1,067,212 attacks in a single action

[BowenSilverclaw]

Guess I misremembered then

[wotmaniac]

@OP: well, you asked for it; so here it is:
Just as an inconsequential side note, before I start -- I assume that you mean "cobra strike", as opposed to "passive way", in order to get dodge as a bonus feat (doesn't change anything, just swap-out the terms).


I have to admit that the builds for the kobold and the creature are impressive.  As impressive as final product might be (as is the work put in to the endeavor), I do have a few issues with the method, as well as some assumed definitions. 

First, definitions:
While you have created an impressive creature, it is far from a "20-level PC".  While you did indeed get there in 20 levels, in order to make it all happen, you must become an epic creature ("epic" being defined by the taking of "epic" feats -- if you qualify for "epic" feats as a character, then you are, by definition, and "epic" character) -- I could articulate that point further, but I think that should do it.  Additionally, as a matter of fact, by definition, aberrant limbs makes it an NPC:

These unique abilities were created for use by NPCs, not PCs.

Furthermore, the cohort issue.  You may call this "interpretation", but cohorts can't take leadership and expect to remain a cohort:

<snip>
Cohorts are not leaders.
<snip>
(of the leadership feat): A character with this feat is the sort of individual others want to follow, and he or she has done some work attempting to recuit cohorts and followers.

That description sure sounds like a "leader" to me.  I'm sure custserve could be enlisted for this, but I doubt that you would consider that valid (unless, of course, they would agree with you).

The above two issues may seem like petty minutiae; but, it is what it is.  "Theoretical" or not, some things just simply cannot be ignored just because you feel like it.   

Now for the cohorts themselves:
Circle magic.  Where are your other 2 Circle participants coming from?  Neither the kobold nor the psion cohort are able to be participants.  No Circle, no CL 25.  No CL 25, no lizzipede.  No lizzipede = fail.

Next -- feat retraining.
In order to retrain a feat, you have to be eligible for the new feat.  "Bonus vile feat" feat slots are only available to vile feats.  Non-vile feats are not eligible for these feat slots -- retrained or otherwise (please, let me know if I'm missing something here).  This means that you have "illegal" feats, making this an "illegal" build.  Nice try, though.

Then there is the statement that demonstrates what seems to be your guiding philosophy:

Also, to note; this blatantly ignores wealth by level, but with a psion and wizard as cohorts, just choose your method of breaking the standard wealth scheme.

By this philosophy, "theoretically", a 1st level commoner could do this very same thing (given enough time, of course).  If it can be done by a 1st level commoner, then just how impressive can it be?

Basically, your cohort and wealth abuse fall in to the "'I'm a little tea pot' healing method" catagory -- an approach that I simply cannot take seriously.  Also, your apparent claim that that thing you become can in any way be concidered a level-20 PC is likewise preposterous.  Your feat retraining is simply a case of you making-up rules as you go along --   

Otherwise, cool creature, and nice work on the kobold (actually, the creature is pretty bad-ass).

Like I said, you asked for it.

 

[EjoThims]

Just as an inconsequential side note, before I start -- I assume that you mean "cobra strike", as opposed to "passive way", in order to get dodge as a bonus feat (doesn't change anything, just swap-out the terms).

It appears you are correct. Not sure how that mix up occurred.

("epic" being defined by the taking of "epic" feats -- if you qualify for "epic" feats as a character, then you are, by definition, and "epic" character)

not state that the Dragon becomes an epic creature, simply that it may take feats normally reserved for epic creatures.

Additionally, as a matter of fact, by definition, aberrant limbs makes it an NPC:

And they are being applied to an NPC. We just happen to be stealing that NPCs body at a later time.

You may call this "interpretation",

Because it is.

When reading the text you omitted, that is not the only conclusion supported, namely:

"Cohorts are loyal servants who follow a particular character or sometimes a group of characters (NPC adventurers can have cohorts, too). They are hired by or seek out a PC or PCs, and they work out a deal agreeable to both parties so that the NPC works for the characters. A cohort serves as a general helper, a body-guard, a sidekick, or just someone to watch a character's back. Although technically subservient, cohorts are usually too valuable to waste on performing menial tasks."

Even the omitted sections of the paragraph you pull your quote from do not necessarily push as to the conclusion that a cohort cannot have his own, further subservient cohort:

"Cohorts are people who take on a subservient role. Cohorts are not leaders. They might voice an opinion now and again, but for the most part, they do as they're told."

The long and short of it is this:

The rules never specifically say cohorts cannot take the leadership feat, but they do say that cohorts follow normal rules and do as they're told. There's nothing to stop someone from telling their cohort to go out and find someone willing to be his cohort who fits the bill as needed.

I'm sure custserve could be enlisted for this, but I doubt that you would consider that valid (unless, of course, they would agree with you).

Whether they or anyone else agrees with me or not is never an issue for me. What is an issue is when others (especially CustServ or the Sage) do not agree with the rules. They do not have the power to change the rules without errata; this is clearly outlined in the rules themselves.

The rules are the rules, and we abuse them to their fullest extent in theoretical exercises. There is little to no room for interpretation, and where there is, we will error on the more gracious side unless evidence can be shown that said interpretation is not supported.

"Theoretical" or not, some things just simply cannot be ignored just because you feel like it.

Nothing is being ignored. Potentially overlooked as a mistake, but not ignored.

Circle magic.  Where are your other 2 Circle participants coming from?

From followers. There's plenty enough allowable to the two with leadership, and as they're able to be chosen as well, you simply grab up those able to join the circle.

Next -- feat retraining.

Nothing is retrained. Embrace the Dark Chaos and Shun the Dark Chaos are used to first swap out the feat (any feat, as noted by the spell) for one granted by Embrace the Dark Chaos, then that feat is traded for any feat we qualify for (as noted by the spell) with Shun the Dark Chaos. It's far superior in every way to retraining or even Reformation.

By this philosophy, "theoretically", a 1st level commoner could do this very same thing

Once he levels up and takes the appropriate feats, I suppose. But missing out on 1 level is really going to hurt what abilities he has access to. The ability to break wealth by level is a result of the options we've taken, not a baseline assumption. Our cohort(s) can easily be ordered to buy some cows and turn them to salt, or to create tons upon tons of black lotus extract to sell, or simply abuse wish for items and wealth. Our higher level followers can even help them do so, speeding up the process. If you'd like, I could do the math for how many of each spellcasting is needed to accumulate the necessary gold, but it's all rather moot as the ability to rake in arbitrarily large sums of cash is well within the limits of the power possessed by the character by the time she needs to equip the monstrosity she will swap minds with.

Otherwise, cool creature, and nice work on the kobold (actually, the creature is pretty bad-ass).

Thank you. And thanks for your attempts, as well as your catch on the wrong Monk variant being used, but you will have to provide far more substance for your claims and actually understand what is being discussed if you seriously want to shoot this down.

 

[wotmaniac]

Wow.  That was condsiderably more civil than I was expecting.

Okay, one at a time:

("epic" being defined by the taking of "epic" feats -- if you qualify for "epic" feats as a character, then you are, by definition, and "epic" character)

not state that the Dragon becomes an epic creature, simply that it may take feats normally reserved for epic creatures.

Ah, now you're playing word games.  But if you want to play some mickey-mouse b.s., then at least do it right -- for kobolds, there is no "venerable" age catagory.  You might want to double-check p39 of RotD.  Also, while there are no physical penalties for aging, nor are there any guidelines for mental boosts based on age -- at least not that I can find (completely different the standard age progressions in PHB).

Additionally, as a matter of fact, by definition, aberrant limbs makes it an NPC:

And they are being applied to an NPC. We just happen to be stealing that NPCs body at a later time.

You may call this "interpretation",

Because it is.

When reading the text you omitted, that is not the only conclusion supported, namely:

"Cohorts are loyal servants who follow a particular character or sometimes a group of characters (NPC adventurers can have cohorts, too). They are hired by or seek out a PC or PCs, and they work out a deal agreeable to both parties so that the NPC works for the characters. A cohort serves as a general helper, a body-guard, a sidekick, or just someone to watch a character's back. Although technically subservient, cohorts are usually too valuable to waste on performing menial tasks."

Even the omitted sections of the paragraph you pull your quote from do not necessarily push as to the conclusion that a cohort cannot have his own, further subservient cohort:

"Cohorts are people who take on a subservient role. Cohorts are not leaders. They might voice an opinion now and again, but for the most part, they do as they're told."

The long and short of it is this:

The rules never specifically say cohorts cannot take the leadership feat, but they do say that cohorts follow normal rules and do as they're told. There's nothing to stop someone from telling their cohort to go out and find someone willing to be his cohort who fits the bill as needed.

we'll just have to disagree on this one     

I'm sure custserve could be enlisted for this, but I doubt that you would consider that valid (unless, of course, they would agree with you).

Whether they or anyone else agrees with me or not is never an issue for me. What is an issue is when others (especially CustServ or the Sage) do not agree with the rules. They do not have the power to change the rules without errata; this is clearly outlined in the rules themselves.

The rules are the rules, and we abuse them to their fullest extent in theoretical exercises. There is little to no room for interpretation, and where there is, we will error on the more gracious side unless evidence can be shown that said interpretation is not supported.

the key word there is definitely "abuse". 

"Theoretical" or not, some things just simply cannot be ignored just because you feel like it.

Nothing is being ignored. Potentially overlooked as a mistake, but not ignored.

  mistake -- right.

Circle magic.  Where are your other 2 Circle participants coming from?

From followers. There's plenty enough allowable to the two with leadership, and as they're able to be chosen as well, you simply grab up those able to join the circle.

fair enough.

Next -- feat retraining.

Nothing is retrained. Embrace the Dark Chaos and Shun the Dark Chaos are used to first swap out the feat (any feat, as noted by the spell) for one granted by Embrace the Dark Chaos, then that feat is traded for any feat we qualify for (as noted by the spell) with Shun the Dark Chaos. It's far superior in every way to retraining or even Reformation.

still requires that you "qualify" for the feat.  I still hold that, in those feat slots, that you only qualify for "vile" feats.  the logic is not hard to follow.

By this philosophy, "theoretically", a 1st level commoner could do this very same thing

Once he levels up and takes the appropriate feats, I suppose. But missing out on 1 level is really going to hurt what abilities he has access to. The ability to break wealth by level is a result of the options we've taken, not a baseline assumption. Our cohort(s) can easily be ordered to buy some cows and turn them to salt, or to create tons upon tons of black lotus extract to sell, or simply abuse wish for items and wealth. Our higher level followers can even help them do so, speeding up the process. If you'd like, I could do the math for how many of each spellcasting is needed to accumulate the necessary gold, but it's all rather moot as the ability to rake in arbitrarily large sums of cash is well within the limits of the power possessed by the character by the time she needs to equip the monstrosity she will swap minds with.

no.  the arguement that I am posing is this:
There are enough wealth abuse methods, that even a 1st level commoner can find enough to abuse for "theoretical" NI wealth.  with enough wealth, "theoretically", any character can purchase whatever effects, equipment, services, etc., to have someone give him everything that your character has.  my point was that the NI wealth approach is basicaly null and void, since "theoretically" literally anyone can do it.  if you can't do it with "book value" appropriate gold, then it's bogus.


How's that? 

[AfterCrescent]

Ah, now you're playing word games.  But if you want to play some mickey-mouse b.s., then at least do it right -- for kobolds, there is no "venerable" age catagory.  You might want to double-check p39 of RotD.  Also, while there are no physical penalties for aging, nor are there any guidelines for mental boosts based on age -- at least not that I can find (completely different the standard age progressions in PHB).

Look at table 3-2 and 3-3. There is a venerable age category, and in dragon age, that corresponds to Wyrm status and above.
As for claiming there's no mental boosts, that's retarded. Age categories (Middle, Old, Venerable) are specifically described in the PHB along with their effects. There does not need to be a table in RotD to repeat it.

[wotmaniac]

Ah, now you're playing word games.  But if you want to play some mickey-mouse b.s., then at least do it right -- for kobolds, there is no "venerable" age catagory.  You might want to double-check p39 of RotD.  Also, while there are no physical penalties for aging, nor are there any guidelines for mental boosts based on age -- at least not that I can find (completely different the standard age progressions in PHB).

Look at table 3-2 and 3-3. There is a venerable age category, and in dragon age, that corresponds to Wyrm status and above.
As for claiming there's no mental boosts, that's retarded. Age categories (Middle, Old, Venerable) are specifically described in the PHB along with their effects. There does not need to be a table in RotD to repeat it.

oops   

[The_Mad_Linguist]

Ah, now you're playing word games.  But if you want to play some mickey-mouse b.s., then at least do it right -- for kobolds, there is no "venerable" age catagory.  You might want to double-check p39 of RotD.  Also, while there are no physical penalties for aging, nor are there any guidelines for mental boosts based on age -- at least not that I can find (completely different the standard age progressions in PHB).

Look at table 3-2 and 3-3. There is a venerable age category, and in dragon age, that corresponds to Wyrm status and above.
As for claiming there's no mental boosts, that's retarded. Age categories (Middle, Old, Venerable) are specifically described in the PHB along with their effects. There does not need to be a table in RotD to repeat it.

you missed my point -- there is no "middle" or "venerable" age catagories for dragons.  it's apples-to-oranges. 
in the phb, there are only 3 advanced age catagories; total of 4 if you count starting age to be "adult".  however, for dragons, starting with "adult", there are 7.  how do you corrolate 3 with 7?  the phb age progression chart is completely irrelavent and invalid for this scenario.

If only there were some sort of tables that correlated them... some sort of table 3-2 and table 3-3 in races of the dragon, which displayed both draconic age categories for kobolds, and also had ages at what point they'd be susceptible to various aging effects.

[wotmaniac]

Ah, now you're playing word games.  But if you want to play some mickey-mouse b.s., then at least do it right -- for kobolds, there is no "venerable" age catagory.  You might want to double-check p39 of RotD.  Also, while there are no physical penalties for aging, nor are there any guidelines for mental boosts based on age -- at least not that I can find (completely different the standard age progressions in PHB).

Look at table 3-2 and 3-3. There is a venerable age category, and in dragon age, that corresponds to Wyrm status and above.
As for claiming there's no mental boosts, that's retarded. Age categories (Middle, Old, Venerable) are specifically described in the PHB along with their effects. There does not need to be a table in RotD to repeat it.

you missed my point -- there is no "middle" or "venerable" age catagories for dragons.  it's apples-to-oranges. 
in the phb, there are only 3 advanced age catagories; total of 4 if you count starting age to be "adult".  however, for dragons, starting with "adult", there are 7.  how do you corrolate 3 with 7?  the phb age progression chart is completely irrelavent and invalid for this scenario.

If only there were some sort of tables that correlated them... some sort of table 3-2 and table 3-3 in races of the dragon, which displayed both draconic age categories for kobolds, and also had ages at what point they'd be susceptible to various aging effects.

sorry.  i read that page several times and still didn't see 3-3.   

[EjoThims]

Wow.  That was condsiderably more civil than I was expecting.

You weren't being nearly so ridiculous this time.

Ah, now you're playing word games.

Everything is either a word game or a numbers game. Some are both.

But really, you're the one trying to stretch the ability to take epic feats into the creature doing so as being epic. I'm just calling an egg an egg and not assuming anything about what's inside.

we'll just have to disagree on this one

If you'd like, since you're attempting to make a semantic argument, not a rules based one, I can go the whole "you don't have to be a leader to show leadership" route. I haven't had a good, strung out semantics argument in a while... 

the key word there is definitely "abuse".

Indeed it is. 

mistake -- right.

Just like the wrong Monk type being listed, I do occasionally make mistakes.

still requires that you "qualify" for the feat.  I still hold that, in those feat slots, that you only qualify for "vile" feats.  the logic is not hard to follow.

The logic is indeed not hard to follow. It's just not logic that's supported by the relevant rules. It would be an astoundingly sensible houserule though.

if you can't do it with "book value" appropriate gold, then it's bogus.

I happen to disagree, specifically because breaking wealth by level is so easy for so many characters.

But I'm not just buying a ton of items that give me class abilities or that grant spells or feats or whatever.

I'm buying a very small list of items. I just happen to be buying a lot of some of them. In fact, I'm pretty sure that everyone item I'm only being one or two of (and probably even the grafts) is well within the range of cash offered to me, my cohort, and his cohort. It's just the thousands of gloves of man copies, really, that break wealth by level. I'm sure there's another way to duplicate so many of them. Perhaps my cohort's cohort having an craftificer cohort, with some wish/true creation shenanigans for raw materials? Would you find that more elegant?

How's that?

Some sounds arguments so far, but still no rules text to support them. And without the rules on your side, we're just talking about what houserules you would likely implement.

[wotmaniac]

But really, you're the one trying to stretch the ability to take epic feats into the creature doing so as being epic.

How is that a stretch? 
The text in Draconomicon to which you ae refering does not allow your kobold to take epic feats simply by virtue of being old.  The text does not take away the 21+ level requirement -- it simply further defines "level" to include racial HD (IMHO, a clarification that shouldn't even have been needed).  Also, context is important -- the section of that book in which that appears is clearly talking about "true" dragons; ALL "true" dragons have way more than 21 HD by time they have reached "old" age.  I'll say it again: context is important.   
You're doing the feat-shuffle for the epic feats after you do the mindswitch -- by your logic, why wait?  After the mindswtch, you are CLEARLY way over the 20-level mark for ECL (and, yes, ECL matters).
 

I'm just calling an egg an egg and not assuming anything about what's inside.

um .... yolk?

we'll just have to disagree on this one

If you'd like, since you're attempting to make a semantic argument, not a rules based one, I can go the whole "you don't have to be a leader to show leadership" route. I haven't had a good, strung out semantics argument in a while... 

Okay, I'll play your silly little game.
Let's say you have a cohort named "Joe".  In your relationship with Joe, Joe's relation to you is "cohort" -- what, then, is your relation to Joe in that relationship?  Any honest answer other than "leader" is only another, more specifically defined, word for leader.  Now who's playing semantics?   

still requires that you "qualify" for the feat.  I still hold that, in those feat slots, that you only qualify for "vile" feats.  the logic is not hard to follow.

The logic is indeed not hard to follow. It's just not logic that's supported by the relevant rules. It would be an astoundingly sensible houserule though.

No, it is not houserule material.  Yes, it is supported by the rules.  Embrace/Shun the Dark Chaos specifically states that it must be a feat for which you qualify.  Worshiping an Elder Evil gives you bonus feat slots for vile feats -- thus you are qualified for bonus vile feats.  These slots do not qualify you to take any other type of feat.  Since those slots only qualify for vile feats, then EtDC would fail, because it does not re-define the feat slot.

if you can't do it with "book value" appropriate gold, then it's bogus.

I happen to disagree, specifically because breaking wealth by level is so easy for so many characters.

But I'm not just buying a ton of items that give me class abilities or that grant spells or feats or whatever.

I'm buying a very small list of items. I just happen to be buying a lot of some of them. In fact, I'm pretty sure that everyone item I'm only being one or two of (and probably even the grafts) is well within the range of cash offered to me, my cohort, and his cohort. It's just the thousands of gloves of man copies, really, that break wealth by level. I'm sure there's another way to duplicate so many of them. Perhaps my cohort's cohort having an craftificer cohort, with some wish/true creation shenanigans for raw materials? Would you find that more elegant?

What does it matter what you're using the money for?  Whether you're 20th-lvl and just buying a handfull of things; or you're a 1st-lvl commoner buying all the magical augmentation that the muliverse has to offer -- you're still buying stuff.  At what point do you begin to descriminate on a qualitative basis?  Also, there is nothing "RAW" about your breaking-the-bank arguement.  As I have seen, even TO tends to keep to standard wealth levels in order to be concidered legit (or at least respectable).  Hell, why bother with gold at all?  While you're at it, why not just make all those crescent knives "everdancing"?
What makes an impressive TO is the ability to do it within standard parameters -- and 760k gp for a 20th-lvl character is standard.  To use your type of argument -- there is no rules text that explicitly supports that you can have NI wealth at any given level.

How's that?

Some sounds arguments so far, but still no rules text to support them. And without the rules on your side, we're just talking about what houserules you would likely implement.

How can my arguements be sound, if there is nothing to support them?
I hate to be the barer of bad news; but, regardless of how you try to dress it up, RAITAYCPIWN is not RAW -- and your arguments are full of RAITAYCPIWN.
You're asking me to do the equivalent of categorically proving why/how water is wet. 

You cannot use a particular approach or line of argument to allow one thing, and then turn around and use that very same approach or line of argument to disallow something else.  Well, you can, but it invalidates that particular line of argument.


 

[EjoThims]

How is that a stretch?

What makes a character epic is clearly defined.
 

it simply further defines "level" to include racial HD (IMHO, a clarification that shouldn't even have been needed).

While you are correct that such a clarification would not be needed, that is not the text in question. The text in question specifically relates to age categories, not HD.

clearly talking about "true" dragons

"True Dragon" is also defined in the rules, and a Dragonwrought Kobold meets all the requirements of the definition.

you are CLEARLY way over the 20-level mark for ECL (and, yes, ECL matters).

Strangely enough, polymorph and mind switch don't grant you the ECL of the creature you become.
 

I'm just calling an egg an egg and not assuming anything about what's inside.

um .... yolk?

Possibly. Probably. But not certainly.

Let's say you have a cohort named "Joe".  In your relationship with Joe, Joe's relation to you is "cohort" -- what, then, is your relation to Joe in that relationship?

And what part of that relationship prevents him from having the same relationship with another person?

Joe ends up in a hellish limbo of leader and servant at once. In today's world, we refer to this as middle-management.

Embrace/Shun the Dark Chaos specifically states that it must be a feat for which you qualify.

And I do. Glad you're coming along with me on this on.

But, the spells make no mention of having to take feats that you could have filled those slots with originally.

What does it matter what you're using the money for?

Style. 

Also, there is nothing "RAW" about your breaking-the-bank arguement.

Actually there is. My character has the power to do what's needed to have the cash he needs, just as a 1st level character selling a spellbook as individual scrolls has the power to do so to get the needed cash for a specific item at 1st level for whatever shenanigans he plans on.

The rules clearly state that I can use a certain chain of events to get gold. That said number is more than the guidelines on how much I should have at any time is irrelevant.

why not just make all those crescent knives "everdancing"?

For the same reason I didn't buy an arbitrarily high number of braid blades (which are technically unlimited in the number you can use and posses except by carrying capacity); it lacks elegance and takes the limit on performed attacks away from the character and his fighting style.

there is no rules text that explicitly supports that you can have NI wealth at any given level.

Actually, there is. Because there is rules text to support me turning herds of cattle into salt. And there is rules text telling me exactly all that salt that I'm about to sell is worth.

How can my arguments be sound, if there is nothing to support them?

They follow from their premise to their conclusion. If you had evidence to back up your initial statements or opinions then they would be factual. But you have not yet presented such.

RAITAYCPIWN is not RAW

Provide the RAW that contradicts anything I have in this build, please. For clarification: your opinion on feat slots and leadership are not explicitly stated rules and thusly are not RaW, and your opinion on what makes an epic character directly contradicts the RaW definition of what an epic character is.

You're asking me to do the equivalent of categorically proving why/how water is wet.

Actually, in DnD, I'm not sure that it's ever actually specified that it is. But it will still drown you, and still return you to -10 hp in doing so, regardless of your actual current hp total (or deficit).

You cannot use a particular approach or line of argument to allow one thing, and then turn around and use that very same approach or line of argument to disallow something else.

Show me, step by step, how I have done that. Remember to actually cite hard evidence in the rules to back up any claims that I'm violating RaW.

[AfterCrescent]

To further clarify Ejo's point:

Embrace/Shun the Dark Chaos specifically states that it must be a feat for which you qualify.  Worshiping an Elder Evil gives you bonus feat slots for vile feats -- thus you are qualified for bonus vile feats.  These slots do not qualify you to take any other type of feat.  Since those slots only qualify for vile feats, then EtDC would fail, because it does not re-define the feat slot.

This is not how the Dark Chaos line of spells work. Never, anywhere, is a feat slot defined as a "bonus feat slot" or a "1st level feat slot" or a "15th level feat slot". NOWHERE. That's an important word. It's just not in the rules.

Now do you get a 1st level feat? Yes. Do you have to qualify for that feat at first level? Yes. Do you get a fighter bonus feat at 18th level? Yes. Do you have to qualify for it at 18th level, along with making sure it's on a specific list? Yes. Is it an 18th level fighter bonus feat slot? No.  That's not a term defined in the rules. The rules check, at the moment that you take the feat, that you qualify for it.  If at some later point, you stop qualifying for it, you lose the benefit of the feat. However, you do not lose the feat. The feat's yours, and the game does not give a shit about the slot you used to get it.

Thus the Dark Chaos spells say, in so many words -
1. Pick a feat you have. Get rid of it.
2. Cast this other spell. (Shun the Dark Chaos)
3. Pick a new feat that you qualify for RIGHT NOW.  Did you pick one? Good. It's yours.

It's just that simple (yes, I'm skipping the whole, get an abyssal heritor feat, trade that in, blah blah blah).  You see regardless of what feat you are trading out, you are getting a temporary feat that you qualify for at this moment. And that's all the spell cares about. Then when you trade that for your permanent feat, that's all that really matters as well.

For example, if you cast Embrace and turn 9th level Improved Initiative into an Abyssal feat, you'd be fine (or if you traded your 5th level wizard metamagic feat). Likewise, if you then cast Shun and turn that into Power Attack (assuming you have 13 Str), you'd also be fine.  In contrast, though, if you were Baleful Polymorphed into a rabbit before the casting, you would not be able to take Power attack, since your Str is not a 13+ at the time you may choose a new feat.  At no point, though, do either spell check HOW you got the feat you're abandoning, just that you qualify for it AT THIS INSTANT.

[wotmaniac]

 
this is ridiculous. 
I'm not going to sit here and have an argument over syntax and diction.


"woo-hoo!  look what I can do when I re-define words and strip the rules of their meaning."   

[AfterCrescent]

Welcome to theoretical optimization. If you can't argue semantics, you can't argue TO. That's half of what TO is - semantics. Especially in a game like D&D.

[wotmaniac]

Welcome to theoretical optimization. If you can't argue semantics, you can't argue TO. That's half of what TO is - semantics. Especially in a game like D&D.

there is a difference between semantics, and simply stripping words of their inherent meaning and disregarding context.  Many of the arguments which support this build as a "20-level character" is not of semantics -- you're actually changing/disregarding the meaning of words.  I'll not further entertain such a low-brow discussion.

I'm done.

[Prime32]

Welcome to theoretical optimization. If you can't argue semantics, you can't argue TO. That's half of what TO is - semantics. Especially in a game like D&D.

there is a difference between semantics, and simply stripping words of their inherent meaning and disregarding context.  Many of the arguments which support this build as a "20-level character" is not of semantics -- you're actually changing/disregarding the meaning of words.  I'll not further entertain such a low-brow discussion.

I'm done.

If you were playing in a game, you could do this when you reach level 20.

[wotmaniac]

Welcome to theoretical optimization. If you can't argue semantics, you can't argue TO. That's half of what TO is - semantics. Especially in a game like D&D.

there is a difference between semantics, and simply stripping words of their inherent meaning and disregarding context.  Many of the arguments which support this build as a "20-level character" is not of semantics -- you're actually changing/disregarding the meaning of words.  I'll not further entertain such a low-brow discussion.

I'm done.

If you were playing in a game, you could do this when you reach level 20.

in part, no.
but that was only one of my points.  the other is that the final product is not an ECL 20.

[AfterCrescent]

Actually, if you played this character, you could do this at level 20. And the final product, by RAW, is ECL 20. Not CR 20, but that's a different system. It gains no LA, so its ECL remains = HD, which is = Class Levels and thus is 20.

[veekie]

Welcome to theoretical optimization. If you can't argue semantics, you can't argue TO. That's half of what TO is - semantics. Especially in a game like D&D.

there is a difference between semantics, and simply stripping words of their inherent meaning and disregarding context.  Many of the arguments which support this build as a "20-level character" is not of semantics -- you're actually changing/disregarding the meaning of words.  I'll not further entertain such a low-brow discussion.

I'm done.

If you were playing in a game, you could do this when you reach level 20.

Well, not in a serious game.
This IS TO.

[AfterCrescent]

The point is you CAN do it. Not that you ever SHOULD. No, of course not. This is broken beyond belief, but still possible.