Brilliant Gameologists Forum
Play Like You Have To! => D&D 4e => 4e Optimization => : tsuyoshikentsu July 09, 2008, 10:37:50 AM
-
Not my idea, thought I did make the chart and the joke.
So yeah. Read Twin Strike, especially the "Attack" line, very very carefully. Then read Two Weapon Flurry Very, very carefully. Then just add in Heavy Blade Opportunity.
The chart I made follows.Opportunity Attack--Main Hand Attack--Off-Hand Twin Strike 1
\ \
\Off-hand attack \Main Hand Twin strike 1--Off-Hand Twin Strike 2
\
\Main Hand Twin Strike 2--Off-hand Twin Strike 3
\
\Main Hand Twin Strike 3--Off-Hand Twin Strike (n)
\
\Main Hand Twin Strike (n)The joke I made follows.
"Something about me loves how this also implies that the attack the feat was intended to grant never actually happens."
-
I'm probably missing something (hurray for the lack of sleep), but if you consider the attacks from Twin Strike to be OAs and apply HBO to them... do you even need TWF ? (I assume TWF is not key since you have to hit and you get a penalty.)
-
You do need TWF. It allows you to take a second OA, which you replace with Twin Strike via HBO. This gives you another main hand attack, which triggers TWF again, which gets swapped...
It'll eventually fail because of those -5s and the chance to roll a 1, but it's a free Blade Cascade off every OA. Nothing to sneeze at.
-
One could argue that the -5s don't stack. Regardless of whether they do, this gives a nice load of swings, and one could even argue that until both swings of a Twin Strike miss, it grants another Twin Strike.
I'll be interested to see what WotC comes up with as a fix for this.
It's also too bad this infinite attack series depends on the enemy provoking an OA, not on something you can control.
-
It's also too bad this infinite attack series depends on the enemy provoking an OA, not on something you can control.
You can create a provocation of an OA. You need either something like Cause Fear or Polearm Gamble and an ally Fighter with Come and Get It or Warrior's Urging. (because shifts still provoke from PG)
-
People, Blade Cascade was broken. We just found a way to take multiple blade cascades per round. Something's definitely cheesy here.
WotC's response should be interesting. For some reason, the words "hand" and "wave" keep leaping into my mind, but I won't judge them until they have a reasonable chance to respond.
-
Nevermind, my brain caught up.
Assuming the first attacks hit, you get:
- TS 1st attack
- TS 2nd attack
- the successful 1st TS attack lets you make an off-hand OA at -5, which you replace thanks to HBO so:
- TS 1 at -5
- TS 2 at -5
After that you are at -10 so your chances don't look good. I wouldn't call this another Blade Cascade - though I'll revise my judgement if tsuyo proves me wrong. If it's simply saying "the -5s don't stack" or "the -5 doesn't apply to the main hand attack created by TS" I'll be a bit disappointed.
-
I don't think this continues to work past the first itteration.
Look at it like this:
[spoiler]
#Whenever you take a main hand opportunity attack, take an offhand one
if main.opportunity_attack:
offhand.opportunity_attack
#Whenever you take an opportunity attack replace it with a Twin Strike
if X.opportunity_attack:
X.Twin Strike #rather than a basic attack
#When you use Twin Strike make two attacks rather than one
if X.Twin Strike
Mainhand.Attack
Offhand.Attack
So the chart should look like this:
[/spoiler]
Main Hand Opportunity Attack--Main Hand Twin Strike --Main hand attack
\ \
\ --Off hand attack
\
Off-hand Opportunity attack--Off Hand Twin Strike --Main hand attack
\
--Off hand attack
In other words, Twin Strike doesn't grant you two Opportunity attacks (rather two non basic attacks) so they can't be used in turn with Heavy blade opportunist or Two weapon Flurry for a second round of attacks.
-
Someone over a Wizards found the kill to this one, you're only allowed to take one opportunity action during any given turn, so by definition you could not take the OAs generated by Twin Strike.
-
Someone over a Wizards found the kill to this one, you're only allowed to take one opportunity action during any given turn, so by definition you could not take the OAs generated by Twin Strike.
That's what I thought as well, but Two-Weapon Flurry specifically grants you another opportunity attack.
EDIT: I think Rev has the right reading (IMO). Even though Twin Strike replaces an Opportunity Attack, the attacks granted by Twin Strike are not Opportunity attacks, thus don't create more Opportunity Attacks. By that reading it isn't infinite.
The infinite loop requires saying that "Since Twin Strike is an Opportunity Attack, both the attacks granted by Twin Strike are Opportunity Attacks." While I can see that reading, I'd personally go with the equally-valid interpretation that doesn't produce an infinite loop :p
-
Why would the -5 penalty stack? Theoretically, the penalty comes from the same source. In 4e, penalties (or bonuses) from the same source do not stack. Or is there something I'm missing here?
The funny thing is that, for this to work, the Heavy Blade must be in your off-hand.
But unfortunately, Rev is right. Twin Strike doesn't grant two OAs, so Two-Weapon Flurry doesn't activate again.
Still, three attacks per opportunity? This brings a whole different level of lockdown to the table.
-
Someone over a Wizards found the kill to this one, you're only allowed to take one opportunity action during any given turn, so by definition you could not take the OAs generated by Twin Strike.
This is a time where the RAI is pretty damn clear I would think.
-
Why would the -5 penalty stack? Theoretically, the penalty comes from the same source. In 4e, penalties (or bonuses) from the same source do not stack. Or is there something I'm missing here?
It's not a -5 penalty from the bonus you made the attack at, it's a flat -5 penalty. Wording got lost from the 3.5 template.
But unfortunately, Rev is right. Twin Strike doesn't grant two OAs, so Two-Weapon Flurry doesn't activate again.
My argument would be, "Is any attack ever an OA under that definition?"
-
But unfortunately, Rev is right. Twin Strike doesn't grant two OAs, so Two-Weapon Flurry doesn't activate again.
My argument would be, "Is any attack ever an OA under that definition?"
Yes, when it is explicitly an Opportunity Attack. What you're doing is taking something that is normally an OA and replacing it with an Attack Power. Thus it is no longer an Opportunity Attack.
-
Yes, when it is explicitly an Opportunity Attack. What you're doing is taking something that is normally an OA and replacing it with an Attack Power. Thus it is no longer an Opportunity Attack.
But if you go with that logic, feats such as Blade Opportunist do not work with Heavy Blade Opportunity. That doesn't make sense to me.
I just realized something. We are assuming the -5 penalty applies to both attacks from Twin Strike, but it only really applies ONCE, and it applies only to the off-hand.
Here's how it works: Two-Weapon Flurry says that you get an opportunity attack with your off-hand weapon at -5. But that attack isn't happening, because you use it to activate Twin Strike -- then your main hand hits again, and you activate the power again (because Two-Weapon Flurry happens again). But nothing in the feat suggests the penalty stacks -- only that it happens when you attack with the main hand. As long as you keep hitting with the main hand, the chain doesn't break.
Also, something very important about the feat's wording:
While holding a melee weapon in each
hand, if you make a successful opportunity attack with
your primary weapon, you can also make an opportunity
attack with your off-hand weapon against the
same target (but with a –5 penalty to the attack roll).
Bolding mine.
The off-hand attack is ALSO an opportunity attack.
This may have sounded somewhat redundant, but it should work.
-
Re-reading Heavy Blade Opportunist, I think I might retract my previous statements. It certainly does seem to say that the Attack Power is part of an Opportunity Attack (the same way a "basic attack" is normally part of the Opportunity Attack).
So yeah. That kind of rocks. But then stuff is supposed to rock at Epic Level I guess :p
-
Re-reading Heavy Blade Opportunist, I think I might retract my previous statements. It certainly does seem to say that the Attack Power is part of an Opportunity Attack (the same way a "basic attack" is normally part of the Opportunity Attack).
So yeah. That kind of rocks. But then stuff is supposed to rock at Epic Level I guess :p
True. Considering that Blade Cascade blows people in Paragon Tier, it's kinda nice, but nothing to write home about.
-
Re-reading Heavy Blade Opportunist, I think I might retract my previous statements. It certainly does seem to say that the Attack Power is part of an Opportunity Attack (the same way a "basic attack" is normally part of the Opportunity Attack).
So yeah. That kind of rocks. But then stuff is supposed to rock at Epic Level I guess :p
True. Considering that Blade Cascade blows people in Paragon Tier, it's kinda nice, but nothing to write home about.
I hope you're joking... that description would fit the "broken" (not infinite) version Rev provided, but not this one.
Make every OA an "attack-till-you-miss" type attack is... fun. Expect your party to get Cause Fear a few times for you.
-
So this is really only an endlessly repeatable combination if you are able to hit with at least one of all 4 attacks from your AoO? I suppose the odds are stacked in your favour...
-
Re-reading Heavy Blade Opportunist, I think I might retract my previous statements. It certainly does seem to say that the Attack Power is part of an Opportunity Attack (the same way a "basic attack" is normally part of the Opportunity Attack).
So yeah. That kind of rocks. But then stuff is supposed to rock at Epic Level I guess :p
True. Considering that Blade Cascade blows people in Paragon Tier, it's kinda nice, but nothing to write home about.
I hope you're joking... that description would fit the "broken" (not infinite) version Rev provided, but not this one.
Make every OA an "attack-till-you-miss" type attack is... fun. Expect your party to get Cause Fear a few times for you.
I think Rev's version (you can get 4 attacks) is probably how it was intended to work and is probably a reasonable limit, but (unfortunately) that's not what the text says.
You start with an OA. You perform this OA with Twin Strike (Heavy Blade Opportunist). If your primary hand hits, you have now "[made] a successful opportunity attack with your primary weapon," so you can now make another OA with your off-hand weapon (with a -5 penalty on the attack). Heavy Blade Opportunist will let you swap this new OA for Twin Strike once again (with the -5 penalty on both attacks I think). If you then hit with your primary hand, you have again "[made] a successful opportunity attack with your primary weapon," so can get another OA with your off-hand weapon (with the -5 penalty on the attack roll--it doesn't stack), and the cycle continues. As long as you keep hitting with your "primary hand" that is. Basically you're forming a tree, adding a new branch everytime your "primary hand" hits. If that misses, you don't get to keep growing the tree. Note also that you would have to have a heavy blade in your "off-hand" for this to work.
Now there are a couple of questions though:
* Does the "you can also make an opportunity attack with your off-hand weapon against the same target" (emphasis mine) requirement mean that you can only use your off-hand in the OA? I don't think so.
* Does your "off-hand" switch back and forth? Hard to say, probably DM ruling
* Does "a successful attack" with Twin Strike mean that both attacks hit? That only one hit?
-
Now there are a couple of questions though:
* Does the "you can also make an opportunity attack with your off-hand weapon against the same target" (emphasis mine) requirement mean that you can only use your off-hand in the OA? I don't think so.
* Does your "off-hand" switch back and forth? Hard to say, probably DM ruling
* Does "a successful attack" with Twin Strike mean that both attacks hit? That only one hit?
1) Normally, yes. Heavy Blade Opportunity, though, lets you replace whatever attack you were going to make with an at-will attack.
2) I'd say no, as I see no reason (other than DM saying so) it would.
3) A successful attack is a successful attack roll against an opponent's defense.
-
* Does your "off-hand" switch back and forth? Hard to say, probably DM ruling
* Does "a successful attack" with Twin Strike mean that both attacks hit? That only one hit?
2. No reason it would, or that it would have to.
3. That your main-hand hits. Because that's what Two-Weapon Flurry cares about.
EDIT: Hey, know what's REALLY fun?
Paladin/Warpriest with this. Attack them, get an OA if they move away. Or attack someone else.
WHAT NOW BITCHES?
-
EDIT: Hey, know what's REALLY fun?
Paladin/Warpriest with this. Attack them, get an OA if they move away. Or attack someone else.
WHAT NOW BITCHES?
Well you need Twin Strike, and you can't really get it with that. It'd work quite well with a Fighter paragon multiclassed into Ranger, though. As a Longtooth Shifter with the OA feats, you can get +43 to OAs at level 30, meaning +38 on the attacks after the first. That's quite likely to hit. Add in CA, and you only need a moderate boost (+6) to only miss on a 2 against Orcus. With a -5 penalty. Sweet.
-
It doesn't because Combat Challenge doesn't actually give you OAs. Ranger into Warpriest, however, works -- I hadn't noticed that the mark already lasts until the end of the encounter, which is why I was even bothering with Paladin in the first place.
-
It doesn't because Combat Challenge doesn't actually give you OAs. Ranger into Warpriest, however, works -- I hadn't noticed that the mark already lasts until the end of the encounter, which is why I was even bothering with Paladin in the first place.
Wait, what's this about Combat Challenge? I was talking about actual OAs.
Ranger into Warpriest is going to lose out on a potential +9 to OAs and +1 to attacks with 1 handed weapons vs. the Fighter. That said, I don't really like paragon multiclassing yet, and Ranger into Warpriest looks like a nice fit, especially with the very nice synergy from both Warpriest's Strategy and Warpriest's Challenge. Extra Damage Action is icing, and Battle Favor sounds hilarious with the real Blade Cascade. Melt two groups in a close burst 1 per day. You could even take Cause Fear yourself, to provoke your own OAs. It's sounding better and better the more I think about it...
-
Well, to continue as devil's advocate, there's an additional argument against it:
In a nutshell - the attacks of Twin Strike can't be called opportunity attacks because they are neither basic attack or an "at-will power" (individually - collectively they are of course).
So to use Two Weapon Flurry - you have to make the collective "Twin strike" the trigger - meaning you can only get the single round of four attacks out of it.
Effectively, you need to have an additional line in the OA text to make this trick work "all attacks taken as an opportunity action are opportunity attacks".
-
Effectively, you need to have an additional line in the OA text to make this trick work "all attacks taken as an opportunity action are opportunity attacks".
But they are. Otherwise feats like Blade Opportunist make no sense to use, and combining it with Heavy Blade Opportunity would make even LESS sense. Replacing an attack with an at-will does not mean the at-will ceases to be considered an OA.
-
Effectively, you need to have an additional line in the OA text to make this trick work "all attacks taken as an opportunity action are opportunity attacks".
But they are. Otherwise feats like Blade Opportunist make no sense to use, and combining it with Heavy Blade Opportunity would make even LESS sense. Replacing an attack with an at-will does not mean the at-will ceases to be considered an OA.
You need to reread what I was saying - the at-will power is still part of an OA. Therefore the rolls within it are "opportunity attack rolls". However, the internal components of that "at-will" do not become individual OA's in and of themselves - which is what this infinite attack sequence requires.
Look at it like this:
OA =>"At-will"=>Component of the "At-will".
Besides, it wouldn't exactly have been the first time WotC published some feats that didn't work :P
-
Well, to continue as devil's advocate, there's an additional argument against it:
In a nutshell - the attacks of Twin Strike can't be called opportunity attacks because they are neither basic attack or an "at-will power" (individually - collectively they are of course).
So to use Two Weapon Flurry - you have to make the collective "Twin strike" the trigger - meaning you can only get the single round of four attacks out of it.
Effectively, you need to have an additional line in the OA text to make this trick work "all attacks taken as an opportunity action are opportunity attacks".
The thing is, it doesn't require that each attack be considered its own OA. TWFlurry grants you an extra OA, which is normally only with your off-hand, thus normally only triggers once. However, Twin Strike lets that OA also include an attack with your primary hand, thus meeting the requirement to to trigger TWFlurry again (well, assuming you use any normally reading of "a successful opportunity attack with you primary weapon").
-
You need to reread what I was saying - the at-will power is still part of an OA. Therefore the rolls within it are "opportunity attack rolls". However, the internal components of that "at-will" do not become individual OA's in and of themselves - which is what this infinite attack sequence requires.
At which point does the At-will power cease to be part of an opportunity attack, is what I'm really asking. Think of it like this:
()=contains.
Y=TWF triggers Twin Strike, Twin Strike triggers TWF again.
N=Number of times you attack with your main hand until you miss.
OA(Y.N)
At which point Y becomes false due to not being part of OA()?
-
The thing is, it doesn't require that each attack be considered its own OA. TWFlurry grants you an extra OA, which is normally only with your off-hand, thus normally only triggers once. However, Twin Strike lets that OA also include an attack with your primary hand, thus meeting the requirement to to trigger TWFlurry again (well, assuming you use any normally reading of "a successful opportunity attack with you primary weapon").
You need to reread what I was saying - the at-will power is still part of an OA. Therefore the rolls within it are "opportunity attack rolls". However, the internal components of that "at-will" do not become individual OA's in and of themselves - which is what this infinite attack sequence requires.
At which point does the At-will power cease to be part of an opportunity attack, is what I'm really asking. Think of it like this:
()=contains.
Y=TWF triggers Twin Strike, Twin Strike triggers TWF again.
N=Number of times you attack with your main hand until you miss.
OA(Y.N)
At which point Y becomes false due to not being part of OA()?
Ah I understand where we crossed wires - I'm not really stating they're not part of the opportunity attack, I'm questioning the necessary interpretation of "primary hand attack" as part of a "twin strike" opportunity attack as being the same as a "primary hand opportunity attack". So does making an OA with both weapons at once trigger an additional Two Weapon Flurry OA?
In otherwords I'm suggesting OA(TS(PH)) =/ OA(PH)
where OA =opportunity attack, TS=Twin Strike, PH =Primary hand.
-
The thing is, it doesn't require that each attack be considered its own OA. TWFlurry grants you an extra OA, which is normally only with your off-hand, thus normally only triggers once. However, Twin Strike lets that OA also include an attack with your primary hand, thus meeting the requirement to to trigger TWFlurry again (well, assuming you use any normally reading of "a successful opportunity attack with you primary weapon").
Ah I understand where we crossed wires - I'm not really stating they're not part of the opportunity attack, I'm questioning the necessary interpretation of "primary hand attack" as part of a "twin strike" opportunity attack as being the same as a "primary hand opportunity attack". So does making an OA with both weapons at once trigger an additional Two Weapon Flurry OA.
In otherwords I'm suggesting OA(TS(PH)) =/ OA(PH)
where OA =opportunity attack, TS=Twin Strike, PH =Primary hand.
Fair enough. At that point, it does indeed become a matter of interpretation. :)
-
See, it all becomes clearer when we use math instead of words. :D
Well, I think the main hand's attack from Twin Strike is just as easily a main hand opportunity attack. It fits the same definition, i.e. an attack with your primary hand during an opportunity attack. But maybe that's just me.
Also (and I know hell will rain on me for using RL experience as a parallel to D&D), my RL experience with fighting someone wielding two swords totally allows for this to happen. It goes more or less like this.
Me: I'm so going for his head now. OHCRAPIMISSEDNOOOOOO...
Opponent: Omae wa mou shindeiru...
Blows raining left and right follow. Not even a chance to parry until he misses, because you're being veritably pureed.
-
Looks like y'all are close to a verdict. What's the Infinite Attacks for Dummies version ?
-
It's basically like this:
On an OA, you attack with the main hand. If you hit, you activate Twin Strike. Your main hand hits again, you activate Twin Strike again. Rinse, lather, repeat till you miss the main hand.
-
It's basically like this:
On an OA, you attack with the main hand. If you hit, you activate Twin Strike. Your main hand hits again, you activate Twin Strike again. Rinse, lather, repeat till you miss the main hand.
And then, you get another off-hand attack for good measure. It can't trigger the loop again, but it's there.
Repeatable during each opponent's turn, if we can find a way to keep them provoking.
-
Repeatable during each opponent's turn, if we can find a way to keep them provoking.
Say it with me now: Warpriest.
-
Repeatable during each opponent's turn, if we can find a way to keep them provoking.
Say it with me now: Warpriest.
Why would they attack anyone else? You'repretty much the biggest threat around.
Should we consider Novice Power for Cause Fear? If we do, are we better off with Deadly Trickster for rerolls, or Demigod to deplete all encounter powers, then spam Cause Fear until we need to rest?
-
Demigod. Because you are ALWAYS better off with Demigod.
But in this case, we want ot use it every turn. So... Demigod.
-
This is why I love D+D. Good find.
Just another nail in the coffin to the idea of a balanced 4E.
-
This is why I love D+D. Good find.
Just another nail in the coffin to the idea of a balanced 4E.
Well if a whole bunch of different classes have ways of borking the system, couldn't you call that balanced? It's not just the Big 4 that are messing with things now :p
I'll also through out that "more balanced", while not the same as "totally balanced", is still better than "less balanced." But that's an issue for another thread I'm sure.
-
This is why I love D+D. Good find.
Just another nail in the coffin to the idea of a balanced 4E.
Well if a whole bunch of different classes have ways of borking the system, couldn't you call that balanced? It's not just the Big 4 that are messing with things now :p
I'll also through out that "more balanced", while not the same as "totally balanced", is still better than "less balanced." But that's an issue for another thread I'm sure.
The reason I don't agree with the bolded is that the brokeness is not something that every class easily picks up. It often relies on seeing the correct combination and using it. While it seems quite obvious after a bit of examination to me, (and most on this board I believe) there are definitely those who don't see it. The fact that it was released with Blade Cascade the way it is evidence enough of that to me. I'd venture to say that, for some reason, most people can't see the brokeness. I have no idea why they can't, but that's my impression of the what the majority of D&D players are like.
For optimization purposes, yeah, if everything is equally uber-broken, it's all fine. But even then, I'm not sure they're equal.
Definitely more balanced, though.
-
It's still too early to say it. The first splats aren't even out yet. We'll just have to see how many ways from Sunday WotC manages to break its product until 5.0 comes out. XD
-
Remember also that the vast majority of broken combos seem to be coming out in the epic tier, which is supposed to be, well...epic.
That leaves 2/3 of the game with a much diminished number of broken combos.
Hardly on the scale of the Candle of Invocation.
-
Remember also that the vast majority of broken combos seem to be coming out in the epic tier, which is supposed to be, well...epic.
That leaves 2/3 of the game with a much diminished number of broken combos.
Hardly on the scale of the Candle of Invocation.
it would be hard to be on the scale of Candle of Invocation.
-
Remember also that the vast majority of broken combos seem to be coming out in the epic tier, which is supposed to be, well...epic.
That leaves 2/3 of the game with a much diminished number of broken combos.
Hardly on the scale of the Candle of Invocation.
it would be hard to be on the scale of Candle of Invocation.
Exactly. In the last months before 4e came out, a thread was started with the intent of finally making an ascended character based entirely on the Core 3.5e books. When I stopped paying attention to the thread, they had accomplished about half their goal.
So here we have 4e, with a group of optimizers who have experienced pun-pun and all his myriad parallels, and no methods of attribute ascension in sight.
I'd say that alone makes a case for greater balance(if at the cost of lower flexibility) in 4e.
We'll see what the splatbooks hold, but I suspect that it'll be a long time before we can find anything of the like.
-
Remember also that the vast majority of broken combos seem to be coming out in the epic tier, which is supposed to be, well...epic.
That leaves 2/3 of the game with a much diminished number of broken combos.
Hardly on the scale of the Candle of Invocation.
it would be hard to be on the scale of Candle of Invocation.
Exactly. In the last months before 4e came out, a thread was started with the intent of finally making an ascended character based entirely on the Core 3.5e books. When I stopped paying attention to the thread, they had accomplished about half their goal.
So here we have 4e, with a group of optimizers who have experienced pun-pun and all his myriad parallels, and no methods of attribute ascension in sight.
I'd say that alone makes a case for greater balance(if at the cost of lower flexibility) in 4e.
We'll see what the splatbooks hold, but I suspect that it'll be a long time before we can find anything of the like.
The system does fewer things, therefore the expected scope of broken is smaller.
3e had a fully 'functional' economics system (ie, the rules described how the game world's economics worked. Calling it functional may be going too far). However, it also had Wall of Iron, Flesh to Salt, and other silly spells which led to infinite cash generation machines. These are totally outside the scope of 4E.
Basically, 3e broke more obscenely because it did more. You can't compare the two, because 4E is so much less powerful as a system than 3e was. It can do one thing - run adventures. 3e could do anything in theory (even if in practice it failed pretty badly on some of them).
-
Alpha - yep. I recently bumped that thread.
All dieties are Helpful and Cloned into NoldorForce's loop.
What exactly does it have?
It looks like some (su) and (ex) abilities are hard to come by,
but stronger that Miracle actions, of DM Fiat-y values, are available.
At least Overdiety level, and unspecifiably stronger than that, and lots of infinities.
-
...I swear he's speaking English, because I know what most of the words ARE....
-
...I swear he's speaking English, because I know what most of the words ARE....
Oh good, i wasn't the only one. Maybe he's some sort of advanced AI trying to interact with us and getting confused?
-
He reminds me of the chef guy from the Ctrl+Alt+Del comic sometimes.
-
...I swear he's speaking English, because I know what most of the words ARE....
Oh good, i wasn't the only one. Maybe he's some sort of advanced AI trying to interact with us and getting confused?
Oh wow, I assumed that he was referencing a bunch of things from 3.5 that everyone else got. I once said basically, "I have no idea what you're talking about most of the time," but he and everyone else ignored me, so I came to the conclusion that everyone else understood what he was saying...
-
Oh wow, I assumed that he was referencing a bunch of things from 3.5 that everyone else got. I once said basically, "I have no idea what you're talking about most of the time," but he and everyone else ignored me, so I came to the conclusion that everyone else understood what he was saying...
He ignores anyone who says he's incomprehensible. We've learned not to bring it up.
He's actually quite good, when he makes sense.
-
...I swear he's speaking English, because I know what most of the words ARE....
If you know the relevant thread, you can puzzle it out. The challenge of the thread was to create an 'ascended' character with infinite stats, and all supernatural, extraordinary and possibly spell-like abilities, using only the Core 3.
He's informing me that:
1. We can get every deity to a helpful attitude, and then clone them(whether that means we can clone ourselves as them or not, I don't know). This may be using a level of brokenness that relies on specious rules interpretation(I'm not familiar with NoldorForce's loop).
2. They've found that while they can get a lot of supernatural and extraordinary abilities, there are several that are much harder to come by.
3. We can get a ton of stuff with unlimited Miracles, but because miracle is subject to DM fiat this option doesn't quite accomplish our goals(if we wanted to rely on DM fiat we would just ask the DM to make us a god).
The final summary is that the character is stronger than other gods by virtue of having the abilities of several of them available(Overdiety), and has a lot of infinite loops available. Not the all-powerful pun-pun, but still an ascended character.
Now, he conveyed all that information using far less words than I did :P
Thank you, ADMG.
-
...I swear he's speaking English, because I know what most of the words ARE....
If you know the relevant thread, you can puzzle it out. The challenge of the thread was to create an 'ascended' character with infinite stats, and all supernatural, extraordinary and possibly spell-like abilities, using only the Core 3.
He's informing me that:
1. We can get every deity to a helpful attitude, and then clone them(whether that means we can clone ourselves as them or not, I don't know). This may be using a level of brokenness that relies on specious rules interpretation(I'm not familiar with NoldorForce's loop).
2. They've found that while they can get a lot of supernatural and extraordinary abilities, there are several that are much harder to come by.
3. We can get a ton of stuff with unlimited Miracles, but because miracle is subject to DM fiat this option doesn't quite accomplish our goals(if we wanted to rely on DM fiat we would just ask the DM to make us a god).
The final summary is that the character is stronger than other gods by virtue of having the abilities of several of them available(Overdiety), and has a lot of infinite loops available. Not the all-powerful pun-pun, but still an ascended character.
Now, he conveyed all that information using far less words than I did :P
Thank you, ADMG.
I still can't reject the hypothesis that he's really an advanced AI. Not that being one would be a bad thing, clearly I wasn't intelligent enough to parse that amazingly succinct shorthand statement.
-
I still can't reject the hypothesis that he's really an advanced AI. Not that being one would be a bad thing, clearly I wasn't intelligent enough to parse that amazingly succinct shorthand statement.
Hypothesis? It even says he's a golem in his name :P
Turing, eat your heart out. (http://xkcd.com/329/)
-
...I swear he's speaking English, because I know what most of the words ARE....
If you know the relevant thread, you can puzzle it out. The challenge of the thread was to create an 'ascended' character with infinite stats, and all supernatural, extraordinary and possibly spell-like abilities, using only the Core 3.
He's informing me that:
1. We can get every deity to a helpful attitude, and then clone them(whether that means we can clone ourselves as them or not, I don't know). This may be using a level of brokenness that relies on specious rules interpretation(I'm not familiar with NoldorForce's loop).
2. They've found that while they can get a lot of supernatural and extraordinary abilities, there are several that are much harder to come by.
3. We can get a ton of stuff with unlimited Miracles, but because miracle is subject to DM fiat this option doesn't quite accomplish our goals(if we wanted to rely on DM fiat we would just ask the DM to make us a god).
The final summary is that the character is stronger than other gods by virtue of having the abilities of several of them available(Overdiety), and has a lot of infinite loops available. Not the all-powerful pun-pun, but still an ascended character.
Now, he conveyed all that information using far less words than I did :P
Thank you, ADMG.
Oh... a bunch of lines that looked like non-sequiturs suddenly make sense.
Here's how I parsed it:
Alpha - yep. I recently bumped that thread. - This line made sense.
All dieties are Helpful and Cloned into NoldorForce's loop. - No idea where this had come from. Assumed probably related to the other thread, not this one.
What exactly does it have? - Seemed like a non-sequitur; a sudden switch to asking something about this thread.
It looks like some (su) and (ex) abilities are hard to come by, - Seemed like another non-sequitur, talking about 3.5.
but stronger that Miracle actions, of DM Fiat-y values, are available. - Had no idea what this was saying. (stronger that Miracle actions? Assumed stronger than Miracle actions, but then what did "of DM Fiat-y values, are available" mean?
At least Overdiety level, and unspecifiably stronger than that, and lots of infinities. - Seemingly another non-sequitur talking about deities again.
It all makes sense now, though.
-
It wasn't that hard to understand... :backtotopic
-
It wasn't that hard to understand... :backtotopic
Well, is there actually anything left to discuss? I'm pretty satisfied with it right now.
-
...I swear he's speaking English, because I know what most of the words ARE....
Oops.
I misspelled "than" with a "T".
{ ... insert 3rd grade english teacher smiley face ... }
The *golem* part might be accurately described as an AI.
Throw in a Maximize and an Empower on the Awaken part; and the Charisma might be 5 or 6.
I obviously have a difficult time Diplomacy persuading anyone of anything ...
... regardless of the Sense Motive checks that fail against me.
-
...I swear he's speaking English, because I know what most of the words ARE....
Oops.
I misspelled "than" with a "T".
{ ... insert 3rd grade english teacher smiley face ... }
The *golem* part might be accurately described as an AI.
Throw in a Maximize and an Empower on the Awaken part; and the Charisma might be 5 or 6.
I obviously have a difficult time Diplomacy persuading anyone of anything ...
... regardless of the Sense Motive checks that fail against me.
That deserves an LMAO!
-
regardless of the Sense Motive checks that fail against me.
They'll all to find the hidden meaning.
-
Also, it is worth noting that cascade of blades has been errata'ed.
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/UpdatePH.pdf
Here is the affected part.
Blade Cascade [Revision]
Player’s Handbook, page 109
On the Attack line, replace the second sentence with “Alternate main and offhand weapon attacks until you miss or until you make five attacks.”
Looks like this is the last bastion of infinite attacks... :D
-
They just pulled that "limit of 5 attacks on blade cascade" errata completely out of their asses.
WOTC ftL.
-
They just pulled that "limit of 5 attacks on blade cascade" errata completely out of their asses.
WOTC ftL.
Yep. Course they did. You were expecting something else? :P
-
I'd think bullshitting its way through problems is standard WotC procedure.
-
Well what would have made more sense was limiting Blade Cascade to solely a Blade Cascade special attack sans absolutely any other effects.
Blade Cascade, in and of itself, is not ridiculous. The problem is tossing in something like Imperiling Strike.
I don't know about everyone else, but in groups I've played with we find it fun and a great way to build dramatic tension and excitement if someone keeps making roll after roll. The group collectively stops what they're doing and becomes captivated by the result of the roll, that's what I thought they were originally "going for" in terms of BC.
They could have errata'd Blade Cascade to something like "You make a single attack with BC, ignoring all other modifiers to your attack rolls. Roll a d20, if you make a 11+ you hit regardless of AC/Defense/etc. If you hit in this way, you may continue to attack under the same conditions, if you miss BC ends."
I mean, I thought the intention of BC was to set up a fun "roll-fest" and see how many times the player can manage to make that 11+, not limiting it to 5 which is an entirely arbitrary convention. Why 5 and not 4 or 6 or 3 or 7? What's special about 5?
Stupid Wizards. My limited experience with 4th ed has been luke warm at best, and pulling random limitations out of their ass to a poorly play-tested product really grinds my gears.
-
Well what would have made more sense was limiting Blade Cascade to solely a Blade Cascade special attack sans absolutely any other effects.
Blade Cascade, in and of itself, is not ridiculous. The problem is tossing in something like Imperiling Strike.
I don't know about everyone else, but in groups I've played with we find it fun and a great way to build dramatic tension and excitement if someone keeps making roll after roll. The group collectively stops what they're doing and becomes captivated by the result of the roll, that's what I thought they were originally "going for" in terms of BC.
They could have errata'd Blade Cascade to something like "You make a single attack with BC, ignoring all other modifiers to your attack rolls. Roll a d20, if you make a 11+ you hit regardless of AC/Defense/etc. If you hit in this way, you may continue to attack under the same conditions, if you miss BC ends."
I mean, I thought the intention of BC was to set up a fun "roll-fest" and see how many times the player can manage to make that 11+, not limiting it to 5 which is an entirely arbitrary convention. Why 5 and not 4 or 6 or 3 or 7? What's special about 5?
Stupid Wizards. My limited experience with 4th ed has been luke warm at best, and pulling random limitations out of their ass to a poorly play-tested product really grinds my gears.
I like 4e.
-
I like 4e.
Same here.
I saw the nerf bat coming a while ago. I would've been surprised if they didn't nerf it.
-
Speaking of surprising non-nerfs, no Blood Pulse/Bolstering Blood errata.
-
Speaking of surprising non-nerfs, no Blood Pulse/Bolstering Blood errata.
Especially since I was told I could *expect one soon* by CS after I pointed out just how different BB's wording was from their intention.
-
Speaking of surprising non-nerfs, no Blood Pulse/Bolstering Blood errata.
I suppose we can expect that to be in the future... though not too soon. Blade Cascade apparently had to be fixed immediately, so they pulled that stuff outta their asses.