Author Topic: A New Take on The 10^100 Challenge.  (Read 9272 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Mixster

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1642
Re: A New Take on The 10^100 Challenge.
« Reply #20 on: November 16, 2010, 08:52:28 AM »
Mixster: How do you get enough unique powers/day for this to be viable?
Get it with expanded knowledge instead of as an unique power and it should work?

EDIT: Another option is to get the magic mantle and simply cast Schism through greater arcane fusion.
Monks are pretty much the best designed class ever.

JaronK

Meep Meep - Mixster out

OblivionSmurf83

  • That monkey with the orange ass cheeks
  • ****
  • Posts: 304
Re: A New Take on The 10^100 Challenge.
« Reply #21 on: November 16, 2010, 09:06:49 AM »
Nightsticks do not replicate Extra Turning. They require Extra Turning in order to make, but they themselves do not say that they replicate it.

I do not believe Nightsticks stack for DMM, insofar as they do not give a pool of Turnings for you to draw out of. I would consider them more like an eternal wand with four charges, all of which you can expend at the same time. Because of this, you can't use 2 Nightsticks to power a single DMM Persist. But it can be argued that you reduce the Turn attempts needed for each DMM Persist by 4 per Nightstick, which means you still need to use 3 of your own Turn attempts plus a full Nightstick to power one DMM Persist.

You know, this is a very important lesson that you should always read feats yourself :)

I think your interpretation is interesting, but the difference is that the Wand is use-activated. The nightstick isn't. Even if it doesn't stack, you still just get +4 to your turning pools. You don't do anything special to exhaust that, you just do when you run out of normal turn attempts. That suggests it's not behaving like a wand.

Without the 'functions like extra turning' description, the Nightstick should still stack by itself. 'Anyone who possesses the rod and is able to turn or rebuke undead gains four more uses of the ability per day.' If you grab another rod, that's 'four more uses' twice. Or eight more uses. Wouldn't the argument against it stacking be predicated on the general rule that bonuses don't stack? If that's the case, even that rule recognises exceptions for untyped bonuses (Not that the nightstick is really any sort of bonus).

Put another way, look at a comparable Rod. The Rod of Splendour states that '[t]he possessor of this rod gains a +4 enhancement bonus to her Charisma score for as long as she holds or carries the item'. It states the bonus, so you know it doesn't stack. This isn't a bonus - it's just 'four more uses'. You don't have to hold the Rod; you just have to 'possess' it.

It seems like not stacking argument is based on it being a bonus, which it doesn't appear to be. Even if it is a bonus, it's not a typed one, and should therefore stack anyway.

Have I missed anything? Is there another section that talks about stacking in the context of magical items?

KellKheraptis

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2668
  • What's the matter? I thought you had me...
    • Email
Re: A New Take on The 10^100 Challenge.
« Reply #22 on: November 16, 2010, 09:28:34 AM »
Mixster: How do you get enough unique powers/day for this to be viable?
Get it with expanded knowledge instead of as an unique power and it should work?

EDIT: Another option is to get the magic mantle and simply cast Schism through greater arcane fusion.

Read as written, it's UNIQUE POWERS/LEVEL/DAY.  Big difference.
BG's Resident Black Hatter
The Mango List Reborn!
My Warmage Trickery (coming soon!)
My PrC Pally Trickery (coming soon!)
The D&D Archive
-Work in progress!

OblivionSmurf83

  • That monkey with the orange ass cheeks
  • ****
  • Posts: 304
Re: A New Take on The 10^100 Challenge.
« Reply #23 on: November 16, 2010, 09:35:14 AM »
Mixster: How do you get enough unique powers/day for this to be viable?
Get it with expanded knowledge instead of as an unique power and it should work?

EDIT: Another option is to get the magic mantle and simply cast Schism through greater arcane fusion.

Read as written, it's UNIQUE POWERS/LEVEL/DAY.  Big difference.

If only you could persist Erudite spells... The lack of an Incantatrix/Divine Metamagic option has always kept me away from the class

EDIT: In fact, my personal dream would be a way of getting a Psionic character qualifying for a +1 spellcasting prestige class... If only there was a rule somwhere!
« Last Edit: November 16, 2010, 09:38:05 AM by OblivionSmurf83 »

OblivionSmurf83

  • That monkey with the orange ass cheeks
  • ****
  • Posts: 304
Re: A New Take on The 10^100 Challenge.
« Reply #24 on: November 16, 2010, 09:40:29 AM »
Kell, while I've got your attention back on this thread. I'm happy enough with the Post-Druid as is, but I feel like Cloistered Cleric would be a better chasis. Is there any elegant way of getting a Cloistered Cleric with eventual Wild Shape and Animal Companion?

spacemonkey555

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 150
Re: A New Take on The 10^100 Challenge.
« Reply #25 on: November 16, 2010, 09:41:36 AM »
Untyped bonuses from the same effect don't stack. Someone will argue that +4 isn't a numerical bonus, and therefore not a "bonus" per se, probably.  ;)

Semantics arguments could rage for days, but who really cares. Group a thinks unlimited nightsticks, group b thinks not, doesn't matter unless we sit down to play together, and then dmm persist planar shepherd with half a dozen classes aren't likely to show up, unless the game is no holds barred cheese anyways. Same with whether or not druid ws and ps ws are the same thing.

AndyJames

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3112
  • Meep?
Re: A New Take on The 10^100 Challenge.
« Reply #26 on: November 16, 2010, 09:42:16 AM »
The thing is, there is nothing that says multiple instances of "gains" stack. For example, Shapechange states: "You gain all extraordinary and supernatural abilities (both attacks and qualities) of the assumed form, but you lose your own supernatural abilities. You also gain the type of the new form in place of your own. The new form does not disorient you. Parts of your body or pieces of equipment that are separated from you do not revert to their original forms."

Does this mean every round you change form and you keep gaining extraordinary and supernatural abilities without losing the ones of your previous form until the spell duration ends? Also, does every change mean you gain the type of the creature without losing the old?

Let's make it simpler. Assuming that you can get spell-like abilities with Shapechange (there are probably ways to do it with something else, but let's use Shapechange as a base): If you change from an Efreet to a Glazebru, do you have 4 wishes or 1? If you keep changing from Efreet to Glazebru back to Efreet and Glazebru again, does your number of wishes keep going up?

"Gains" should not stack, unless it is qualified (and it is in every instance of it when it is supposed to stack; read some of the PrCs out there).

KellKheraptis

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2668
  • What's the matter? I thought you had me...
    • Email
Re: A New Take on The 10^100 Challenge.
« Reply #27 on: November 16, 2010, 09:46:24 AM »
The IKEA way is to snag Lion or Talasid or Sentinel of Bharri with Wild Cohort, though I don't think that will match the raw power of the real deal.

As to getting into Incantatrix as a psionic character, Magic Mantle should do it.
BG's Resident Black Hatter
The Mango List Reborn!
My Warmage Trickery (coming soon!)
My PrC Pally Trickery (coming soon!)
The D&D Archive
-Work in progress!

OblivionSmurf83

  • That monkey with the orange ass cheeks
  • ****
  • Posts: 304
Re: A New Take on The 10^100 Challenge.
« Reply #28 on: November 16, 2010, 09:53:53 AM »
The thing is, there is nothing that says multiple instances of "gains" stack. For example, Shapechange states: "You gain all extraordinary and supernatural abilities (both attacks and qualities) of the assumed form, but you lose your own supernatural abilities. You also gain the type of the new form in place of your own. The new form does not disorient you. Parts of your body or pieces of equipment that are separated from you do not revert to their original forms."

Does this mean every round you change form and you keep gaining extraordinary and supernatural abilities without losing the ones of your previous form until the spell duration ends? Also, does every change mean you gain the type of the creature without losing the old?

Let's make it simpler. Assuming that you can get spell-like abilities with Shapechange (there are probably ways to do it with something else, but let's use Shapechange as a base): If you change from an Efreet to a Glazebru, do you have 4 wishes or 1? If you keep changing from Efreet to Glazebru back to Efreet and Glazebru again, does your number of wishes keep going up?

"Gains" should not stack, unless it is qualified (and it is in every instance of it when it is supposed to stack; read some of the PrCs out there).

The thing here is, there is a specific rule for spells that says multiple castings of the same spell don't stack. That's the default rule. So, you only get 1 Wish in your change, because of the general rule that the newest spellcasting trumps the old one. If you cast shapechange twice, the second casting trumps the first. That's why spells that don't follow the rule have specific exceptions, like Ruin Delver's Fortune.

The same rule exists for Feats, incidentally, which is why Extra Turning, Extra Spell or similar have exceptions. There is no such rule for items.

Back to your Shapechange example, it functions as per Polymorph, which in turn functions like Alter Self. Alter Self causes you to 'lose any [extraordinary abilities] from your normal form that are not derived from class levels.' Shapechange expands this to losing your own Supernatural abilities, in exchange for the new forms. Each time you change, you are changing your 'form'. So, you lose both your extraordinary and supernatural abilities of your current form (the old Shapechanged creature), in exchange for your new form.

If you did have some spell-like abilities rider attached to shapechange, without a qualifier stating you lose it, then you would keep the form... for as long the spell lasted. Broken, yes, but that's just because Spell-Likes have never been part of the Shapechange school. However, if you cast a SECOND Shapechange, you would instantly lose those Spell-Likes, because of the general rule that newer castings of spells override older ones.

AndyJames

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3112
  • Meep?
Re: A New Take on The 10^100 Challenge.
« Reply #29 on: November 16, 2010, 09:58:25 AM »
It is the same casting, OS.

OblivionSmurf83

  • That monkey with the orange ass cheeks
  • ****
  • Posts: 304
Re: A New Take on The 10^100 Challenge.
« Reply #30 on: November 16, 2010, 10:02:09 AM »
Yeah, I know. And with each casting, you're losing the supernatural and extraordinary abilities of your own form. So there's no problems with stacking wishes, unless you do something like introduce spell-like abilities into the mix, which aren't in the original chain.

Do you see my point, though, about the general rule being that things stack? When there are exceptions to that rule (ie, bonuses of the same type, multiple castings of spells, etc), they are mentioned, and then exceptions to those exceptions are mentioned, but the general rule is still things stack.

bearsarebrown

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: A New Take on The 10^100 Challenge.
« Reply #31 on: November 16, 2010, 10:29:24 AM »
As to getting into Incantatrix as a psionic character, Magic Mantle should do it.
Don't even need to. All Psionics are Psi-Like Abilities which are Spell-Like Abilities. Which is undoubtedly a magical effect.

Mixster

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1642
Re: A New Take on The 10^100 Challenge.
« Reply #32 on: November 16, 2010, 10:37:09 AM »
Mixster: How do you get enough unique powers/day for this to be viable?
Get it with expanded knowledge instead of as an unique power and it should work?

EDIT: Another option is to get the magic mantle and simply cast Schism through greater arcane fusion.

Read as written, it's UNIQUE POWERS/LEVEL/DAY.  Big difference.

If only you could persist Erudite spells... The lack of an Incantatrix/Divine Metamagic option has always kept me away from the class

EDIT: In fact, my personal dream would be a way of getting a Psionic character qualifying for a +1 spellcasting prestige class... If only there was a rule somwhere!

Huh? You can? It's a bit cheesy. But if you grab both the StP and the Mantled Erudite you can play Erudite 10/Incantatrix 10. And add metamagic effect to your powers.
Monks are pretty much the best designed class ever.

JaronK

Meep Meep - Mixster out

AndyJames

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3112
  • Meep?
Re: A New Take on The 10^100 Challenge.
« Reply #33 on: November 16, 2010, 10:39:45 AM »
Yeah, I know. And with each casting, you're losing the supernatural and extraordinary abilities of your own form. So there's no problems with stacking wishes, unless you do something like introduce spell-like abilities into the mix, which aren't in the original chain.

Do you see my point, though, about the general rule being that things stack? When there are exceptions to that rule (ie, bonuses of the same type, multiple castings of spells, etc), they are mentioned, and then exceptions to those exceptions are mentioned, but the general rule is still things stack.
The point is you don't cast Shapechange every time. You cast it once and it is a function of Shapechange that you can shift shapes every round. Therefore, the initial check only applies when you first cast it. It doesn't after that. So, if "gains" stacks, the Wishes stack.

The general rule of DnD has always been NOTHING stacks unless specifically stated otherwise. It never has. Heck, even back in the old days of 1st Ed, things don't stack. Bracers of Armour AC x and normal armour being classic examples.

Tell you what. Since you insists that the rule is that things stack, give me a list of things stacking without specific rules that says it can stack.

OblivionSmurf83

  • That monkey with the orange ass cheeks
  • ****
  • Posts: 304
Re: A New Take on The 10^100 Challenge.
« Reply #34 on: November 16, 2010, 10:47:08 AM »
Yeah, I know. And with each casting, you're losing the supernatural and extraordinary abilities of your own form. So there's no problems with stacking wishes, unless you do something like introduce spell-like abilities into the mix, which aren't in the original chain.

Do you see my point, though, about the general rule being that things stack? When there are exceptions to that rule (ie, bonuses of the same type, multiple castings of spells, etc), they are mentioned, and then exceptions to those exceptions are mentioned, but the general rule is still things stack.
The point is you don't cast Shapechange every time. You cast it once and it is a function of Shapechange that you can shift shapes every round. Therefore, the initial check only applies when you first cast it. It doesn't after that. So, if "gains" stacks, the Wishes stack.

The general rule of DnD has always been NOTHING stacks unless specifically stated otherwise. It never has. Heck, even back in the old days of 1st Ed, things don't stack. Bracers of Armour AC x and normal armour being classic examples.

Tell you what. Since you insists that the rule is that things stack, give me a list of things stacking without specific rules that says it can stack.

In the bracers example, they don't stack in 3.5 because they both provide an Armor bonus. Armor bonuses don't stack, except with shields.

I already explained the Shapechange thing. Each time, you lose the Su and Ex abilities of your form. If Supernatural gave Spell-Likes, without causing you to lose the Spell-Likes of your current form, then yes it would let you collect stuff like crazy.

bearsarebrown

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: A New Take on The 10^100 Challenge.
« Reply #35 on: November 16, 2010, 10:47:37 AM »
Nightsticks are based on Extra Turning by RAI. Extra Turning stacks.
Nightsticks are not a bonus by RAW. Not bonuses stack obviously.

AndyJames

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3112
  • Meep?
Re: A New Take on The 10^100 Challenge.
« Reply #36 on: November 16, 2010, 10:54:13 AM »
In the bracers example, they don't stack in 3.5 because they both provide an Armor bonus. Armor bonuses don't stack, except with shields.

I already explained the Shapechange thing. Each time, you lose the Su and Ex abilities of your form. If Supernatural gave Spell-Likes, without causing you to lose the Spell-Likes of your current form, then yes it would let you collect stuff like crazy.
??? Are you seriously that obtuse or are you trying to bait me?

OK. Let me explain this one more time. This is the last time I will do this:

Casting the SPELL makes you lose your extraordinary abilities (and supernatural for Shapechange). After that, there is no more check for the extraordinary. The spell specifically says you only lose your supernatural abilities when you shift form. If "gains" stack, then you just keep gaining extraordinary abilities. It doesn't so that is no longer a problem.

As for the bracers, I was pointing to 1st Ed in order to prove to you that things never stacked in DnD, even back in the days.

So, prove to me that "the general rule being that things stack". Show me where things stack that did not specifically have words saying they stack.

OblivionSmurf83

  • That monkey with the orange ass cheeks
  • ****
  • Posts: 304
Re: A New Take on The 10^100 Challenge.
« Reply #37 on: November 16, 2010, 11:14:50 AM »
In the bracers example, they don't stack in 3.5 because they both provide an Armor bonus. Armor bonuses don't stack, except with shields.

I already explained the Shapechange thing. Each time, you lose the Su and Ex abilities of your form. If Supernatural gave Spell-Likes, without causing you to lose the Spell-Likes of your current form, then yes it would let you collect stuff like crazy.
??? Are you seriously that obtuse or are you trying to bait me?

OK. Let me explain this one more time. This is the last time I will do this:

Casting the SPELL makes you lose your extraordinary abilities (and supernatural for Shapechange). After that, there is no more check for the extraordinary. The spell specifically says you only lose your supernatural abilities when you shift form. If "gains" stack, then you just keep gaining extraordinary abilities. It doesn't so that is no longer a problem.

As for the bracers, I was pointing to 1st Ed in order to prove to you that things never stacked in DnD, even back in the days.

So, prove to me that "the general rule being that things stack". Show me where things stack that did not specifically have words saying they stack.

I am not trying to bait you. I am not trying to antagonise you. If I have been less than civil at some point, show me where so I can offer you an apology.

As I have said previously, the Shapechange non-stacking is based on the fact that the spell inherits Alter Self. Alter Self states that '[y]ou assume the form of a creature', and that 'you lose any [extraordinary special attacks] from your normal form that are not derived from class levels.'

That is, each time you assume a form using the Alter Self chain of spells, you lose Ex abilities from your current form.

Shapechange functions like Alter Self. However, it lets you 'change form once each round as a free action.' Each time you do that, you lose your current form's Ex abilities, because of the fact that it inherits Alter Self. So, you don't need to have non-stacking for that to happen.

Does this make sense? Am I still 'seriously that obtuse', or does my argument that you don't need a default rule against stacking to prevent Ex abuses from Shapechange work?

I haven't searched for the general rule yet, I have put my time into making sure this response is clear, and also polite. I will start looking for the general rule now.


spacemonkey555

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 150
Re: A New Take on The 10^100 Challenge.
« Reply #38 on: November 16, 2010, 11:39:45 AM »
I was just thinking about nightsticks, as long as you're going to allow unlimited stacking, you might as well do it right. Make a custom nightstick, and put the extra turning ability on it twice, the second instance should cost 3/4 as much as the original. Now you've got an 8 extra turns per day nightstick for 1.75x cost. Now presumably its giving the extra turning feats 1/day, so multiply the cost by 5 and it provides unlimited uses of +8 turns per day.

Now you can persist 1000000000 spells for something like 66k gold. Fair and balanced, right? Its just as reasonable as infinite stacking nightsticks, without the retarded concept of a guy sticking a bunch of rods in his portable holes.

What's more, you can share this one rod of ultimate cheese with the rest of your cheese brigade, since you only have to possess the rod while buffing, so now you can split the cost with the cheater of mystra and twice betrayer and whoever else is rollin on the tier 1 cheesewheel with you.

Even if you don't go with the x5 for unlimited uses, you might as well get the 50% discount for stacking the same effect on a slotless item, and there's no raw problem with sharing the rod with your cohort and group either.

edit: wow, this argument is old, like 2-3 years old. best gem I found is this, if nightsticks stack infinitely, so do +1 caster level ioun stones
« Last Edit: November 16, 2010, 11:52:24 AM by spacemonkey555 »

OblivionSmurf83

  • That monkey with the orange ass cheeks
  • ****
  • Posts: 304
Re: A New Take on The 10^100 Challenge.
« Reply #39 on: November 16, 2010, 11:54:55 AM »

So, prove to me that "the general rule being that things stack". Show me where things stack that did not specifically have words saying they stack.

As silly an example as this is, how about equipment? You can buy 2 swords. They stack. This isn't in the rules, it's just assumed.

Similarly, you can buy two Nightsticks. Whatever we might say about the effect created, there's no question the physical presence of the nightsticks stacks.

So, items stack.

It seems though, that this argument is flawed. Let's assume I couldn't find a rule that said 'generally, things stack'. Instead, the rules either say things stack, or say they don't stack. Where the rules are silent, how would we adjudicate this? We can assume that there is no rule that says that generally things stack. However, can we assume there is a rule that says they don't? If so, why?

It seems in this situation, you need to make a decision about whether things stack when the rules are silent. Is there support in the rules about which way to go for this?