The Contest Thread

[User3]

Just to clarify ... how are you stacking multiple concurrent castings of Shapechange? Or am I off in interpreting your verbiage such as "top forms" and "bottom forms"?

I always thought multiple current castings of the same spell have no effect.

[Username17]

Not exactly. The bonuses from multiple spells of the same type don't bonus, and unnamed bonuses always stack. That's the basic argument around Death Knell, and it's been going for four years.

But if a spell has multiple uses, you can use each and every one of them concurrently. So, for example, you can cast Shadow Conjuration and get Mage Armor - and still be affected by the next casting of Shadow Conjuration.

Polymorphing in all its forms is, in that manner, a separate choice for every form. Transforming yourself permanently into a Storm Giant with Polymorph Any Object does not prevent some other guy from Polymorphing you into a glass of water with the same spell - it just prevents you from gaining any bonuses from transforming yourself into a Storm Giant (which means that you can't just scur the books for some creature with Toughness as a bonus feat and get infinite hit points by layering the same transformation over and over again).

Shapechange does not cancel any previously active spell effects on you - and when the latest shapechange is dispelled you immediately transform into whatever the last transformation had you as - not necessarily your base form. If you polymorph into a bear and shapechange into a rabbit, and your shapechange ends or is dispelled - you become a bear. The effect is still active.

The provisions for transformation cause a direct change to what you can currently do - they don't reset you all the way to your base form and then apply modifications on top of that. So if a Bear Warrior is transformed into a Titan, they can turn into a Dire Bear and get a phat bonus to the strength score of the Titan form.

---

The world might be cleaner if transformations were defined in such a way as to not be stackable (although this would also cause a lot of problems vis a vis the way we do things now, so such a "fix" would have to come with a radical rethinking of the transformational system or it's a waste of time), but that's not what the rules actually say right now.

If I turn into a cabbage, I can still be turned into a milk bottle, and the rules say that you figure the transformation from myself as I currently am (that is, in cabbage form) to the new milk bottle form. That leads to crazy, yes, but I blame the dumpster-diving system of monster replacement as a whole. 3.X edition polymorph is always going to be crazy and overpowered, because noone knows what it can do. At no time is it OK to have a spell effect whose text includes "every single page of every monster book, including monster books which have not, as yet been published" - that's just an unmanagable spell concept.

-Username17

[fbmf]

(although this would also cause a lot of problems vis a vis the way we do things now, so such a "fix" would have to come with a radical rethinking of the transformational system or it's a waste of time)

What do you mean?

Game On,
fbmf

[Username17]

What do you mean?

As things stand, it would mean the original form is something that you would then have to keep track of separately and simultaneously. It would generate a bunch of extra book-keeping for which there is currently no provision in the rules.

Remember the 3rd edition Con/Hit Points fiasco? You weren't supposed to be able to get your hit points up with polymorph - but this ended up meaning that you could transform into a new form, take your Bracers of Health off, and then put them back on - getting the hit points of the new Con score anyway.

Basically, if you just put in some language about base forms, absolutely everything would instantly develope holes just like that. As soon as you start making reference to quantities that the game does not keep track of the game immediately developes unforseen edge cases. It would be like poisoning yourself before gaining levels all over again.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1101551473[/unixtime]]"Level of a spellcasting class" means "caster level". That's why the definition of "caster level" says that it is "equal to your level in a spellcasting class". If a calculation of caster level references the "level of a spellcasting class", that references items that modify caster level as well, because it's the same thing.

I'm not sure about that one. If it says "levels in a spellcasting class", they have to be levels. Your prayer beads of karma or archmage spell power don't count towards that, because they aren't levels. A caster level increase simply affects caster level, but it doesn't actually give you more class levels.

Caster level and levels in spellcasting classes are separate, though related quantities. If they weren't separate quantities then a 1st level wizard with a bunch of ioun stones would be able to cast 9th level spells. Instead he can just throw 5 magic missiles and penetrate SR really well. But simply increasing your caster level is not the same as a level in a spellcasting class.

Unless there's something else that you did with the class that I missed (which there very well might be as the build was huge) the Ur-priest + sublime chord trick wouldn't work.

[Username17]

If it says "levels in a spellcasting class" during a calculation of your spellcasting class, then by defintion any other modification to your caster level would also affect the same equation, because a bonus to caster level is defined as a "bonus to your level in a spellcasting class for the purposes of determining caster level". Really, that's the definition. There can't be a part of the equation in which the Ur Priest doesn't count the Sublime Chord bonuses, because you're still calculating caster level so it's still considered to be bonuses to your level for that purpose.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1101602129[/unixtime]]because a bonus to caster level is defined as a "bonus to your level in a spellcasting class for the purposes of determining caster level". Really, that's the definition.

Where are you getting that definition from?

[Josh_Kablack]

It's likely that this has been around since Skip hates Sorcerers first came out, but I just put 2 and 2 together.

As per Holding the Charge on Page 141-142 of the 3.5 PHB (very top of first column), "you may make a normal unarmed attack, (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding the charge......If you hit, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges."

Now quick, how many things can you Polymorph into which have natural weapons that strike as touch attacks already? On the downside, you need Shapechange to get to deliver your touch spells as Incorporeal Touch spells.

[Username17]

Yeah, the full implications of that were explored when I publicized the fact that an unarmed or natural attack that dealt 5 or more points of subdual damage was a pack of hillarity when combined with Harm. I think that thread might have ended up with Andy nerfing the crap out of it... sorry everybody, my bad.

BTW, voting has started on that contest. You know what you want to vote for. Really, you do.

http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.p ... [br]-Username17

[User3]

Later tonight-like, since I won't be able to get to my other books for awhile, I'm going to post a core-only cheese build.

The Red Wizard is actually pretty friggin' nuts once you master time and wizardly preparation. If you use circle magic the way they told you to, then it doesn't look too bad. However, if you combine it with jet lag, then at 10th level, all of your spells are 20th level and maximized/empowered if you choose and you cast from a base caster level of 45. I got to a save DC of 50 before I put it to rest.

That should be enough mojo to take on some lesser deities.

[Username17]

Hilarious. We're winning. Easily. But some people are still insisting that there is a contest rule that the characters have to somehow walk a line where they are weak enough that a majority of DMs would let them into a campaign.

You know, I looked through the contest guidelines again. There is no such rule.

Funny that. I think it's pretty sad when people have to make up rules to try to invalidate the builds of other people. Heck, there's still the still-fixed text in the Complete Warrior that says that Ur Priests lose all their powers as soon as they have their powers.

-Username17

[User3]

Honestly, I would have voted for the Wish and the Word just on the basis of their flavor text alone.

--d.

[MrWaeseL]

It looks like you'll win by a landslide.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Which is shocking, I would assume the insular little mooks wouldn't vote for someone who has so severely anally raped their builds.

(Note: Yeah, that's a vulgar way to put it, but c'mon. they killed 2 gods in one round.)

[GhostWhoTalks]

Maybe its not the insular mooks who are voting.

I dusted off an account out there I barely ever use (they've inevitably managed to change the boards around and somehow invalidate my password during the intervals between my actually logging on) in order to cast a vote.

The two W boys have got only about what? 26 votes, that could be all (or mostly) through folks from the Gaming Den audience rather than the usual CO board regulars (who are in quiet a snit).

Its the remarkably small size of the over all turn out thats a bit shocking. Seems that the WOTC CO boards aren't exactly teeming with traffic jumping at the chance to vote in exciting contests...

Also if W&W don't get more than 50% of the vote then shame on the CO boards! (Its I high standard, but so say I)

[User3]

Congratulations (well, sort of) on getting the Wiz_Os to throw you out of the contest. Wow, but this thing has turned into a complete mess. The panicked flailing around and envious raving is almost comical.

--d.

[Draco_Argentum]

Frank causes uproar from beyond the grave, impressive.

[Username17]

Yeah. They booted us from the contest for not following "the spirit of the game". I just want to say: the very next time Andy Collins or anyone else say that they "fixed" some rule because it kept coming up on the Char Op board, I want somebody on hand to punch them in the mouth as hard as they can.

The Char Op board is, as I predicted, a weak and useless place which is governed as much by "rules zero" as any actual rules. The people on the board are in a completely vapid condition where they have all agreed to play by their own insular arms-treaty and brutally flame anyone who doesn't follow suit.

The Char Op board can't ever find things which are truly in need of fixing, because they've agreed ahead of time to not use or talk about them!

Ha! At least I retain my title of "most controvertial person".

-Username17

[User3]

Well, it looks like Iku Rex is ripping Frank a new one in the November Contest Questions/Comments thread. Regarding build legalities that is.

Frank ... you oughta just create a new "Frank" or a n alter ego WotC ID and go attack Iku Rex's accusations head on.

[Oberoni]

I'm going to post to this thread in an effort to keep the cheese thread dedicated to delicious, delicious cheese, as opposed to WotC contests.

...

That sucks, dudes.

I think that MingT put it best.

PS: Here's a link to the thread so I can, y'know, click it and find it easier. So I'm lazy.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

That's baloney.

It is not fair to change the rules just because a bunch of crybaby assfvcks can't handle being beaten.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Well, we all know now not to enter any contest Autumn is in charge of.

But hey, you won this morally, that's all that counts.

[RandomCasualty]

That is pretty lame... it's one thing if they didn't agree with your interpretation of the rules there, but to say that you are going against the spirit of the contest is dumb.

The CO boards commonly featured crap that most people would consider abusive like dealing millions of damage with the hulking hurler and other exploits of poorly written rules. Just because the wish and the Word actually does that better than everyone else is no reason to pull them. But apparently I guess they couldn't handle it...

[User3]

I am trying to wrap my head around the whole "caster level"/"level in arcane spellcasting class" thing, and, possibly due to cold medication, am utterly failing.

As far as I can tell, the assertion from people is that Mystic Theurge or whatever is not itself an "arcane spellcasting class", and neither does it stack with core class levels to determine "levels in an arcane spellcasting class", and therefore the Sublime Chord and/or Ur-Priest just suck when combined with prestige classes that add to Wizard class levels.

This doesn't even make sense on the most basic level.

Almost every prestige class with spellcasting progression says it adds to new spells per day, etc., etc., as if the character "had also gained a level in an arcane/divine/either/both spellcasting class". Okay, fine. So I'm a 5th level Wizard, I take a level of Shadow Adept or whatever, and it's "as if" I had gained a level of wizard -- as if I had gained 6th, meaning what I gain is the difference between a 6th level wizard's spells per day and a 5th level wizard's spells per day (and so on).

But when I reach 7th level, and take Shadow Adept 2 ... what the hell? Either:

a) Wizard is an "arcane spellcasting class", Shadow Adept is not; but I'm still only a 5th level wizard, and therefore, since that's the only "arcane spellcasting class" I have that I can simulate gaining a level in, I gain the 5th -> 6th differential spells again (this is completely stupid, but appears to follow logically from what some CharOpt people are suggesting).

b) Wizard and Shadow Adept are both "Arcane Spellcasting Classes"; I can add my 7th level mojo to my existing level of Shadow Adept, and therefore it's like I've added [/i]two[/i] levels to my highest Wizard level (this is excessively complicated to think about, but at least it gives the right result).

c) Shadow Adept is not an "arcane spellcasting class", but levels in it stack with levels in however-many core classes the PrC description specifies to determine my "level in an arcane spellcasting class", so I can add future PrC levels to this new level (this is much simpler, and gives the right result).

d) PrC levels neither stack with levels of core classes to determine "level in an arcane spellcasting class" or are themselves levels in an "arcane spellcasting class", but somehow still stack with themselves and with my levels of Wizard to determine what level Wizard I use the spells/day chart for (this, uh, gives the right answer, but through no rational thought process that I can perceive).

Unless I am overlooking something seriously major -- and this is very possible -- when someone claims that PrCs do not count toward "levels in an arcane spellcasting class", they are essentially saying that spellcaster PrCs DO NOT WORK. I don't understand this at all. Help me.

--d.

[Username17]

This doesn't even make sense on the most basic level.

...that's because it isn't true.

They are trying to pull some claim where levels in a spellcasting class is "subtly different" from caster levels. It's not. The difference is about as subtle as having a brick rammed into your mouth at high speed.

Your level in a spellcasting class is a whole lot of things - it's what kind of save bonuses you get from the class, it's what kind of spells you get, and how many you have. It determines your class features, and it's your level for the purposes of penetrating SR. And on and on. Caster levels, on the other hand, is just your level in the spellcasting class for the spellcasting purposes - not your save bonuses or whatever.

And that's it. That's the whole she-bang. If you have a caster-level equation that asks for levels in a spellcasting class - then any modifications you have to caster level apply. It's levels in a spellcasing class for the purpose of caster level - and that means that it's for the purposes of calculating caster level, not just having caster level. As you've so correctly pointed out, if it worked any other way it wouldn't work at all.

Unless I am overlooking something seriously major -- and this is very possible -- when someone claims that PrCs do not count toward "levels in an arcane spellcasting class", they are essentially saying that spellcaster PrCs DO NOT WORK.

Yep. That's what they are saying. They are saying that +1 spellcaster level does not add to calculating spellcaster level, so you can't ever get the benefit of it.

-Username17