PDA

View Full Version : Divine Metamagic, Persistent Spell... Y'know I just don't see it...



KatfishKaos
2009-08-27, 09:54 AM
Please explain to me how this is viable for a party...

Turn Attempts;
- 3 (Base)
- 3 (Charisma, hypothetical)
- 4 Nightstick (let's assume you aren't buying multiple of these guys)

I just persisted... Well, whatever. That's 7 slots used. Now what? I just used 3 feats to get one 24/7 buff. I'm missing something, I swear it. The only other thought I had on making this reasonably viable is picking up other domains with turn/rebuke. Even then it just doesn't seem worth it for the 3 feats spent.

Playgrounders please help!

Catch
2009-08-27, 09:56 AM
- 4 Nightstick (let's assume you aren't buying multiple of these guys)

That's why. You can own and use as many Nightsticks as you can carry. Taking Extra Turning helps too.

Either way, if you persist Righteous Might (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/righteousMight.htm) and Divine Power (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=6807661), you're at +10 Str, +2 Con, +1 HP per level and have a Fighter's BAB, plus some other goodies.

Do you really need more?

Mark Hall
2009-08-27, 09:56 AM
It depends a lot on the buff used. For Detect Magic, not worth it. For Divine Power or Righteous Might? A lot more useful.

KatfishKaos
2009-08-27, 10:00 AM
That's why. You can own and use as many Nightsticks as you can carry.

In all honesty I can't justify buying multiples of these. That and my DM would laugh and tear up my character sheet and tell me to make something new (which I fully agree with).


It depends a lot on the buff used. For Detect Magic, not worth it. For Divine Power or Righteous Might? A lot more useful.

That's still ONE buff i'm going to be getting, and for myself. It's a 4 person group and i'd like to contribute as primary buffer, or atleast secondary buffer.

Typewriter
2009-08-27, 10:01 AM
Like someone else said it's all about the nightsticks.

I've personally never had one of my DMs have nightsicks being sold in any city, I've only ever seen one or two drop as random encounter treasure, and I've never allowed players (or been allowed as a player) free reign over wealth by level when creating a new character.

For my group things like nightsticks don't come up a lot, but if you're allowed to spend money on whatever you want/get full wealth by level with total impunity in what you buy when creating new characters then that's where the magic lies.

kamikasei
2009-08-27, 10:02 AM
In all honesty I can't justify buying multiples of these. That and my DM would laugh and tear up my character sheet and tell me to make something new (which I fully agree with).

Sure. If you houserule out the main source of turn attempts to spend on divine metamagic, then it becomes less powerful. That you have to do so should show you where the problem comes from in the first place.

Irreverent Fool
2009-08-27, 10:03 AM
Even without nightsticks, you can still take extra turning repeatedly and I'm fairly certain that there are other methods of increasing turning attempts.

obnoxious
sig

Catch
2009-08-27, 10:05 AM
In all honesty I can't justify buying multiples of these. That and my DM would laugh and tear up my character sheet and tell me to make something new (which I fully agree with).

Taking Extra Turning once or twice should cover it, but you really only need to persist one or two spells. Any more is overkill.



That's still ONE buff i'm going to be getting, and for myself. It's a 4 person group and i'd like to contribute as primary buffer, or atleast secondary buffer.

As a primary buffer it does help you, because Persistent Spell circumvents the action economy by giving you an always-active personal buff. That's at least one round every combat you don't have to spend pumping yourself up, and more spell slots devoted for party buffs.

Mongoose87
2009-08-27, 10:06 AM
Even without nightsticks, you can still take extra turning repeatedly and I'm fairly certain that there are other methods of increasing turning attempts.

obnoxious
sig

Even without nightsticks, you can persist Divine Power and be the avatar of awesome.

Kaiyanwang
2009-08-27, 10:06 AM
In all honesty I can't justify buying multiples of these. That and my DM would laugh and tear up my character sheet and tell me to make something new (which I fully agree with).


Respectfully, as a DM, I wouldn't tear up your sheet. I would directly chomp it.

Or make you eat it.

KatfishKaos
2009-08-27, 10:15 AM
Even without nightsticks, you can still take extra turning repeatedly.


Sure. If you houserule out the main source of turn attempts to spend on divine metamagic, then it becomes less powerful. That you have to do so should show you where the problem comes from in the first place.

I've just spent 3 feats getting all this, and I need to spend more feats before this is viable? Not really houseruling as much as skeptical that I need one item to make this build anything but useless. We can for all intents and purposes have a cleric with the Air, Earth, Fire, Plant and Water domain. Whack on extra turning, you've just earned yourself 24 extra turn attempts, and atleast if I did this the DM and I would have a good laugh about how I managed to write up the background for this guy... Then he'd tear the character sheet up..


Respectfully, as a DM, I wouldn't tear up your sheet. I would directly chomp it.

Or make you eat it.

Or make me eat it. :P

Catch
2009-08-27, 10:18 AM
I've just spent 3 feats getting all this, and I need to spend more feats before this is viable? Not really houseruling as much as skeptical that I need one item to make this build anything but useless.

Not really. With one Extra Turning feat, you can persist one spell without the need for any nightsticks, and as it's been said before, you really only need one spell.

Tehnar
2009-08-27, 10:20 AM
Which goes to show that the most of the obvious and cheesy in 3.5 go away in any game that has a DM.


And I am pretty sure for nightstick nowhere does it say that they stack with each other.

AstralFire
2009-08-27, 10:20 AM
I'm not sure why suddenly buying multiple Nightsticks is untenable.

I don't allow them for sale, but if you -can- buy them in the first place, where is there any 'metagame' action to cause a DM to rip up a sheet in picking up extra batteries at Wiz-Mart for your Chainsaw o' Cuthbert? It's not metagame to go "hrrrrrrrrrrrrm, when I hold this purple rod I can do more powerful things. Maybe I should get more rods!"

Boci
2009-08-27, 10:20 AM
I've just spent 3 feats getting all this, and I need to spend more feats before this is viable? Not really houseruling as much as skeptical that I need one item to make this build anything but useless. We can for all intents and purposes have a cleric with the Air, Earth, Fire, Plant and Water domain. Whack on extra turning, you've just earned yourself 24 extra turn attempts, and atleast if I did this the DM and I would have a good laugh about how I managed to write up the background for this guy... Then he'd tear the character sheet up..

Planning domain lowers the prws to 2 feats. You're spending two feats to gain 24 hour buff. Now you can still fight in an ambush and you can spend the first round of combat buffing others as has been pointed out. Plus you could burn 8 turn attempts to exstend a persisted spell. And please don't tell me that your DM would tear up the sheet if you tried to get a 48 hour buff.. We don't care. We're just telling you why its broken.


Which goes to show that the most of the obvious and cheesy in 3.5 go away in any game that has a DM.

Depending on how muc you abuse it you can make it reasonable, powerful and overpowered. No need to ban it on sight.

Irreverent Fool
2009-08-27, 10:23 AM
I've just spent 3 feats getting all this, and I need to spend more feats before this is viable? Not really houseruling as much as skeptical that I need one item to make this build anything but useless. We can for all intents and purposes have a cleric with the Air, Earth, Fire, Plant and Water domain. Whack on extra turning, you've just earned yourself 24 extra turn attempts, and atleast if I did this the DM and I would have a good laugh about how I managed to write up the background for this guy... Then he'd tear the character sheet up..

Actually, DMM only works specifically with your turn/rebuke undead attempts. As far as spending the feats, a cleric really doesn't need his feats. He's already awesome. Additionally, the feats required aren't exactly useless. You can extend and persist without DMM, and extra turning can come in handy in earlier levels, especially if you pick up Disciple of the Sun along the way, or just have the Sun domain.

obnoxious
sig

AstralFire
2009-08-27, 10:23 AM
Not to mention, I'm not sure how you get significantly more than two domains as a cleric without some intensive feats/PrCing. Or that a DMM Cleric is still a cleric.

aje8
2009-08-27, 10:25 AM
First of all, realize that there's a domain that gives you extend spell as a free feat. Take it.

Second of all, there's a domain that gives you the extra turning feat, take it.

Now, but your highest ability score modifier in cha and raise cha at each level up. Be sure to also pick up an item of +X cha.

See why DMM is good yet?

Additionally, it doesn't just have to be DMM: Persist. DMM: Quicken is really good as well and some others are not too shabby either.

Kaiyanwang
2009-08-27, 10:25 AM
I'm not sure why suddenly buying multiple Nightsticks is untenable.


Depends from the campaign, of course. In mines, the magic mart has been destroyed by Demogorgon going for a walk. Whoops, so sorry.

Seriously, if a city has a cap op money to have an item available, does not means that the item is there. or you buy it at magic-mart.

It could mean that, as an example, the local thieves guild is enough powerful to find one for you..

In the case of nightstick, maybe the local church want to keep the items for the local priests for any reason.


Stuff about domains

Again, are these domains all available for the same god in that campaign?


More, are these spells undispellable? And if they are, what other cheese or magic items are allowed?

Eldariel
2009-08-27, 10:25 AM
A solid basic Cleric-build can do the following:

Human Cleric 4/Church Inquisitor 10/Contemplative 6 (for example)

Planning & Undeath-domains: Grant Extend Spell & Extra Turning (worship an ideal)
1. Persistent Spell
Human. Divine Metamagic: Persistent Spell
3. Extra Turning
6. Extra Turning
9. Extra Turning
12. Quicken Spell
15. Extra Turning
18. Extra Turning

With maybe Power Attack thrown in if you plan on melee. Though indiscriminate usage of Heroics might also achieve the same outcome.

This gives you 24 turning attempts + 3 base + 1 Cha + 3 Cha-booster + 2 Reliquary Holy Symbol + 2 Cha Book. Or some Persistent Cha-boosters. Anyways, point being, that's 0 Nightsticks being used and you're Persisting 5 spells per day. If you Extend also all the Persistent spells, you can effectively keep 10 spells on at all times.

Even just on level 1, you can already Persist one spell and by level 3, you should be able to Persist another one (Reliquary Holy Symbol + Extra Turning + 12 base Cha). Level 9 gets you the third and by then you can use Extend Spell trickery too to double up on 6 spells.


Throw Flaws in for one more Persisted spell on level 1. Point being, you'll be fine even without items (Reliquary could be replaced by a slightly earlier Cha-booster and 14 starting Cha, although that's painful on numbers already)

AstralFire
2009-08-27, 10:26 AM
Depends from the campaign, of course. In mines, the magic mart has been destroyed by Demogorgon going for a walk. Whoops, so sorry.

Seriously, if a city has a cap op money to have an item available, does not means that the item is there. or you buy it at magic-mart.

It could mean that, as an example, the local thieves guild is enough powerful to find one for you..

In the case of nightstick, maybe the local church want to keep the items for the local priests for any reason.

It helps to pick up context. And notice things I said in preceding sentences. :smallsigh: As I wrote immediately before that sentence - I don't allow them for sale. Generally speaking, I don't allow anything for sale. But for those who do...

In other words, if you can buy it, then I'm not sure why you suddenly wouldn't be allowed to buy more than one.

Boci
2009-08-27, 10:28 AM
More, are these spells undispellable? And if they are, what other cheese or magic items are allowed?

Not sure, but hey, not worshipping an indevidual god rocks.

Tehnar
2009-08-27, 10:31 AM
Hmmm, I am not sure the extend+persist trick works out to provide 48 hour buffs, even by RAW.

And the real problem you run into persisting spells is that the DM is going to dispel them. And then all your feats go to waste. Your character is too much a one trick pony.

Kaiyanwang
2009-08-27, 10:32 AM
In other words, if you can buy it, then I'm not sure why you suddenly wouldn't be allowed to buy more than one.

What I said above can be extended to this - if the local thives guild above can find one item, I don't see why automatically can find any number ot that kind of items.

Item craft cost XP.

sofawall
2009-08-27, 10:32 AM
Metamagic Storm.

EDIT:
Hmmm, I am not sure the extend+persist trick works out to provide 48 hour buffs, even by RAW.

And the real problem you run into persisting spells is that the DM is going to dispel them. And then all your feats go to waste. Your character is too much a one trick pony.

Persist two buffs. You are now a powerhouse in melee combat. Oh no, your buffs got dispelled? First of all, pff, why did they get dispelled, didn't you act like any good DMM: Persist cleric and CL boosters? Also, oh no, two spells slots and a feat are now less useful today. You still made the enemy use an action to dispel, and you are still a full caster.

shadow_archmagi
2009-08-27, 10:33 AM
OP: I don't see what's so overpowered about this. After all, the DM would disallow it.

Response: But if you did do it it would be horribly broken

OP: Yes but you couldn't possibly do it because the DM would disallow it

Response: He's disallowing it because it's horribly broken.

AstralFire
2009-08-27, 10:34 AM
What I said above can be extended to this - if the local thives guild above can find one item, I don't see why automatically can find any number ot that kind of items.

Item craft cost XP.

That's the DM putting a limit on it, and is already marginal under the standard concept of 'buying an item'. The OP says he has issue justifying it, implying availability. These are two different restrictions.

Cyclocone
2009-08-27, 10:35 AM
are these spells undispellable? And if they are, what other cheese or magic items are allowed?

Dispel has a cap, and it's trivial to raise CL beyond what is aproachable by anyone who isn't a focused dispeller, e.g. even core has beads of karma.

And this is just assuming you allow the dispel to hit, rather than foil it with rings of counterspel/spellbattle, battle magic perception etc.

MichielHagen
2009-08-27, 10:36 AM
OP: I don't see what's so overpowered about this. After all, the DM would disallow it.

Response: But if you did do it it would be horribly broken

OP: Yes but you couldn't possibly do it because the DM would disallow it

Response: He's disallowing it because it's horribly broken.


Not really

OP even thinks it's not worth 3 feats to get 24 hr Divine Power.

Allowing multiple Nightsticks is stupid, even if it would be legal.

Eldariel
2009-08-27, 10:36 AM
Hmmm, I am not sure the extend+persist trick works out to provide 48 hour buffs, even by RAW.

And the real problem you run into persisting spells is that the DM is going to dispel them. And then all your feats go to waste. Your character is too much a one trick pony.

If he can. Since you cast them at the same time with Beads of Karma active and in possession of Ring of Enduring Arcana and other Dispel-buffers, nothing even remotedly CR appropriate aside from specifically constructed Dispel Monkey has a real chance at dispelling them...and when those specifically built monkeys start flying at you, they'll run head-first into your Battlemagic Perception, Ring of Greater Counterspells and Ring of Spell-Battle allowing you to counter their dispels or redirect them back that their own face.

Really, dispelling a Cleric's buffs is a monumental task, not something you undertake lightly and when the Cleric is beating your face in while you're trying to dispel his buffs, you'll soon have a change of priorities.

AstralFire
2009-08-27, 10:43 AM
DMM would be so easy to stop the abuse of if it made you autofail any dispel effects used against those spells. It wouldn't do a thing for those ready to counterspell and prevent Dispel, so they're not helpless, but it'd become a serious consideration. Also saves game time because I hate running opposed CL checks for a billion spells.

woodenbandman
2009-08-27, 10:46 AM
It's not hard at all to persist 2 or 3 buffs a day. Divine Power, Righteous Might, Righteous Wrath of the Faithful, and you're set. Or Vigorous Circle, Righteous Wrath of etc, and Recitation.

A build I played for a while was Archivist/Sacred Exorcist/Contemplative. Sacred Exorcist got me turning, I put my Charisma at 22 with items and such, took extra turning twice, and got a single nightstick and a Reliquary holy symbol. That gives you (in my case, due to feat choices) 9 base + 8 extra turning +4 nightstick + 2 reliquary holy symbol = 23, enough for 3 persists, or 2 persists and 3 (or was it 2) chains, which was my standard routine of Persisted Righteous Wrath, Reach (reach with a rod) Chained Superior resistance(debatable, but the DM okayed it), Chained Reach Magic Vestment, Chained Greater Magic Weapon, and enough left over for one more persist (the game in question didn't actually give me enough wealth to pump my charisma to 22, so I was stuck at 20, but in a lot of games you could afford it).

So you can see how useful this is, with those feats, I turned 5 spell slots into (assuming CL 14 and 4 encounters per day) up to 50 spell slots. Each use of chain effects up to 14 targets (8 was our standard, and in a wartime situation it all gets used up on sergeants and crap), and each use of persistent spell is worth (# of encounters per day) castings of that spell. Having used these 5 spell slots, I was free to play around with battlefield controls and debuffs with the remaining 50 or so spell slots that I didn't spend on making sure everyone didn't die.

I'll admit: You've got to invest a ton of resources to make it work, but it's a very powerful and legitimate combination even without cheesing out with a billion nightsticks (above example uses only one).

Kaiyanwang
2009-08-27, 10:52 AM
Or Vigorous Circle

IIRC, Vigor and Vigorous circle spells have a maxed duration that overcomes the one of persist spell.

At least, by FAQs.. :smalltongue:

Example above about undispellable spells: it seems to me that it takes an effort and needs, again, certain magic items. I see anyway that people have a very different view about magic items availability.

Tehnar
2009-08-27, 10:54 AM
If he can. Since you cast them at the same time with Beads of Karma active and in possession of Ring of Enduring Arcana and other Dispel-buffers, nothing even remotedly CR appropriate aside from specifically constructed Dispel Monkey has a real chance at dispelling them...and when those specifically built monkeys start flying at you, they'll run head-first into your Battlemagic Perception, Ring of Greater Counterspells and Ring of Spell-Battle allowing you to counter their dispels or redirect them back that their own face.

Really, dispelling a Cleric's buffs is a monumental task, not something you undertake lightly and when the Cleric is beating your face in while you're trying to dispel his buffs, you'll soon have a change of priorities.

Aside from full 20 level builds, made on and for the purpose of these forums, I don't think I have seen a character in a game with even 50% of those magic items. Most of these options are not available at levels 15 or lower, where I think persist is a real problem. And even then, you don't have to build a dedicated dispel monkey to get rid of the cleric's buffs. Just clever use of monsters with quicken greater dispel spell like, even a 10% chance to dispel over a few rounds result in quite a lot of buffs being removed.

Starbuck_II
2009-08-27, 10:59 AM
It's not hard at all to persist 2 or 3 buffs a day. Divine Power, Righteous Might, Righteous Wrath of the Faithful, and you're set. Or Vigorous Circle, Righteous Wrath of etc, and Recitation.


Exactly, you can persist spells while still helping Party.

Righteous Wrath is like a Haste Aura (although no Dodge AC bonus).
Recitation is like Good Hope Aura for the party (party made some saves only do to bonus).

Personally, I persist Divine Power and Recitation. DP to help you, and Recitation for the party.

Eldariel
2009-08-27, 11:04 AM
Aside from full 20 level builds, made on and for the purpose of these forums, I don't think I have seen a character in a game with even 50% of those magic items. Most of these options are not available at levels 15 or lower, where I think persist is a real problem. And even then, you don't have to build a dedicated dispel monkey to get rid of the cleric's buffs. Just clever use of monsters with quicken greater dispel spell like, even a 10% chance to dispel over a few rounds result in quite a lot of buffs being removed.

I don't think you've seen a DMM: Persist Cleric then. 'cause there's basically no reason NOT to safeguard your buffs when you focus on them heavily; losing them is annoying so making sure you don't is handy.

And yeah, Beads of Karma are something you can only acquire in the teens without crafting (though the party pooling its resources for those isn't so out there, since it also involves greater buffs from Greater Magic Weapon and Magic Vestment, benefitting everyone), but Ring of Enduring Arcana is only 6k, and thus affordable before level 10.

Ring of Spell-Battle is 12k and Ring of Greater Counterspells is 16k, so those will eventually be available too, probably Spell-Battle first to complement Battlemagic Perception, then Hand of Glory to get the slot for Ring of Greater Counterspells.


@Kaiyanwang: Well, I usually assume relatively good magic item availability simply because melee types need 'em to replicate the basic caster tricks. Few Gather Information-checks and some coin in the right purse later, it shouldn't take too long to find what you need. Failing that, Crafting is a decent option.

aje8
2009-08-27, 11:08 AM
Look, Ima put this simply.

Didn't the OP ask why DMM was worth it? We're explaining it.

Then, there seem to be people who are trying to explain houserules/actions the DM can take to make it less powerful. But..... what does that have to do with anything? It's kinda off topic, no?


@Kaiyanwang: Well, I usually assume relatively good magic item availability simply because melee types need 'em to replicate the basic caster tricks. Few Gather Information-checks and some coin in the right purse later, it shouldn't take too long to find what you need. Failing that, Crafting is a decent option.
+1. If you're limitng magic items, guess your limiting more, the guy who can only hit things with swords as a class feature or the guy who ALREADY alters reality as a standard action?

AstralFire
2009-08-27, 11:10 AM
+1. If you're limitng magic items, guess your limiting more, the guy who can only hit things with swords as a class feature or the guy who ALREADY alters reality as a standard action?

Off-topic, but my later 3.5 games I ran with just pretty much revoked every single caster item in the game for the Big 3 Core users. They were all either altered (metamagic rods only usable by spont. casters) or just flat-out gone (beads of karma, nightsticks). It worked out okay for me.

lsfreak
2009-08-27, 11:11 AM
+1. If you're limitng magic items, guess your limiting more, the guy who can only hit things with swords as a class feature or the guy who ALREADY alters reality as a standard action?

From what I remember of other posts, Astral (and most of those who limit magic items) give their characters items that are basically tailor-made for the characters. Characters hardly need to buy anything, because it's provided for by the encounters; there is no gimping of classes based on item. If they want something else, they can try and sell what they have in order to get a different item, but it's going to take a lot of work to get that other item.

Kaiyanwang
2009-08-27, 11:12 AM
@Kaiyanwang: Well, I usually assume relatively good magic item availability simply because melee types need 'em to replicate the basic caster tricks. Few Gather Information-checks and some coin in the right purse later, it shouldn't take too long to find what you need. Failing that, Crafting is a decent option.

See above Kaiyanwang VS Astralfire (:smallwink: joking joking I read your answer AF)

DMs can decide how many magic items are available, but even what.
I see that mundane PC rely more on them. Of course. My players, actually, say "first, equip meleers" when they have to choose to assign a non-obvious magic item.

Eldariel
2009-08-27, 11:21 AM
See above Kaiyanwang VS Astralfire (:smallwink: joking joking I read your answer AF)

DMs can decide how many magic items are available, but even what.
I see that mundane PC rely more on them. Of course. My players, actually, say "first, equip meleers" when they have to choose to assign a non-obvious magic item.

Oh, definitely - the DM can say anything, but assuming the items in the books available, dispelling a DMM: Persist Cleric's buffs is going to be hard (well, it's going to be hard anyways, but far less hard without items to buff the Dispel Checks...unless he's an Initiate of Mystra *shudder*). That was an assumption for this discussion since...well, no special rules were outlined in the OP.

With regards to item availability, I'm just a bit of a simulationist at heart and have had extreme difficulty rationalizing why the guys making those magic items would design none for themselves ('cause casters are the only classes capable of making magic items, etc.), instead just making a bunch for people waving swords.


But yeah, I agree with the "first, equip melee"-crowd from an OOC perspective, 'cause they just need the equipment more. Indeed, in our parties non-magical characters generally have more equipment simply because the casters can make do with what they've got.

Xenogears
2009-08-27, 11:33 AM
Planning & Undeath-domains: Grant Extend Spell & Extra Turning (worship an ideal)

What ideal is this? Lichdom? Taking planning and undeath domains is basically worshipping liches.

Signmaker
2009-08-27, 11:35 AM
What ideal is this? Lichdom? Taking planning and undeath domains is basically worshipping liches.

...Tsukiko?

Starbuck_II
2009-08-27, 11:36 AM
What ideal is this? Lichdom? Taking planning and undeath domains is basically worshipping liches.

Maybe you are planning for the zombiue apocolyse.

Gotta have a zombie plan!

ColdSepp
2009-08-27, 11:37 AM
What ideal is this? Lichdom? Taking planning and undeath domains is basically worshipping liches.

Considering Undeath grants Extra Turning, that really makes little sense... "I worship liches so I can turn them more! Yes, the liches grant that power... "

Right...

Optimystik
2009-08-27, 11:39 AM
What ideal is this? Lichdom? Taking planning and undeath domains is basically worshipping liches.

That's easy; Undeath is the ultimate form of planning, because it will allow the cleric to make plans for events that will far exceed his own natural lifespan.

Though he offers neither domain, a great example of this kind of thinking is Jergal, whose church occasionally sponsors and enlists sentient undead in furthering the greater cause of the death of creation.


Considering Undeath grants Extra Turning, that really makes little sense... "I worship liches so I can turn them more! Yes, the liches grant that power... "

Right...

Extra Turning also grants more Rebuking/Commanding attempts, which are more likely for a cleric with that domain to possess. It's the same logic behind a cleric with the Earth domain being able to command Earth elementals. As a representative of a higher power, you are given the ability to conscript those who should also be serving it to your cause.

Sinfire Titan
2009-08-27, 11:42 AM
Not to mention, I'm not sure how you get significantly more than two domains as a cleric without some intensive feats/PrCing. Or that a DMM Cleric is still a cleric.

There's a PrC that gives you a new domain every level. I forget the name, but it's in Faiths of Eberron. The most you lose is a level of spellcasting or two.


So yeah, you can be a Cleric with 9 or more Domains and get a butt load of turning at the same time.

Eldariel
2009-08-27, 11:46 AM
There's a PrC that gives you a new domain every level. I forget the name, but it's in Faiths of Eberron. The most you lose is a level of spellcasting or two.

Sovereign Speaker; loses two levels of casting and has annoying limitations on the domain though (you can only take one domain from each of the Sovereign Host or something).

Also, the build I posted above (Cleric/Inquisitor/Contemplative) has 5 Domains, 6 if you go Cloistered Cleric (which is probably better to be honest; you only lose 1 point of BAB and some HP for a ****ton of skillpoints and a Domain). Divine Oracle would add one more, but meh.

Kelpstrand
2009-08-27, 11:46 AM
It offers extra turning and rebuking.

1) Item questions: Yes, you can as the DM give good items to fighters and deprive casters and DMM Clerics of the items promised in the rules as punishment for them being too good. This is exactly like any other houserule to correct an imbalance.

2) My personal Favorite Build is: Cleric 1(Neutral, choose Turning)/Dread Necromancer 1/Cleric 3/Divine Oracle 4/Something else/Contemplative 1-5/Ect.

The point being that each Extra Turning (including the one from your domain) gives you 8 more turn or rebukes. So you can totally go to town on Persist.

And yes, I buy the 6k ring that helps break the RNG for dispels with all my casters. Especially the DMM ones.

I mean, that's a level 2 character who can heal his undead armies and Persist 2-3 spells.

Keld Denar
2009-08-27, 11:57 AM
Kelpie...Needs more Master of Shrouds, IMO.

Typewriter
2009-08-27, 12:21 PM
It offers extra turning and rebuking.

1) Item questions: Yes, you can as the DM give good items to fighters and deprive casters and DMM Clerics of the items promised in the rules as punishment for them being too good. This is exactly like any other houserule to correct an imbalance.


Items promised in the rules? Maybe I missed something but I don't remember there being a rule that says 'There is an infinite supply of each of these items for the listed prices available in every city for the players to purchase', just like there is no rule that says 'Every monster in the monster manual exists in every world and knowledge about them is available to everyone who can make appropriate knowledge checks'.

Magic items are things that people in the world have to craft, meaning that no single world is going to have everything in it because not every single world is the same.

I could have missed something I admit, but I don't really see how it's a houserule that 'some things are unavailable while others are not' is any more of a houserule than 'you can buy whatever you want for the prices listed in the book'.

'Items promised in the rules'.......I really don't know where I was promised anything. I know where the wealth by level tables are that say roughly how much you should have...I know where the magic item lists are.....but I definately don't know where it says you are promised access to all those things.

warmachine
2009-08-27, 12:22 PM
I made a DMM Persistent Cleric as a joke and showed it to my DM. He promptly banned DMM on the spot.

I no longer have the full character sheet on hand but it was 25 point buy, 12th level, Undeath and Planning domains and ran to:-

Large, +26/+26/+21/+16 attack, 2d6+19+d6 cold damage + good, AC 21, DR 3/evil, 105 HP, 40ft flying, plenty of Cleric spells remaining. Every living creature within 10ft heals 4 HP per round and undead suffer 8 damage per round (no save or SR). Enemies in range also receive this healing but that's not a healthy place to stand. Also, allies within 30ft get +3 attack and damage and one more melee attack.

A cleric that's a better melee fighter than the melee classes and still fulfills his healer/buffer/fire support roles.

See here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44053) though the example sheets have disappeared.

Kelpstrand
2009-08-27, 12:34 PM
Items promised in the rules? Maybe I missed something but I don't remember there being a rule that says 'There is an infinite supply of each of these items for the listed prices available in every city for the players to purchase', just like there is no rule that says 'Every monster in the monster manual exists in every world and knowledge about them is available to everyone who can make appropriate knowledge checks'.

Magic items are things that people in the world have to craft, meaning that no single world is going to have everything in it because not every single world is the same.

I could have missed something I admit, but I don't really see how it's a houserule that 'some things are unavailable while others are not' is any more of a houserule than 'you can buy whatever you want for the prices listed in the book'.

'Items promised in the rules'.......I really don't know where I was promised anything. I know where the wealth by level tables are that say roughly how much you should have...I know where the magic item lists are.....but I definately don't know where it says you are promised access to all those things.

See, that's my point. You did miss something.

You missed the part where all the monsters do exist, and a knowledge check does give you information of them. It's right in the knowledge rules.

You missed the part where the rules for what items cities have available for purchase is very explicitly "everything under Xgp" where X is a function of size.

Saying "THERE ARE NO +INT ITEMS IN THIS TOWN!" is exactly as much a houserule as saying "THERE ARE NO BEHOLDERS IN MY WORLD!" as saying "YOU CAN'T RESEARCH STINKING CLOUD!" as saying "YOU CAN"T PLAY A WIZARD!"

Those are all equally houserules. Doing one any one of them to prevent Wizards from being better than fighters is just as much a houserule to fix the imbalance as declaring Wizards to not be playable.

Myrmex
2009-08-27, 12:41 PM
That's still ONE buff i'm going to be getting, and for myself. It's a 4 person group and i'd like to contribute as primary buffer, or atleast secondary buffer.

You still can. But now you also can hit things with your beatstick very effectively, too.


I've just spent 3 feats getting all this, and I need to spend more feats before this is viable? Not really houseruling as much as skeptical that I need one item to make this build anything but useless. We can for all intents and purposes have a cleric with the Air, Earth, Fire, Plant and Water domain. Whack on extra turning, you've just earned yourself 24 extra turn attempts, and atleast if I did this the DM and I would have a good laugh about how I managed to write up the background for this guy... Then he'd tear the character sheet up..



Or make me eat it. :P

What's so outrageous about a cleric that worships the elemental forces of the multiverse? It's like a druid, but with plate

Anyway, undeath & planning are the two domains you want, giving you Extra Turn Undead and Extend Spell, respectively. Though now if you want to play a DMM: persist cleric, they're all going to be the same.


Allowing multiple Nightsticks is stupid, even if it would be legal.

I disagree. I think allowing divine metamagic, or any other metamagic reducer, is stupid. Being able to cast level 8 spells at level 1? That's silly. Being able to make a bunch of turn checks? Meh.


With regards to item availability, I'm just a bit of a simulationist at heart and have had extreme difficulty rationalizing why the guys making those magic items would design none for themselves ('cause casters are the only classes capable of making magic items, etc.), instead just making a bunch for people waving swords.

Yeah, same here. I've just houseruled some stuff so it makes sense for there to be an abundance of sweet weapons & armor as opposed to all the goodies being made for casters. Those dwarf-forges on the WotC website are a step in the right direction.

Typewriter
2009-08-27, 12:48 PM
See, that's my point. You did miss something.

You missed the part where all the monsters do exist, and a knowledge check does give you information of them. It's right in the knowledge rules.

You missed the part where the rules for what items cities have available for purchase is very explicitly "everything under Xgp" where X is a function of size.

Saying "THERE ARE NO +INT ITEMS IN THIS TOWN!" is exactly as much a houserule as saying "THERE ARE NO BEHOLDERS IN MY WORLD!" as saying "YOU CAN'T RESEARCH STINKING CLOUD!" as saying "YOU CAN"T PLAY A WIZARD!"

Those are all equally houserules. Doing one any one of them to prevent Wizards from being better than fighters is just as much a houserule to fix the imbalance as declaring Wizards to not be playable.

All I have available to me at the moment is the SRD, so feel free to correct me, but looking at knowledge it says that you can identify monsters/creatures with appropriate knowledge checks. How can you identify something you've never seen? And where does it say that every monster exists on every world? I'm not trying to make a joke or a point, if it says that every monster exists on every world somewhere tell me where, and I'll admit that I'm houseruling, but until then you saying that 'every monster does exists on every world' is more of a houserule from what I can see.

And I remember it saying something about the size of a city determining what level of magic items are available, but I also thought it said how many of those items were available. I can't find anythign under the SRD (I'm bad at navigating that thing) so I'll check when I get home, so I'm not saying that I'm 100% accurate or anything. Just saying what I thought I remembered seeing. Though from what you said it just says that a city of 'X size' has everything under 'X value' so yes, if that is accurate then it is a houserule.

Fax Celestis
2009-08-27, 12:59 PM
{Scrubbed}

Optimystik
2009-08-27, 01:09 PM
{Scrubbed}

GOOD NIGHT!

Eldariel
2009-08-27, 01:20 PM
I disagree. I think allowing divine metamagic, or any other metamagic reducer, is stupid. Being able to cast level 8 spells at level 1? That's silly. Being able to make a bunch of turn checks? Meh.

I think there's a border here. Metamagic School Focus I think is alright due to the daily limit. Arcane Thesis if limited to applying to the spell, not metamagic, is also fair - that way you can still shoot an Empowered Enervation at a level 4 slot and a Twinned Enervation at level 7 slot, but you can't shoot Empowered, Maximized, Twinned, Split Ray, Fell Draining, Invisible, Sanctum Spell, Born of Three Thunders, Repeating, Quickened Enervation from a level 4 slot.

Divine Metamagic, if limited to your maximum spell level, like Metamagic Song, is likewise pretty fair - then it just effectively allows you to convert lower level slots + turning into higher level slots. I think the barrier for "too good" vs. "fair" meta reducers is right there between Easy Metamagic and Metamagic School Focus.


Yeah, same here. I've just houseruled some stuff so it makes sense for there to be an abundance of sweet weapons & armor as opposed to all the goodies being made for casters. Those dwarf-forges on the WotC website are a step in the right direction.

Yeah, definitely. It always struck me odd that it's the Wizards, not the Smiths who do the magic item infusion - you'd think the whole magic item infusion-part would be a part of creating the item, rather than a simple enhancement on the item afterwards.

It both, makes a ton more sense and makes the world a bit more "fair" in this sense. Yeah, those Forges (assuming you're referring to this (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20040807a&page=6)) help out a bit, but it's still a "Dwarf-only" thing and casters are still better at it.

Kelpstrand
2009-08-27, 01:22 PM
{Scrubbed}

AstralFire
2009-08-27, 01:23 PM
Limiting or adjusting availability of items in small ways is so insignificant and common that I think it dilutes the force of the term 'houserule' in any discussion about builds for use in actual games.

Kaiyanwang
2009-08-27, 01:24 PM
That was an assumption for this discussion since...well, no special rules were outlined in the OP.

This is the difference in our point of view, maybe. IMHO you assume a default availability and other ones special rules.



With regards to item availability, I'm just a bit of a simulationist at heart and have had extreme difficulty rationalizing why the guys making those magic items would design none for themselves ('cause casters are the only classes capable of making magic items, etc.), instead just making a bunch for people waving swords.

But yeah, I agree with the "first, equip melee"-crowd from an OOC perspective, 'cause they just need the equipment more. Indeed, in our parties non-magical characters generally have more equipment simply because the casters can make do with what they've got.

I was talking about "the random item". Of course, caster make their own items. But I don't understand your point here.

I mean, why "equip melee first" is OOC? They see in their world that their friends can be effective, but need more magic items than them. So they behave in a certain way when the treasure is splitted.

You could say for sure that this could be not vaild for some alignement or mix of alignements in party.



Yeah, definitely. It always struck me odd that it's the Wizards, not the Smiths who do the magic item infusion - you'd think the whole magic item infusion-part would be a part of creating the item, rather than a simple enhancement on the item afterwards.
.

Actually, my ideal way to have this would be the way WOW manage craft. In wow, a warrior raises his skill in, say, weaponsmithing, and gathers reagents to craft items. An epic mace needs rare metal, a stone took from an elder something, from a rare something else (insert fantasy stereotypes).

No caster level. Maybe the mandatory caster ---> magic item (as well the caster ---> alchemy) is the only thing I don't like of 3.5.

At least, could be good assign some relevant role to the part BEFORE weapon imbuing with magical forces. I'm doing it in my current campaign, but is miles away from my ideal crafting rules.

Time to homebrew?

Hijax
2009-08-27, 01:27 PM
IC, they'd see that their friends now is inferior to themselves 5 levels(or, some time, since its IC) ago, and drop them for some more spellcasters.

Myrmex
2009-08-27, 01:34 PM
See, this is... There is no other way to classify it. You are claiming that because it does not say "These monsters exist" therefore, they don't. That is crack smokingly crazy.

The monsters totally exist, they exist on their plane of origin, which in most cases is the Prime Material plane of the default D&D cosmology. It says that in the MM, in plain english. If you houserule that they don't exist where the MM says they exist, that is a houserule.

Just because elephants exist on earth doesn't mean an Ancient Aztec would have been familiar with them, nor would have any possible way to be familiar with them.

You are assuming homogeneity. I am unfamiliar with any homogeneity rules.

ColdSepp
2009-08-27, 01:37 PM
Just because elephants exist on earth doesn't mean an Ancient Aztec would have been familiar with them, nor would have any possible way to be familiar with them.

You are assuming homogeneity. I am unfamiliar with any homogeneity rules.

Ancient Aztecs didn't have access to teleportation and divination magic. Standard fantasy setting do, as well as groups specifically interested in researching and collecting information.

Kylarra
2009-08-27, 01:42 PM
This is the difference in our point of view, maybe. IMHO you assume a default availability and other ones special rules.
Well, let's look at it another way. What sort of criterion would you apply to determine availability of listed items? Pretty much anything you say will be arbitrarily enforced in the name "balance" or whatever particulars your group involves. It makes more sense to start out from an "everything is allowed unless otherwise stated" position than to move from "nothing is allowed unless specifically stated".

lsfreak
2009-08-27, 01:43 PM
We assume all items exist and all monsters exist because that's what it's the books. As soon as you start taking those things away, the discussion becomes much, much more complicated. No, not all DM's allow unlimited items, they often say certain monsters don't exist, etc. But in a discussion with no other rules laid out, it's assumed all those things exist, because otherwise every post would need an extensive list of such things that DON'T exist. If responses are inapplicable because of DM-imposed limitations (and I'm not making any value judgements on these limitations), individuals can ignore or modify the answers they get.

Starbuck_II
2009-08-27, 01:46 PM
Just because elephants exist on earth doesn't mean an Ancient Aztec would have been familiar with them, nor would have any possible way to be familiar with them.

You are assuming homogeneity. I am unfamiliar with any homogeneity rules.

We can't know that. What because they didn't paint pretty pictures of them: they must never have know about them?

All we know for sure is that they are not native to their area (at least no one has shown they are), but they could know about them.

Typewriter
2009-08-27, 01:57 PM
{Scrubbed}

What I'm saying is that every world is different and trying to blanket the world with infinite knowledge of things that don't exist on it is pretty silly. If a world on the material plane has never had anyone contact the other planes then no knowledge of those creatures exist. I suppose you could just turn that into a situational modifier of +1 million or something. I suppose you could call situational modifieris 'Rule Zero' or homebrew, but I would simply call it a very 'unfavorable condition'.

Wouldn't it be kind of weird if all of a sudden in the middle of a dragonlance (or some other) book one of the characters started talking about his intricate knowledge of some obscure creature, and when questioned about it he revealed that it was something that no one on the world had ever seen, interacted with, or heard about?

Rule Zero, homebrew, or a very unfavorable condition for said knowledge check? Your call.




{Scrubbed}

Fair enough, but it also doesn't say anything about the quantity. You buy one of something, and it could be gone. Especially with things like magic items that are probably in low demand.

I suppose that an evil villain whose evil plan revolved around purchasing every nightstick in the world would be done in by the worlds largest city having an infinite supply of nightsticks.

Once again, I suppose it's up to inidividual interpretation. Is it a house-rule, rule zero, or simply lack of supply and demand (AKA world building) that prevents a city from having inifinite night sticks.


{Scrubbed}

I'm not really 100% sure what you mean here, but if the DM told me that there were no nightsticks on the world I wouldn't really think he was being a jerk, and he's only a liar if five minutes later he uses them against us.



{Scrubbed}

Once again I'll look it up in the book when I get home(thanks for reminding me where it's located :smallsmile: ) but from what you posted I don't quite hear 'infinite supply of all items' ringing through my ears.

I think that in some instances you are right, my actions (and the actions of others) are house-rules, but I think that in most cases it's more a matter of the fact that each world is different, and when you get into cases where things are situational it's impossible to have a RAW discussion based off of it.

The answer to 'Will X situation change the normal circumstances' will always be ask the DM, whether it's skill checks, rare items, or other misc. things.


EDIT


{Scrubbed}

This is exactly what I meant. RAW can't answer things that are even the least bit ambiguous because the DM is the one who decides the ambiguity. Whether that's situational modifiers on skills, or some section says "most likely available" - it's up to individual DM interpretation at that point.


Other Edit:
Oh, and I'm personally more likely to limit magic items that would benefit a caster than a fighter based off of the fact that there are probably 100 fighters looking to buy items for every 1 wizard. It's not a punishment when I do it, it's supply and demand.

Optimystik
2009-08-27, 02:20 PM
Other Edit:
Oh, and I'm personally more likely to limit magic items that would benefit a caster than a fighter based off of the fact that there are probably 100 fighters looking to buy items for every 1 wizard. It's not a punishment when I do it, it's supply and demand.

By that logic, the fighters should be the ones getting the shaft, since so much more of them are shopping than wizards (and therefore causing shortages.) :smallconfused:

AstralFire
2009-08-27, 02:23 PM
By that logic, the fighters should be the ones getting the shaft, since so much more of them are shopping than wizards (and therefore causing shortages.) :smallconfused:

Supply and demand is supply and demand. More demand means more supply made in the first place, and it's more readily available. There are enough magic items to satisfy the caster wizards too, but less likelihood that they'll find that supply in a convenient location.

Mushroom Ninja
2009-08-27, 02:23 PM
there are probably 100 fighters looking to buy items for every 1 wizard.

Why is this so?

Starbuck_II
2009-08-27, 02:24 PM
Other Edit:
Oh, and I'm personally more likely to limit magic items that would benefit a caster than a fighter based off of the fact that there are probably 100 fighters looking to buy items for every 1 wizard. It's not a punishment when I do it, it's supply and demand.

Hmm, if the 100 to 1 ratio because starting age is lower for Fighter?

Typewriter
2009-08-27, 02:27 PM
By that logic, the fighters should be the ones getting the shaft, since so much more of them are shopping than wizards (and therefore causing shortages.) :smallconfused:

Depends on how well the supply and demand market is balanced. If 100 crafters are making an equal amount of items for melee as they are for casters but the majority of the demand is for melee, then yes - melee is going to suffer and casters will be able to find whatever they want the few times they go looking.

But...those who are doing the crafting will quickly slow down the amount of crafting they're doing for casters, and start pumping out tons of things for the melee type, while the supply of magic items that was initially built slowly dwindles.

Sure there will still be some, but if a caster has to wait for the next group of adventurers that happens to have a caster in it to come through town to buy their metamagic rods, but could sell really big swords right away to members of the town guard/militia/farmers afraid of bandits/etc. what do you think they are all going to be crafting?

Kylarra
2009-08-27, 02:28 PM
Supply and demand is supply and demand. More demand means more supply made in the first place, and it's more readily available. There are enough magic items to satisfy the caster wizards too, but less likelihood that they'll find that supply in a convenient location.

That's why we just go to sigil for shopping. (I realize that's not an option open to every group).


Depends on how well the supply and demand market is balanced. If 100 crafters are making an equal amount of items for melee as they are for casters but the majority of the demand is for melee, then yes - melee is going to suffer and casters will be able to find whatever they want the few times they go looking.

But...those who are doing the crafting will quickly slow down the amount of crafting they're doing for casters, and start pumping out tons of things for the melee type, while the supply of magic items that was initially built slowly dwindles.

Sure there will still be some, but if a caster has to wait for the next group of adventurers that happens to have a caster in it to come through town to buy their metamagic rods, but could sell really big swords right away to members of the town guard/militia/farmers afraid of bandits/etc. what do you think they are all going to be crafting?

I generally assume that they are custom ordering higher end magic items. Since the book of bad latin lists nightsticks as 7.5k, that's a mere week per item if you're having it custom made.

lsfreak
2009-08-27, 02:29 PM
Why is this so?

A) Because wizards can easily craft their own, most of the best items only take a single feat that can be retrained when they no longer need it.

B) Wizards don't even need a single item to wipe the floor with almost anything else, it just helps. But strip melee of their items and they turn into particularly punch-proof commoners.

Zeta Kai
2009-08-27, 02:29 PM
What book are nightsticks from again? I need to make sure that I'm banning the right stuff.

Typewriter
2009-08-27, 02:30 PM
Why is this so?

Sorry, I kind of misspoke. I didn't intend fighter as the class fighter so much as 'Someone who can make use of simple magic items whether they be big swords, or other misc. things'.

Everyone wants enchanted items, whether they be farmer Joe Blue, Mayor Bob Bologna, adventurer Gordo(smasher of the punies), or Machalin(infinite mage of the abyss), but Machalin is the only one of that group who wants a metamagic rod.

Optimystik
2009-08-27, 02:32 PM
Supply and demand is supply and demand. More demand means more supply made in the first place, and it's more readily available. There are enough magic items to satisfy the caster wizards too, but less likelihood that they'll find that supply in a convenient location.

You are assuming ease of creation and limitless resources, two conditions which don't apply to magic item creation at all. No matter how high demand gets, a given crafter has limited XP to craft wares with, and only 8 hours per day in which he can do it. Thus, higher demand from one segment of the market (Fighters) will eventually throttle supply to that segment.

Nor is there allocative efficiency among the crafters, because the spells necessary to enchant armor and weapons are far different from the spells necessary to enchant wands, robes, staves and other things that wizards would be more likely to purchase.

Any DM can handwave all this of course, but he is doing so in spite of economics, not in accordance with it.

Fax Celestis
2009-08-27, 02:35 PM
What book are nightsticks from again? I need to make sure that I'm banning the right stuff.

Libris Mortis. To be honest, the rest of the book is perfectly fine (barring Ephemeral Exemplar on a ghost PC, which has it's own problems and isn't a fault of Ephemeral Exemplar).

MichielHagen
2009-08-27, 02:35 PM
What book are nightsticks from again? I need to make sure that I'm banning the right stuff.

Libris Mortis

I wouldn't ban them, just don't let them use more than one.

AstralFire
2009-08-27, 02:37 PM
You are assuming ease of creation and limitless resources, two conditions which don't apply to magic item creation at all. No matter how high demand gets, a given crafter has limited XP to craft wares with, and only 8 hours per day in which he can do it. Thus, higher demand from one segment of the market (Fighters) will eventually throttle supply to that segment.

Nor is there allocative efficiency among the crafters, because the spells necessary to enchant armor and weapons are far different from the spells necessary to enchant wands, robes, staves and other things that wizards would be more likely to purchase.

Any DM can handwave all this of course, but he is doing so in spite of economics, not in accordance with it.

You're assuming that those interested in crafting wouldn't adjust what they learn in terms of spells to better suit the majority of the market which they come across.

lsfreak
2009-08-27, 02:39 PM
And there's Thought Bottles. Please don't hurt me for bringing them up.

Thrawn183
2009-08-27, 02:41 PM
Yeah, I have to agree with the OP. If you limit things to a single nightstick, DMM Persist probably isn't going to break your game wide open.

Mushroom Ninja
2009-08-27, 02:41 PM
Just add artificers. It makes the economics run much more smoothly.

Optimystik
2009-08-27, 03:12 PM
You're assuming that those interested in crafting wouldn't adjust what they learn in terms of spells to better suit the majority of the market which they come across.

Divine crafters can easily (but they were never supplying the wizard market to begin with.) Wizards need to find the spells in question. Sorcerers face massive switching costs. So right off the bat we have only one class in core that is able to switch as easily as you describe, and even then it's not that easy.

Kallisti
2009-08-27, 03:23 PM
Even assuming you're not willing to buy even one Nightstick, with Cha 14 (not hard to get) you can do the following: With a domain that grants Extra Turning and two flaws (take Extra Turning and Extra Turning for the bonus feats, by the way) you can have the following routine: Cast Eagle's Splendor on yourself first thing in the morning to get your Cha up to 18. Turn Undead attempts per day? 3 base +4 cha +12 Extra Turning times three=19. You can persist, what, three spells with that? And since all those Extra Turnings are bonus feats, you haven't expended too much to get that. A feat to take DMM: Persist, and you have to take a domain that grants Extra Turning, and you burned a spell slot casting the Eagle's Splendor, but that's not too much. And you get your three shiniest buffs available. All the time. 24/7. And that's not even a build focused on DMM: Persist. With a focused build, you could easily get, at relatively low levels, a huge number of persistant spells. I played in a game once, sixth level, where our cleric was DMM focused. He was terrifying. Nothing could stand in his way. At sixth level he was easily as powerful as a tenth or eleventh level character should be.

In conclusion, you're right, it can be a pretty heavy expenditure to get a few persistant buffs. So choose the right buffs. There are some really overpwered spells in 3.5 to Persist.

Eldariel
2009-08-27, 03:23 PM
I was talking about "the random item". Of course, caster make their own items. But I don't understand your point here.

I mean, why "equip melee first" is OOC? They see in their world that their friends can be effective, but need more magic items than them. So they behave in a certain way when the treasure is splitted.

You could say for sure that this could be not vaild for some alignement or mix of alignements in party.

OOC because logically, and party balance wise, it's the best way to go about it. However, those are not concerns for me in-character. Many of the characters would, should I perfectly immerse myself in their role and play them without limits as they would act, would rid themselves of the melee types by the levels such equipping decisions become relevant.

Some would do it because they don't want to risk their friends who are more and more reliant on him and thus dead if he is, and simply not cut out for the job at hands. Others would do it because the melee types leech on their resources and slow them down. Others would keep them along, but definitely wouldn't give an ounce of the treasure they could use since the wealth is what they're for there in the first place.

What I mean is that IC, many characters have completely different motives than the good of the party with regards to loot distribution (and some don't care about it at all), and as such I can't say that IC I want to spread loot as "equip melee first" since that's simply not logical behaviour for a large number of characters I play. Keeping weaker types along in general is not logical behaviour for many of them.

As such, I fudge the characters lightly in interests of party harmony and my OOC understanding of the best of the group and which would likely result in the most fun for everyone. But it's definitely purely an OOC decision, which is why I was making the distinction; normally all such decisions I make IC and by my character's terms. However, in this case, I can only do those decisions IC if the group plays on a level where intra-party conflict is ok and "Survival of the Fittest"-kind of thinking in-party is not frowned upon.


Actually, my ideal way to have this would be the way WOW manage craft. In wow, a warrior raises his skill in, say, weaponsmithing, and gathers reagents to craft items. An epic mace needs rare metal, a stone took from an elder something, from a rare something else (insert fantasy stereotypes).

No caster level. Maybe the mandatory caster ---> magic item (as well the caster ---> alchemy) is the only thing I don't like of 3.5.

At least, could be good assign some relevant role to the part BEFORE weapon imbuing with magical forces. I'm doing it in my current campaign, but is miles away from my ideal crafting rules.

Time to homebrew?

Yeah. Though my own view of it is that smiths should be a separate thing entirely, fueled by a bunch of feats and skills available to the PCs (I think it's a disgrace that the Craft-skill is in no way connected to magical items, even though I understand the logic) but especially granted as bonuses by a separate NPC "Smith"-class.

I'm not opposed to the idea of some adventurers being capable smiths, but I do detest the fact that all casters automatically qualify for all that, that non-casters can't qualify for it and that it's so easy for PCs to be capable of making their own stuff. The way I see it, Hattori Hanzo shouldn't be a Wizard or a Fighter but a Master Smith who does not adventure but has dedicated his entire life to crafting and is someone the players can get their equipment wrong.


The part of the dynamic that's wrong IMHO right now is that mundane items are worth noting and smiths cannot create magical items. I think item should be imbued with magic in the moment of creation (making the Craft-checks) and that it should be something that requires extensive Crafting training a skill only available to smiths rather than only to casters. As said, caster AND non-caster PCs could learn it (so the party Dwarf could truly craft his own stuff as is right and decent), but it wouldn't be automatically available to either and would indeed require a relevant investment of skill points, feats and so on.


Libris Mortis

I wouldn't ban them, just don't let them use more than one.

I suggest just limiting characters to their inherent Turnings for divine feats. It makes no sense to me for Nightstick's powers to be convertable like standard Turning when Nightstick is specifically designed to turn undead, while normal Turning-mechanic represents channeling divine energy in general and thus divine feats represent channeling it in different ways.

In general, I find that allowing items' abilities to be as versatile as characters' abilities is a bad idea, and limiting items doing to what they're supposed to be doing is a great way to cut a ton of abuses.


This way Nightsticks are a fair game, but don't fuel DMM, Divine Spell Power or any such - just give you certain number of extra Turn Undead attempts per day, like they're designed to.

Jack_Simth
2009-08-27, 04:50 PM
That's still ONE buff i'm going to be getting, and for myself. It's a 4 person group and i'd like to contribute as primary buffer, or atleast secondary buffer.
Vigorous Circle or Mass Lesser Vigor (both spell compendium) let you give fast healing to everyone in the party (3 or 1, depending which version you pick up). This is my favorite for this task, as it's part of the healer's role, and it boosts the Fighter and Rogue much more than it does the Wizard and Cleric - because the Wizard and Cleric will run out of spells, while this mostly prevents the Fighter and Rogue from running out of HP (their only real "daily" resource).

Elation (Book of Exalted Deeds) gives the entire party +2 Morale to Strength and Dex, and a boost to speed (that's +1 AC, +1 Attack, +1 or +2 damage).

Righteous Wrath of the Faithful (Spell Compendium) grants +3 attack/damage, and an extra attack, for the entire party.

Recitation (Spell Compendium) is +2 (or +3) Luck to AC, saves, and attacks for the entire party.

Holy Aura (or Unholy Aura, or Shield of Law, or Cloak of Chaos...) gives +4 Deflection to AC, +4 Resistance to saves, and a few other benefits.

Is Fast Healing for your entire party worth three feats and an item or two? Is +3 Attack/damage for the entire party worth three feats and an item or two? And so on. Basically, a Cleric gets a lot of good rounds/level buffs, and many of the rounds/level buffs are Persistable (do note that the list above was carefully checked to make certain that they're persistable - not all buffs are). With one DMM(Persistent Spell), you've got one buff up in advance, that lasts through most the fights. One or two more feats/items, and you've got two buffs up in advance, that last through most the fights. One or two more feats/items, and you've got three buffs up in advance, that last through most the fights. Basically, you're breaking the action economy, but only as a buffer.

Doc Roc
2009-08-27, 05:15 PM
So in ToS, where there's a very low ceiling on the number of turn attempts you can get without crippling your character (around 25 or so), about 3/4s of all divine casters have brought DMM persist or a similar variant. It's been a turning point in about 1/2 of the battles involving those highly optimized full-casters.

My now-extensive experience is that DMM: Persist, for whatever reason, proves to be very-very powerful in actual practice even with a fairly limited amount of cheese. Also of interest is the fact that you can accumulate multiple turn-undead pools through a little trickery, and extra turning adds to all of these individually. Funny stuff, neh?

Kelpstrand
2009-08-27, 05:17 PM
What I'm saying is that every world is different and trying to blanket the world with infinite knowledge of things that don't exist on it is pretty silly. If a world on the material plane has never had anyone contact the other planes then no knowledge of those creatures exist. I suppose you could just turn that into a situational modifier of +1 million or something. I suppose you could call situational modifieris 'Rule Zero' or homebrew, but I would simply call it a very 'unfavorable condition'.

Wouldn't it be kind of weird if all of a sudden in the middle of a dragonlance (or some other) book one of the characters started talking about his intricate knowledge of some obscure creature, and when questioned about it he revealed that it was something that no one on the world had ever seen, interacted with, or heard about?

Using any setting in which the monsters don't exist is itself a houserule. Using anything other than the standard D&D setting or a published campaign setting is a houserule. For example, in Dragonlance, all the monsters in the MM exist in Dragonlance in their respective planes, including the Prime Material. Every single level 9 Cleric can Planeshift to any other Plane and have knowledge of them. And can tell people who haven't. And it can be in books. So when the Wizard makes a DC X knowledge check to know about Dretches, he knows about Dretches.

"If a world on the material plane has never had anyone contact the other planes then no knowledge of those creatures exist." is a situation that can literally never occur without you houseruling.


Rule Zero, homebrew, or a very unfavorable condition for said knowledge check? Your call.

No, not my call. Rule Zero. You are changing the rules. That is rule zero. homebrew is an example of rule zero.


Fair enough, but it also doesn't say anything about the quantity. You buy one of something, and it could be gone. Especially with things like magic items that are probably in low demand.

I suppose that an evil villain whose evil plan revolved around purchasing every nightstick in the world would be done in by the worlds largest city having an infinite supply of nightsticks.

It does say about quantity. It says that you may only purchase up to the gp value of the city (in another section). Does that mean that every single city is a Schroedinger city where I can either buy 100 Wands of Mage armor or 100 wands of shield but never both? YES! But that Schroedinger set up is still the actual rules. And just like Schroedingers cat, it's a paradox with no effect on the real world, because when you buy X, then it turns out that was the answer all along, and when you open the box, the cat is one or the other.

An evil villain who's plan revolved around buying all nightsticks would run out of money before most large cities would run out of nightsticks.


Once again, I suppose it's up to inidividual interpretation. Is it a house-rule, rule zero, or simply lack of supply and demand (AKA world building) that prevents a city from having inifinite night sticks.

No it isn't up to individual interpretation. It is a houserule that prevents players from buying as many nightsticks as they can afford.

No amount of wishing otherwise changes that at all. It is absolutely a houserule. Making up Supply and Demand is a houserule.


I'm not really 100% sure what you mean here, but if the DM told me that there were no nightsticks on the world I wouldn't really think he was being a jerk, and he's only a liar if five minutes later he uses them against us.

Once again. No one is a lying jerk for using a houserule. They are a lying jerk if they deny they are houseruling.

Saying:
1) No you can't buy a Nightstick rule.
and
2) I am not houseruling, but am following the DMG rules for item availability.

Is a lie.


Once again I'll look it up in the book when I get home(thanks for reminding me where it's located :smallsmile: ) but from what you posted I don't quite hear 'infinite supply of all items' ringing through my ears.

I think that in some instances you are right, my actions (and the actions of others) are house-rules, but I think that in most cases it's more a matter of the fact that each world is different, and when you get into cases where things are situational it's impossible to have a RAW discussion based off of it.

That's because you are specifically sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting. If you actually listened to the rules, you would see that when your player asks "Nightstick?" the answer is "yes" according to the rules. And when he asks "Nightstick?" One second later, the answer is still yes.

Salvonus
2009-08-27, 05:35 PM
I can't say that this "houserule" argument makes much sense to me. Couldn't one argue that adding supplements beyond the Core 3 is "houseruling"? If you say that it's not the case, then wouldn't having a supplement unavailable through, say, not owning it, count as a "houserule"?

Frankly, the way you describe it, 3.5e is virtually unplayable without "houseruling". Virtually the only thing you can do is random monster encounters... Heck, if you're playing Eberron and inadvertently misplay the book-defined personality of a NPC, you've suddenly become a "lying jerk" - after all, you've houseruled without telling your players that you're going to.

I don't really see the point in arguing over what is and isn't a houserule when you can't play anything more than a bland dungeon crawl without them. I think that's what Fax's Morbo-emphasised point was. :smallwink:

Roland St. Jude
2009-08-27, 05:36 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: Please tone down the hostility in here and avoid flaming and trolling. That include rude memes and passive-aggressive insults.

Salvonus
2009-08-27, 06:09 PM
Roland, you have a thankless job. How do you not go insane in here? :smalltongue:

afroakuma
2009-08-27, 06:10 PM
Saying:
1) No you can't buy a Nightstick rule.
and
2) I am not houseruling, but am following the DMG rules for item availability.

Is a lie.

That seems backwards. Allowing nightsticks is houseruling, because you are houseruling in a non-core source. Regardless of which company published it, if the book is not Core, including any of its material is a houserule.

Per Core rules, those presented in the DMG, it's impossible to either purchase a nightstick or obtain one via any other means.

Concurred with Salvonus.

Kelpstrand
2009-08-27, 06:30 PM
I can't say that this "houserule" argument makes much sense to me. Couldn't one argue that adding supplements beyond the Core 3 is "houseruling"? If you say that it's not the case, then wouldn't having a supplement unavailable through, say, not owning it, count as a "houserule"?

Frankly, the way you describe it, 3.5e is virtually unplayable without "houseruling". Virtually the only thing you can do is random monster encounters... Heck, if you're playing Eberron and inadvertently misplay the book-defined personality of a NPC, you've suddenly become a "lying jerk" - after all, you've houseruled without telling your players that you're going to.

I don't really see the point in arguing over what is and isn't a houserule when you can't play anything more than a bland dungeon crawl without them. I think that's what Fax's Morbo-emphasised point was. :smallwink:

Not using a book you don't have is not houseruling, because you don't have the rules. Not using a book you do have is houseruling.

There are no random monster tables in any of the books I've seen, so where are you getting that? There is a list of monsters which exist, this does not have anything to do with what monsters you happen to run into.

If your players run into monsters, you can totally decide what they are, just like if your players run into a building, you can totally decide it's layout.

But if your players decide they want to meet a Beholder, and use divinations to find one, and you say that Beholders don't exist, that's a houserule.

afroakuma
2009-08-27, 06:40 PM
Not using a book you don't have is not houseruling, because you don't have the rules. Not using a book you do have is houseruling.

So... if I own a copy of the Book of Erotic Fantasy, you're telling me... :smalleek:

If I own Elder Evils, am I houseruling to not dispatch nine ancient horrors against my world?

Yeah, I think not.

Not using a book you do have could mean any number of things. It could mean that the book has no relevance to your campaign (Stormwrack on a desert world), is poorly written, or employs a rules system that you simply don't need.

If I own the rules to d20 Modern, does this mean that not using those weapons and classes is houseruling?

Where does that leave the online material, then? If something's available on Wizards' website, then I don't need to purchase it. Is it houseruling not to include whatever they post there, regardless of whether or not I've seen it or even heard of it?

Doc Roc
2009-08-27, 06:50 PM
It is my cordial opinion that there is no right side to this argument, and we have crossed the boundary. All I know is that nightsticks do actually stack, though they probably shouldn't. I personally ban them outright and up-front. I feel like houserules should be in place when things start, or should be discussed with the player. Now, if verisimilitude in your world suggests that nightsticks are hard to find, or that you can't find many of them, that's certainly fine. Perfectly, in fact.

But your players have to know this. You aren't "winning" by taking things away from them stealthily. Magic mart is vehemently decried here for it's supposed imbalancing factors. That's fine, and maybe it's so, but unless your players know what's what, you're doing everyone involved a disservice I think. I don't mind questing around for magic items, but the unfortunate fact is that a lot of classes depend on having certain gear to play well in many situations.

Now, I will repeat that I do know for a fact that DMM:Persist is very strong. I've seen that experimentally verified in a situation where I don't allow anything but feat-stacking and single instances of boosting items. I myself can gain over 35 turn attempts on a L20 character, and a solid 18 on a lower level character.

Calling the use of WotC source material "houseruling" may be your personal perspective, and certainly it's intended to be used judiciously. But the purpose of a supplement is to function out of the box, something that can rarely be said for homebrew. Sure, WotC failed on a number of occasions, but to call all material house-rules is to dilute the meaning of a word. We need barriers in language. I grok your meaning, but I wish we could avoid having things devolve into such semantic arguments. Really, I think you are all arguing over the aesthetics of specifics in a case where the general picture is already horribly ugly. I can offer up battle reports as supporting evidence, if you like.

Kelpstrand
2009-08-27, 07:23 PM
So... if I own a copy of the Book of Erotic Fantasy, you're telling me... :smalleek:

If I own Elder Evils, am I houseruling to not dispatch nine ancient horrors against my world?

Yeah, I think not.

Not using a book you do have could mean any number of things. It could mean that the book has no relevance to your campaign (Stormwrack on a desert world), is poorly written, or employs a rules system that you simply don't need.

You are completely ignoring valid distinctions. If you own Elder Evils, then those Elder Evils do exist. If your players want to devote themselves to it, it is a houserule to stop them.

Not releasing them on the world is not houseruling, because Elder Evils describes several things which are not ever to actually be released on the world except in an epic "campaign over" moment. That's in the rules.

Just like if your players run around and don't accidentally run into a Beholder, that's not a houserule. It is a houserule to prevent them from finding one, or doing whatever it is that releases Elder Evils.

I'm not saying you shouldn't houserule. In fact, I am explicitly saying you should houserule.

Me: "You should houserule."

See?

What I am saying is that you shouldn't pretend you aren't houseruling. You shouldn't say "Well DMM Persist isn't too powerful because I make houserules about item existence and availability."

Never mind that my DMM Persist example doesn't even really care much about item availability. The point is that hey, DMM Persist is totally a problem. Shapechange is totally a problem.

You can totally use ham handed fixes like "They don't exist" or subtle fixes like "**** you Clerics aren't allowed to have items at all, here is your artifact sword Fighter" or "The definition of familiar is 'have previously used the spell Shapechange to assume it's form.'"

But showing up in every single DMM Persist thread to decry people who say DMM Persist is broken for not houseruling a fix is arrogant and annoying, because we all use houserules to fix it, we just aren't going to lie about it not being a problem before the houserule.

Myrmex
2009-08-27, 07:36 PM
But your players have to know this. You aren't "winning" by taking things away from them stealthily. Magic mart is vehemently decried here for it's supposed imbalancing factors. That's fine, and maybe it's so, but unless your players know what's what, you're doing everyone involved a disservice I think. I don't mind questing around for magic items, but the unfortunate fact is that a lot of classes depend on having certain gear to play well in many situations.

I think this is a very recent development, in terms of PnP gaming. What magic items a character has access to, has, culturally, I think, been up to the DM, until the advent of the internet and charop boards. Now that 4e has put the magic items in the PHB, I think Wizards has caved to the internet pressure. The 40 & 50 year-olds I play with, IRL, have a totally different approach to magic items than the assumption that anything is available from anywhere. I think both assumptions are more cultural artifacts than actual rules. In an online environment, where everything is theoretical, the assumption of access to all items within WBL makes more sense, and facilitates better discussion, than including a DMs arbitration. In a playing environment, for most games, access to magic items needs some form of control, from either gamist, simulationist, or a roleplaying perspective. It's been a trend in charop to minimize the role of the DM, since inclusion of such an unknown variable makes most discussions on theoreticals pointless, or at least hinge on too much arbitration.

Signmaker
2009-08-27, 07:42 PM
A good point.

You deserve a cookie.

Doc Roc
2009-08-27, 07:43 PM
Well, I often make my players quest for what they want, and remember, I run almost exclusively planescape games, where the vast markets of sigil and the dangerous bazaars of the City of Brass are all within walking distance of the open air markets in Waterdeep or the street stalls of Sharn.

Besides, there are artificing guilds or colleges in almost every WotC setting. One might suspect that it's possible to commission things, though perhaps at a premium. Certainly I would feel strange if House Cannith was simply for show. It's a question, I think, of what kind of fantasy game you want to play. I'm fine with any and all, with the single caveat that your players should know what they're sitting down for.

Typewriter
2009-08-27, 09:25 PM
Using any setting in which the monsters don't exist is itself a houserule. Using anything other than the standard D&D setting or a published campaign setting is a houserule. For example, in Dragonlance, all the monsters in the MM exist in Dragonlance in their respective planes, including the Prime Material. Every single level 9 Cleric can Planeshift to any other Plane and have knowledge of them. And can tell people who haven't. And it can be in books. So when the Wizard makes a DC X knowledge check to know about Dretches, he knows about Dretches.

"If a world on the material plane has never had anyone contact the other planes then no knowledge of those creatures exist." is a situation that can literally never occur without you houseruling.


Things can be in books, and they can be spoken of in legend. That doesn't mean they are, and you are saying that being written in a D&D book makes it present in all official worlds. I don't really know where the rule that all monsters exist on all worlds come from except to say that it just seems to be what you're interpretation is. Situational modifiers exist for a reason, and what's more-after getting home and looking up the rules I'm even more convinced that you can't identify a monster without seeing it or at least hearing about it. It's a check made to answer a question, meaning it's reactionary (a question of some sort was posed), so without a reason to ask the question ('what is this thing here'/'what is this person describing to me') then theres no way for you to make a check. Therefore if something doesn't exist in the world you would never hear about it or see it, so you can't make a check.



It does say about quantity. It says that you may only purchase up to the gp value of the city (in another section). Does that mean that every single city is a Schroedinger city where I can either buy 100 Wands of Mage armor or 100 wands of shield but never both? YES! But that Schroedinger set up is still the actual rules. And just like Schroedingers cat, it's a paradox with no effect on the real world, because when you buy X, then it turns out that was the answer all along, and when you open the box, the cat is one or the other.


As I said, I didn't have the books in front of me, but now I do. I would actually point to the line you pointed out yourself that says 'most likely available', which means 'Ask the DM' meaning there is no such thing as a RAW interpretation, because the RAW speaks only of 'most likelies' and 'exceptions are certainly possibles'....



No amount of wishing otherwise changes that at all. It is absolutely a houserule. Making up Supply and Demand is a houserule.


Using supply and demand is a houserule. I agree completely, and I never said it wasn't. I said that I use supply and demand as the reason mage items are harder to come by than generic magic items. The reason that I said that is because you were attempting to interpret peoples actions and saying that they were making magic items unavailable to punish casters. That's NOT why I do it. I do it because of (my own little homebrew) supply and demand.

The rest of the things you're arguing? You're interpreting things your own way, I'm interpreting them in my way. Honestly I'm more inclined to say that the argument has no RAW anwer because of the way it handles the situations. I can say that without a passage in a book stating the argument the way you are I literally have no idea where you're getting things from. Things seem fairly straight forward to me, but you're saying I'm way off. You say things look straight forward to you, but I have no idea what is causing you to make those decisions half the time.

As someone else said, there is no right answer in this, just different interpretations of the rules where there is no 'correct' answer.

Set
2009-08-27, 09:27 PM
Vigorous Circle or Mass Lesser Vigor (both spell compendium) let you give fast healing to everyone in the party (3 or 1, depending which version you pick up).

Elation (Book of Exalted Deeds) gives the entire party +2 Morale to Strength and Dex, and a boost to speed (that's +1 AC, +1 Attack, +1 or +2 damage).

Righteous Wrath of the Faithful (Spell Compendium) grants +3 attack/damage, and an extra attack, for the entire party.

Recitation (Spell Compendium) is +2 (or +3) Luck to AC, saves, and attacks for the entire party.

Holy Aura (or Unholy Aura, or Shield of Law, or Cloak of Chaos...) gives +4 Deflection to AC, +4 Resistance to saves, and a few other benefits.

Good stuff Jack Smith! I've played a dozen or so Clerics in 3.X games, and never even considered the DMM/Persist thing because every write-up about them seemed to focus exclusively on Persisting Righteous Might and / or Divine Favor to be a third-rate featless Fighter. These suggestions are much, much cooler, for someone who wanted to play a Cleric in the first place.

Elation and Recitation have been on my favorites list for quite a while, and Righteous Wrath of the Faithful looks very cool.

Doc Roc
2009-08-27, 09:33 PM
Initiate of mystra + persisted AMF == OH GOD.

Eldariel
2009-08-27, 09:36 PM
Initiate of mystra + persisted AMF == OH GOD.

Better bring an Incantatrix to shape the AMF the heck away or you're relatively boned. Indeed, I recall Char Ops had a challenge of killing certain Initiate with a bunch of Contingent AMFs on him and Delay Death and Boar's Ferocity or something.

Doc Roc
2009-08-27, 09:40 PM
You are thinking of the twice-betrayer of shaar, reliant on initiate of mystra and ocular spell to persist classically ineligible spells. I'd rate it in the top ten 3.5 builds ever produced. And while you can use ESA, you actually don't need to. IoM lets you cast right through an AMF with a little bit of cunning.

Eldariel
2009-08-27, 09:44 PM
You are thinking of the twice-betrayer of shaar, reliant on initiate of mystra and ocular spell to persist classically ineligible spells. I'd rate it in the top ten 3.5 builds ever produced.

Ah yes, for some reason I kept thinking of Cheater of Mystra there, but it was the Twice-Betrayer that had the trick up.

Doc Roc
2009-08-27, 09:48 PM
Cheater and TBoS are not strictly incompatible. We don't like to discuss that nightmarish eventuality.

afroakuma
2009-08-27, 09:54 PM
You are completely ignoring valid distinctions.

For the record, what you seem to have defined as houseruling is in fact the DM's prerogative and job, so really, there's not even a reason for this to be an argument.


If you own Elder Evils, then those Elder Evils do exist. If your players want to devote themselves to it, it is a houserule to stop them.

...according to your argument, each of the Elder Evils' signs are operating constantly if I own the book. Which means that unless I as DM begin houseruling, the world begins seething, bursting, swarming and stops letting Conjuration spells be cast. Among other things. These are all independent, mind you, of the players "devoting themselves" to anything.


Not releasing them on the world is not houseruling, because Elder Evils describes several things which are not ever to actually be released on the world except in an epic "campaign over" moment. That's in the rules.


Nooo... Elder Evils presents several feats, as well as plenty of things intended for far earlier in the campaign. The "rules" in the book don't dictate that they don't show up until the players ask or until they hit high levels. They do dictate that the signs show up a long time beforehand.


I'm not saying you shouldn't houserule. In fact, I am explicitly saying you should houserule.

Me: "You should houserule."

See?

What I am saying is that you shouldn't pretend you aren't houseruling. You shouldn't say "Well DMM Persist isn't too powerful because I make houserules about item existence and availability."

So... you're hijacking this thread to combat... hypocrisy?

For the record: there is a difference between a house rule and an application of Rule 0. Rule 0 being a rule of the game. I know the distinction is a fine one, and you will certainly reject it, but it does exist.

Moreover, disallowing a book or material from a book is not a houserule. Supplements are explicitly under the DM's jurisdiction to include or exclude from the game.


But showing up in every single DMM Persist thread to decry people who say DMM Persist is broken for not houseruling a fix is arrogant and annoying, because we all use houserules to fix it, we just aren't going to lie about it not being a problem before the houserule.

Okay, so if I just drop it and say "fine, I houserule," will that satisfy you?

Kelpstrand
2009-08-27, 11:00 PM
{Scrubbed}

Roland St. Jude
2009-08-27, 11:34 PM
Roland, you have a thankless job. How do you not go insane in here? :smalltongue:

I was insane when I took the job.

Sheriff of Moddingham: This is the final warning before I lock this thread. Please be civil.

Kelpstrand
2009-08-27, 11:51 PM
Things can be in books, and they can be spoken of in legend. That doesn't mean they are, and you are saying that being written in a D&D book makes it present in all official worlds. I don't really know where the rule that all monsters exist on all worlds come from except to say that it just seems to be what you're interpretation is. Situational modifiers exist for a reason, and what's more-after getting home and looking up the rules I'm even more convinced that you can't identify a monster without seeing it or at least hearing about it. It's a check made to answer a question, meaning it's reactionary (a question of some sort was posed), so without a reason to ask the question ('what is this thing here'/'what is this person describing to me') then theres no way for you to make a check. Therefore if something doesn't exist in the world you would never hear about it or see it, so you can't make a check.

So in other words, no one in the entire universe knows what a beholder is, and when it explicitly says that you can make a knowledge check for stuff, it really means: Well except not.

Also: "I don't really know where the rule that all monsters exist on all worlds come from"

I don't know where the rule that any monsters are present on any worlds comes from except the part where it says in the MM "This crap is on this plane." And the part where it says "This book describes the default D&D world." and the part where setting specific books explicitly call out which monsters don't exist or are different in their worlds.


As I said, I didn't have the books in front of me, but now I do. I would actually point to the line you pointed out yourself that says 'most likely available', which means 'Ask the DM' meaning there is no such thing as a RAW interpretation, because the RAW speaks only of 'most likelies' and 'exceptions are certainly possibles'....

That passage is an explicit passage telling DMs what is available, and is not at all telling the players to ask their DM.


For the record: there is a difference between a house rule and an application of Rule 0. Rule 0 being a rule of the game. I know the distinction is a fine one, and you will certainly reject it, but it does exist.

No. Just no. You don't get to preemptively declare that something completely untrue is true and then pretend that I'm just too stupid to get it.

Every application of Rule 0 is a houserule because that's what houserules are.

Houserules are rules that apply to games in your house, IE with your DM, that do not apply with other peoples games. That is the actual definition of houserule.

Declaring that all your super special houserules aren't houserules because you decided they aren't has no bearing on the fact that 'houserule' that exists for the sole purpose of clarifying which things that happen in your game you cannot also expect to happen in my game and vice versa.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-08-27, 11:53 PM
If the rule varies from group to group, it's likely a houserule.

Doc Roc
2009-08-27, 11:54 PM
This will be my last post in this thread. I think a lot of objectivity has been lost. The fact of the matter is that banning or blocking nightsticks does little to relieve the actual problem, merely moving things from hideous to ugly. DMM: Persist is powerful enough that in a limited source list or mid to low power game, it is ban-worthy. I feel like I've given some good examples, if anyone would like more, I'll take exception to my own prior moratorium.

I think the whole argument is worse than irrelevant, revealing a depth of unpleasantness on both sides.

Fax Celestis
2009-08-27, 11:56 PM
Every application of Rule 0 is a houserule because that's what houserules are.

Houserules are rules that apply to games in your house, IE with your DM, that do not apply with other peoples games. That is the actual definition of houserule.

Declaring that all your super special houserules aren't houserules because you decided they aren't has no bearing on the fact that 'houserule' that exists for the sole purpose of clarifying which things that happen in your game you cannot also expect to happen in my game and vice versa.

Uh.

"Determining what exists" is not a house rule.

It is a decision.

There is a difference.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-08-27, 11:57 PM
Turn attempts:

3 (base) + 2 (Reliquary Holy Symbol, MiC, 2,000 gp) + 4 (Nightstick) + 4 Extra Turning (Undeath domain) + 4 Extra Turning (feat) +2 Cha (assuming a 10 with a +4 item) = 19 turning attempts at whatever level you can afford a +4 item of Cha by.

So what do we need to want to Persist again?

Doc Roc
2009-08-28, 12:28 AM
Let's assume we're running a cha-driven favored soul gish. May I make that assumption?

3 (base) + 15 from cha + 3 from Undeath domain + 3 from extra turning + 3 from relinquary holy symbol. 27 attempts at L20.

L10 is probably around 21, which is a nice number. There are bunches of good spells to persist, particularly if you want to stack it up with ocular spell.

Had a nice list of spells to persist here.... lost it. Here they are:

Superior Invisibility
Stone\Iron Body
Greater Blink
Recitation
Righteous Wrath
Divine Power
Shapechange


Can't find the master list on gleemux