increase your shield bonus to AC by your Charisma modifier for ECL/2 rounds. That's really nice, even if it takes a Standard action and a Turn Attempt. I will take this time to remind everyone of Inlindl School's existence.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

2) One such exotic shield, the Shield Gauntlet, leaves your off-hand empty. By RAW, you can use a Shield Gauntlet and stuff like Einhander at the same time.

hmm , I bet CapQ's got some stuff for that.
Could use it with the PsyWar soulknifey thing ... so maybe that opens shield mods into that.
Could use it with Monk + Tash.
Could use 2 of them (or more).

[Amechra]

2) One such exotic shield, the Shield Gauntlet, leaves your off-hand empty. By RAW, you can use a Shield Gauntlet and stuff like Einhander at the same time.

hmm , I bet CapQ's got some stuff for that.
Could use it with the PsyWar soulknifey thing ... so maybe that opens shield mods into that.
Could use it with Monk + Tash.
Could use 2 of them (or more).

There is technically nothing stopping you from using a Shield Gauntlet and wielding a shield in that hand as well (it specifically says you can't wield weapons).

[Samwise]

There is technically nothing stopping you from using a Shield Gauntlet and wielding a shield in that hand as well (it specifically says you can't wield weapons).

If you are going to parse it that way, then what it says is that you can "carry other items".
That would mean you could not "equip" a shield in that hand.

Indeed, that would prevent it functioning with Einhander, as the shield gauntlet does not say it leaves that hand "empty".

If you want to get funky with the Divine Shield + Inlindl School combo, then the path would be "dual" bucklers + spiked cheese.
Oh, and swap your tower shield proficiency for extreme shield, animate it, and add that in for the full limburger.
(We won't talk about tossing girallon arms into the mix.)

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

It's like you've been reading my builds, Sam... (the one's I haven't made public)

@vaz, ardent isn't necessary for that. Learning any power via chirurgery you want is in the SRD. This is why DMs ban StP

[Samwise]

It's like you've been reading my builds, Sam... (the one's I haven't made public)

Heh.
It was inspired by a player back when Defenders of the Faith came out who used Divine Shield with two large shield and total defense to tank.
Until of course I pointed it out to the WotC suits during a game at Winter Fantasy, who promptly issued a "clarification" that the armor bonuses from shields do not stack.

"Naturally" the solution for this is to "clarify" that Divine Shield only affects on shield per use, but of course the ship has sailed on that making it into the FAQ.

[Samwise]

A bit of a crazy thought:

5th level spellthief gets steal spell-like ability. For whatever reason, doing so doesn't use up a use of said spell-like ability; all it does is keep the owner from using it for 1 minute or until the spellthief uses it once. Said theft can be done by sneak attack . . . or by touch from a willing target.

So . . . infinite uses of party spell-like abilities.

A pair of Gnome spellthieves would be . . . irritating.
Drow with some feats would get thoroughly ridiculous.
And of course, subvert a Halfling with a Mark of Healing for unlimited out of combat cure light wounds.

[snakeman830]

A bit of a crazy thought:

5th level spellthief gets steal spell-like ability. For whatever reason, doing so doesn't use up a use of said spell-like ability; all it does is keep the owner from using it for 1 minute or until the spellthief uses it once. Said theft can be done by sneak attack . . . or by touch from a willing target.

So . . . infinite uses of party spell-like abilities.

A pair of Gnome spellthieves would be . . . irritating.
Drow with some feats would get thoroughly ridiculous.
And of course, subvert a Halfling with a Mark of Healing for unlimited out of combat cure light wounds.

Add on to that that the Tooth of Leraje gives a spell-like ability.  Free CL20 Greater Magic Weapons all day.

[Arz]

So . . . infinite uses of party spell-like abilities.

Timeless Pool has one time stop per year as an SLA....

[Nytemare3701]

So . . . infinite uses of party spell-like abilities.

Timeless Pool has one time stop per year as an SLA....

Between you and snake, this just went from "cute trick as gravy for spellthieves" to "ban this trick at every table"

[Samwise]

Well, it does have a limit of 1/3rd class level for the spells.
So only a 27th level spell-thief could get 9th level spell-like abilities.

Simple solution would make it use uses just as it uses spell slots.

And . . . duh.
Spellstitched.
And cure light wounds is of course a conjuration spell.
Though at that point, I expect you can find significantly worse to start spamming.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

Or the usual Bloodline + UT + LC abuse for that.


So that's what, just 2 Spellthiefs and 1 spell-like at-will ?
 




back edit , for Thurbane --- that errata is 'bout to get Funky !!

[Thurbane]

to the '73 The Hues Corporation tune Rock The Boat :

Nerf the Nerf
don't nerf the nerf baby
Nerf the Nerf
don't nerf the nerf over
Nerf the Nerf

Or to the tune of the '75 Parliament track Give Up The Funk...

Ow, we want the nerf
Give up the nerf
Ow, we need the nerf
We gotta have that nerf

[nijineko]

Rules Compendium p134 on area effects of spells; the wording seems to retroactively include as an "area effect spell" any spell that has an area in any part of the targeting or effect, regardless of whether it has the "area: x" entry or not.

This allows arcane archers in particular a much wider array of spells than was previously commonly defined. Lines, spreads, bursts, emanations, even the haste spell.

probably previously posted and/or known, but I just noticed this for the first time today. I'm slow like that.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

Rules Compendium p134 on area effects of spells; the wording seems to retroactively include as an "area effect spell" any spell that has an area in any part of the targeting or effect, regardless of whether it has the "area: x" entry or not.

This allows Arcane Archers in particular a much wider array of spells than was previously commonly defined. Lines, spreads, bursts, emanations, even the haste spell.

probably previously posted and/or known, but I just noticed this for the first time today. I'm slow like that.

googles,  BG 0 , MMX 1 but different topic , giantitp 3 but different topics

Might be completely new ...