Place to discuss potential or current character builds: classes, races, spells, equipment, feats, skills, tactics, ect.

Just moving your question over to the new thread.  I have no idea (I also don't have this book so...) if it's allowed.

i would have to say, ask Marcus

So, I've decided that my next character is for sure gonna be a monk.  Only thing is I'm a little confused with the "flurry of blows" class feature.  Not in itself, but rather- can it be used with "two weapon fighting?"

A monk's fists are treated as weapons, and seeing as that there are (usually) two of them, you could take the two weapon fighting feat to lessen the penalty of attacking with both.  So, if you were to attack with both fists AND use a flurry of blows, then would the attacks be (for a 1st level monk) -2/-2/-2/-2?  I'm sure the answer is really simple, I just don't typically play martial class characters.

In reply to Nivian Solaris (msg #4):

I do believe the answer here is no. Flurry of blows counts as a full round action in it of itself and attacking twice while dual wielding also counts as a full attack.

Ah, good point.

In reply to Nivian Solaris (msg #6):

Id worry about making my punches count! Perhaps go for a race the is large (or one like the half-giant that acts like being large without actually being large).

I have thought about that, especially since Half-Giants get a few psionic goodies too.  Still not sure, though.

In reply to Nivian Solaris (msg #8):

Just remember you can always remove that Level Adjustment by 3rd level and it really won't put you that far behind everyone else. (Plus the psionic bump really does a little something for you if you plan to go psionic fist!). If the LA is too scary you could always go warforged (living construct) and grab battle fist -magic item- (or something like that) that let you act as a size category bigger.

I think Marcus ruled that Ebberron isn't allowed. Maybe the Warforged Race is though, I dunno.  I was thinking about going Xeph for the burst power.  The -2 STR isn't too attractive, but +2 Dex combined with a good WIS mod would power my AC quite a bit.  Of course, if I can't make my mind up, you can't go wrong with Humans.

In reply to Nivian Solaris (msg #10):

Warfordged are allowed. Seen'em before. Dont forget that weapon finesse works for unarmed attacks!

Good point indeed!  Can't believe I didn't think of that.

Warforged (and Shifters?, gonna have to ask m about that one) have been converted to mainstream (not sure if any of the feats have been...) hence they are not Eberron campaign setting specific and therefore allowed (To try and clear up the confusion I'm sure some people have on "No Eberron" and there being Warforged in the games)

Warforged is in one of the monster manual books and is allowed through that medium.

shifters and warforged are part of the monster manual 4 i think and some of the speciality feats for those race are too

Ok, Warmage Edge is overpowered (This in not just from my match with Peep Eep, I've had issue with it before).  There are two elements that need a nerf.
First:  The Edge bonus should be limited to your level, a Warmage with an int of 18 shouldn't be able to dish out 1d4+5 damage to anyone in LOS with no save (Magic Missile, I know only 110 range at level1, but see b----fest part two lower down).
Second: The Edge bonus should only apply once on continuously damaging spells.  The ability description specifically says it only applies once per spell, then proceeds to contradict itself by saying it applies every round with continuous spells.  As Peep demonstrated, the damage quickly becomes obscene when stacked on with Acid Arrow or similar spells.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

We also need bigger arenas.  I'm sick and tired of losing initiative and finding my opponent right up in my face before I've even had a turn.  There is no tactical retreat possible because most have the ability to cross the arenas we have in a single move action or a haste induced double move and still smack you one.  Medium range spells become LOS very quickly (if they aren't already at level 1) because of the small arena sizes.

I'd have to disagree with Seth about the bigger arenas.  Don't know much about the Warmage edge thing (though I've been keeping up with that duel, and the comments fight was more exciting than the actual battle), but I think for most martial class characters facing a caster opponent, the size of an arena can quickly make for a game of "can I hit you before you are practically unbeatable?"  I'm sure this probably isn't true for higher levels (such as the haste/enlarge combo I've seen a lot of) so perhaps, Seth, you should submit your own idea for an arena?  Marcus has accepted most made by gladiators so far.
I'm afraid it won't make a HUGE difference though.  I'm building Dastan to be able to overcome this little issue particularly well (at 20th level, he will have a move speed of approx 200ft if my calculations are correct [that's including special bonuses and powers], which will easily multiply in a double move.  Plus, he'll be able to double move and still make a full attack once hes leveled quite a bit), and I'm sure others will find their own way around it.

Warmage edge is a Warmage ability that allows them to add their Int bonus to damage dealt by spells (there's about 5 paragraphs clarifying it in the book because of rule details).  The problem is people who can stack int and then pop off spells that deal small amounts of damage every round for several rounds (Acid Arrow being the most prominent/obvious example) but get to stack on the Edge bonus damage every round (thus multiplying the effect).  The other (lesser) problem is that (at low levels) it allows the warmage to turn Magic Missile from a spell that will only sting to possibly killing you in 1-2 casts (with no way to avoid it other than to break LOS or be out of range) with no save or attack roll involved (the only thing that stops it is SR, and who has that at level 1?).

In reply to Seth 'Shard' Gray (msg #18):

Shield or Night Shield would do it as well as a Brooch of shielding. Magic Missile has almost as many counters as uses. =)

In other news: Dastan the Monk is seeking ways to increase his damage with his unarmed strikes.  If I were to invest in a pair of Deep Crystal Gauntlets, would I still be able to make my monk unarmed strike at 1d6 damage, or would I have to take the gauntlet's measly 1d3?

buy a monks belt (DMG)
and check the superior unarmed strike feat from the TOB

Already working towards a Monk's belt.  Wasn't aware of the superior unarmed strike feat, though, thanks.  Definitely gonna pick up improved natural attack as well.

The only problem with those options is that I won't be able to obtain most of them until around lvl 6 and beyond.   Im looking for ways to increase the hurt now. Similar to how you mages can just buy a wand of magic missle, and boom - instant  damage; Im looking to pick up some items/elixers that will magically enhance my fists.  Im thinking the deep crystal gauntlets are a good idea because they still allow for an extra 2d6 dmg even if base dmg is only 1d3.  Im still unsure about that, though.  And Im already on the Magic Fang juice.  What might be some other avenues?  Also: charging a deep crystal weapon with a powerpoint... move action? Not sure on that.

I actually think that Warmage Edge is a little underpowered and isn't very good. remember you can't dip into it as only warmage spells can be effected by it. Also warmages cast from Charisma not Int so in a caster build focused on a warmage INt is a dump stat unless you want warmage edge, so you have to split points across your build that could go into better things such as CON or DEX

So in order to get meaningful damage from it you have to use specialised spells meaning you are going to know what your opponent is casting or use spells where it makes little differance at higher lvls (what is an extra 5 damage at 20th lvl) or focus on Int so much that your other spellcasting will suffer.

used with something like acid arrow it can be painful but just prepare a spell of resist energy before the battle. with magic missile it hurts alot at lower lvls but becomes redundant quickly and shield or nightshield deal with it quickly enough.

i agree with solitude assesment of warmage edge.
Being a caster based on 2 stats is difficult to maximized in the long run and since charisma is the primary stat for casting, most warmage will have a good scroe in int instead of a great score.

I understand why Shard is frustrated but i would have to say that you aim your anger at wrong target.

Peep's warmage edge is dangerous because of the character himself, not the ability.
Go check the pixie class in the savage species and you will see how he does that much damage.

Can anybody please explain me the mechanical complications of playing a LA 1 or 2 race without racial dice(such as the Asimar)? and how does it interact with LA buy off?
This message was last edited by the player at 02:17, Sun 15 Apr 2012.

Well, because we start at level 2 now, LA +1 works normally.  LA +2 you start with a single HD of your appropriate type (and get the corresponding HD type, BaB, and saves), upon reaching level 3, that HD is replaced with a class HD (say Bard, because it would never happen) and you are essentially a level 1 whatever (Bard, heh) with a +2 LA (just like you had made a level 3 character that way).  Alternatively, if you can find and get GM approval to use a racial class (for example, Troll) you can do that (and unlike RaW, you're allowed to alternate, taking a level of Troll and then a level of Bard; you must take a level of your racial every other level as a minimum though.)

When it comes to Prestige Classes with special requirements, how are those handled in the arena?  For example, the Un-Priest's special condition to have once served a god and then have his power revoked for misdeeds.

The complete divine one has "Must be trained by an Ur priest" instead.
But yes, how are the requisites handled?

Most special requirements are waived (UR priest included) - if you have something specific, I can let you know.

It seems that most PrC that have these special requirements are something along the lines of "Join X secret society and preform the Ritual of BlahBlah."  So these would most-likely be waived then?

Join society part = waived

Ritual = if it involves gp and/or xp expenditure on the part of the character, then you have to pay for that.
This message was last edited by the GM at 19:48, Fri 27 Apr 2012.

Lol, Drunken Master (survive a night of revelery [etc.]) ~= 5 Gal (ish) of Ale (1 gp)...yeah, my mind is f-ed up sometimes...

Considering an Assassin build.  Assassin's get some mean spells (especially from Spell Compendium), and are over all just pretty badass to boot.  Only problem is I'm reluctant to burn a level on rouge, as I'm not sold on their viability in the arena.  Also, Assassins seem to suffer from a bad case of MAD.  Anyway, if I was to do it, I'd like to incorporate some levels of Ranger to get a favored enemy (Evil character can take humanoids as FE's... mwahahaha).

Any suggestions?

I'm in need of Meta-magic recommendations! What are the best meta-magic feats for a wizard such as myself?

My Thoughts:
Extend Spell
Enlarge Spell
Twin Spell
Quicken Spell

Perhaps some of you are familiar with some that are off the beaten path so to speak.
This message was last edited by the player at 02:57, Sun 06 May 2012.

Not from approved sources (as far as i am aware) but invisible spell. it has a +0 LA and makes all effects of the spel invisible. so you can pull of some realy cool tricks if you know what you are doing with it such as invisible summon monster, (a horde of invisible monsters) or invisible fog cloud (if you opponant can see invisible they are hindered by it and if you cant then you arent) also you can set up traps such as cloudkill areas with it that your opponant wanders into.

More traditionally go the elemental admixture route with thunder twin metamagic (i think thats what it is called) to stun opponants every time you canst a spell.

In reply to Edward Stoneharber (msg #36):

Born of three thunders I think is what youre talking about. Chance to stun and Knock prone. Changes damage to sonic and electric. Unfortunately it dazes the caster (if they fail a save).

I wanted to combine invisible spell with cloud of knives, but I'm glad it isn't approved (I also checked - it isn't). Combining invisible spell with summons is incredibly silly. Isn't there a feat to expend a spell during a summoning casting to have the creatures have the effect? Creatures shouldn't be able to benefit from invisible spell.

Awww man! Invisible spell would rock! It would be sick combined with Ranged touch spells. It'd be like shooting for AC 10 every time!

In reply to Malificus Kusisqa (msg #38):

Doesn't give that kind of bonus. It makes manifestations of spells invisible but doesn't do anything like deny dex or whatever.

That's too bad, but I guess its moot anyways. As far as the Admixture/Born of three thunders thing; I've banned Evocation so it really would work for my build. Evocation was just too weak when compared to conjuration (as it allows both saves and SR 90% of the time and conjuration often times does not allow SR), and I couldn't afford to ditch anything else.

What do you guys think of Black lore of moil?
http://dndtools.eu/feats/compl...k-lore-of-moil--211/

..or Lord of Uttercold
http://dndtools.eu/feats/compl...k-lore-of-moil--211/

Quick question. Are paladins / monks still subject to multiclassing detriments here. So if you go of the beaten path you can't advance them anymore?

At a quick guess, yes...then again, exceptions abound and one case that would come to mind that should be an exception if it isn't already is if your other class is a monster class (just because RAW you'd take all levels in that first and then be able to pick up one of those without issues [other than possibly alignment and an explanation of why such and such a creature would take such a path...]).  That said, there are feats (I'd have to dig through my books to find them) that allow you to get around this limitation on a limited basis (the feats that come to mind basically are one time feats that allow you to choose a class and be exempt for that class only [IE to allow a monk/druid or a pally/wiz by choosing druid and wiz for the monk or pally version of the feat respectively], but I think [50/50 chance] those particular feats are in Eberron and therefore not allowed unless you get special permission)

That hasn't come up, but I'd be for NOT having multiclassing detriments - so monks and pally's can come and go as they please.

I have some doubts about how sneaking around works in the arena.  Maybe someone can clarify.
Normally to hide you need concealment or cover, BUT you can't hide while observed.  So how does this work in arena combat?  I would really like to know the following: If a PC has an ability or item that grants partial concealment, can he hide initially when behind the column and then sneak out into the open arena while remaining hidden? (with a successful check of course)  (I'm thinking about child of shadow stance for example)
Also what happens exactly if someone hears you?  To pinpoint you need to roll 20 more than your opponent, but if you lose a move silently check vs a listen check by only a few points while hiding, what do you have to tell your opponent?  Your general direction, i.e., "You hear something north of you"?

In reply to Cor Petit (msg #45):

Well, most of the arenas are open enough that really any sound will direct attention to your exact location, unless you are invisible. Though I'd argue it's sort of a flavor thing. If you were to run behind a pillar and "hide" normally, I'd say a gladiator could spot you by rounding the corner. If you were to run behind a pillar and use a camouflaging power or spell, then I'd say a spot check was in order. Just my two coppers.
This message was last edited by the GM at 22:31, Tue 08 May 2012.

In reply to Nivian Solaris (msg #46):

As far as I know thats how it sits right now. =)

in order to hide you need concealment or no LOS to your opponant. to remain hidden those conditions need to remain true. Also child of shadow stance specifically states it cant be used for hiding.

In reply to Edward Stoneharber (msg #48):

what about a magical item that grants partial concealment (as opposed to total)?  You could then hide with one of those I guess?

you need total cover or concealment unless you have an ability which states otherwise

"You need cover or concealment in order to attempt a Hide check. Total cover or total concealment usually (but not always; see Special, below) obviates the need for a Hide check, since nothing can see you anyway."  http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Hide_Skill

That sentence reads as if you could hide as long as you have access to a shadowy area or magically shadowy area (partial concealment but not total concealment).  My question is if you can hide first behind total cover (unobserved) and then sneak out into an open area while remaining hidden and unobserved...
This message was last edited by the player at 05:55, Fri 11 May 2012.

I don't think so :/ Imagine doing it in real life. Its not a game of Metal Gear Solid... hiding in the open is near impossible. Maybe if you look hard enough you'll find one of those "near-impossible DC's" like DC 80 move silently to stay hidden etc. Don't think there is anyone here who can do that, though.

We dealt with the hide issue awhile back. Once you're out of the area in which a hide check would be legal, you can't quite hide. Also, there's a significant penalty for hiding while moving.

Hide In Plain Sight is a great ability because it allows the sort of moving about all sneaky like in the open that you're speaking of. I miss my little owl familiar that was total death from the shadows.

In reply to Bogan Darkmane (msg #53):

Oh, I didn't know it had been discussed before, where was that discussed then?  Just in case though, I meant if you carried an item that granted concealment or something, like a blink ring or something that created shadow or the like.  For some reason I thought some PCs here were hidding in shadowy areas allready and I just wanted to know how that worked.(Im thinking about Mar'lafor for example)
Im still sort of confused, because it does say you can hide if you have concealment, as long as you are not observed, for example if you use a standard action to bluff and hide (bluff skill DC 20) in that case I guess you could hide in a shadowy but open area?
This message was last edited by the player at 17:24, Fri 11 May 2012.

eah i have had to get a good grasp of the hide rules while plaing. Basically it boils down to if someone gets LOS to you it breaks our hide. If you have some sort of item that grants concealment you could probbably hide but your opponant would be able to see a 5 foot square of shadow moving acros the arena.

In reply to Mar'lafor (msg #55):
Ok, but there are spells that make larger shadowy areas though, or the blink spell from what I read gives concealment also....I'm also wondering if it counts as being observed when your opponent is being attacked by a summoned creature or another PC.

Hi everyone,

There's been a lot of talk about guilds lately. I am open to the idea and I'd like to hear from everyone on what they think. So, we're going to take a vote on allowing guilds in the Colosseum.

The choices are simple - yes, no or roleplay only.

Keep in mind, that if it is approved by a majority, it will not be exactly like the guilds in the Pathfinder game. One example is that the guild rewards will be less (no free feats, no double gp rewards for matches for example). Another example is that there will be no giving items or gold to other members of a guild as that could drastically unbalance low level characters.

Roleplay only: This would be guilds with zero rewards. There would still be a guild record in the Gates of Life and Death thread to see what guild reigns supreme though.

VOTES (updated through post #68):
***One vote per player, not per character

Yes: Nivian, Bogan, Shard, Tallulah, Udum, Grank, Thorn Fury

No:

Roleplay Only: Bogan, Zindor, Edward
This message was last edited by the GM at 22:55, Sun 20 May 2012.

I vote no. However interesting, I think it would add a new level of potential imbalance to matches. I think the system we have now is fine.

How much less beneficial are we talking though? If guilds are only for RP I'd be fine with it.

I'm not entirely sure yet. I'm leaning towards a consumable commensurate to a character's level. However, I did create (above) the Roleplay only option, so that should help.

I like the idea of it for purely Competition's sake, but I'm also really interested to look at the potential for benefits from joining a guild.  Perhaps to promote balance, there can be a benefit to being a free-agent, as well?

I vote yes, but you know how I stand on the arena as it is.  A tear won't be shed if we kick the guild idea to the curb.  I'm more than happy with what we have going on now :)

For me if guilds are instated, I'd like it to be on a purely role-playing basis. I have no opinion otherwise.

I vote yes. We are unbalanced anyway. Perhaps ther couuld be some interesting benefits to it (like maybe be able to bend a little the CR restriction on fights between members of the same guild, there is a certain CR 3 out ther I'm sure could sweep the floor with me if given a chance)

Common who wouldn't want a guild war and guild tourneys?

I would like to say yes but without a full breakdown of what the changes would be i have to say RP Only

I say yes just to spice things up.  As for guild benefits, perhaps there should be a list of a half-dozen to a dozen benefits and each guild chooses one and then as they level up as a guild (perhaps they get 1 Guild XP per level when a member gains a new level [IE if Ed is in a guild and goes from 3->4 his guild gets 4 gXP] and need 10x their current level to ding up [numbers would probably need work]) they get to choose new benefits or improve existing ones (to a limit).
  Benefits could include (The below would allow for at least 14th level guilds before new material would be necessary):
 - Guild Stocks: The guild receives the equivalent of 5% of a members prize when they win a match, this gold can be spent only on potions of cure X wounds for members of the guild and each member may only hold one such potion at a time (the price of the potion is deducted when they begin a match and returned if they do not use the potion they selected during their match).  May be taken once.
 - Teamwork: When participating in a team match members of the guild have a +1 to their attack and damage rolls for each adjacent ally that is also a member of the same guild.  This bonus stacks to a maximum of +2/+4/+6 for having taken "Teamwork" 1/2/3 times.
 - Rival Guild: Like the ranger class ability, but the bonus is only +1 and never improves no matter how many times you take the "Rival Guild" benefit; if "Rival Guild" is mutual the bonus improves to +2.  May be taken up to once per three other active guilds.
 - Morale surge: +1 to initiative when teamed up with one or more fellow guild members.  This benefit may be taken up to 3 times, stacking with itself.
 - Guardian: May take damage for an adjacent allied guild member once during a match.  This benefit may be taken up to three times, increasing the number of times it may be activated each time.
 - Vengeance: If in a team match allied to another guild member who is defeated, members of the guild gain 10 temporary hit-points and a +1 to attack and damage rolls for 10 rounds.  This benefit may be taken three times, each additional time increases the temporary hit-points by 10 and the duration by 5 rounds; the attack and damage bonus stays the same.

Okay. I would be all for the creation of a separate Guild Match system where benefits could come in... But not for standard one v one.

I vote yes, because I think it will be more fun and social.  And considering the free consumable adequate for the level option, I actually think that would tend to help the less advantaged PC's, thus enhancing overall balance.  (From what I understood from GM marcus' post, that consumable would the only extra reward for joining a guild.) And I could be in favor of more rewards if they were agreed upon.
This message was last edited by the player at 09:44, Sat 19 May 2012.

I vote yes. I like the idea. Coming from online RP games. The guild you join has alot to do with how people treat you in game. I like the RP aspect of the guilds. And if it gives some extras, all the better. I also like the idea of guild wars and tournements. Sounds outstanding.

I vote yes !

But, what if I choose to join different guild with different character ?

hmm, I thought about that too, but I'm thinking it would all work better if a player only joins one guild with his different character's...

That creates problems for those of us who have characters with opposing beliefs, though.  Nivian is, obviously, evil.  Dastan and my planned next character are far from it.

well the guilds don't necessarily need to be alignment pure, they aren't a church or anything, but yeah I get your point. Anyway, I'm sure we will work something out.  In the pathfinder arena, since the guilds plan how they spend their gold,, they have secret guild only threads.  But here I don't think there will be much secrecy needed.  Even so, having characters in two different guilds sort of makes it hard to build team spirit, I imagine.

As a player, I am not out to dominate with my characters' overall pool of knowledge.  From a purely role-playing aspect, I bet that each of my characters would choose wisely when joining a guild, if at all, and that alliances that almost already exist would only strengthen.  For example, Nivian and Terrick (now passed) had found some sort of ground and respect for one another as characters to tackle more than one battle together.

This 100%

I very much doubt Zindor and Malificus would end up in the same guilds.

I think something like that, Tallulah and Kroph may end or not in the same guild, but Kyte isn't likely to even join one to begin with.

Voting will close tomorrow.  Currently we have 7 for yes and 3 for either no or roleplay only.

The resolution has passed 7-3.  A guild system will be set up by the GMs and will be rolled out shortly.

In reply to GM Marcus Attilius (msg #76):

cool!

After reading through the old thread of character building and in the spirit of generating discussion, and helping out newbies (my characters arent very optimized so I include myself in this) I thought I would make a couple of points for to consider when building a pc in this type of setting.  Feel free to correct me or discuss my points.

1º Don't invest too much in AC. 
Even though at lower levels it might give you an advantage.  At higher levels, fighter types will probably be able to hit you anyway, and it isn't going to be very helpful against caster types either.

2º FLY
Flying is really awesome.  On one hand, it doubles your speed.  More importantly, smart caster's will use it get out of harms way, and a fighter might not even be able to reach someone who flies out of his reach.

3ºReach Weapon
This is for non-caster types.  Spiked chains are very common for higher level fighters in this arena.  It can make a big difference, especially when combined with enlarge person which apparently is another very common and good strategy.

4ªNot much use for skills like climbing, jumping, hiding, move silently.  Depends on the arena of course, but still.

5ºPick a race with LA +1 or +2.
 In the beginning it might be a pain for a while.  But with time you can buy back the LA with xp, so you will end up having a character with an extra powerful race for the modest price of having fought a few extra duels.

6ºDon't worry about summoned creatures
If you carry a potion of protection from evil (50 gp) those pesky undead summonings won't be able to touch you.  The only summoned creature who can touch you then would be a good aligned one, and for those you can carry a potion of protection from good.  By the way, it doesn't matter if you are evil, you can still drink the potion of protection from evil.  ; )

7ºPick up Knowledge Devotion if you are a caster
This message was last edited by the player at 13:21, Tue 05 June 2012.

By the way, is it just me, or does Celerity seem overpowered in this type of setting to anyone else here?  I mean, once you have it, you will use it during every fight, and half the time it will make you win or save your life.  Of course it's not an automatic win, but if used properly it almost is and on top of that you can always use it as a counter for almost anything your opponent might do...basically, and citing some dude from a forum "  I say celerity is broken because most of the time the caster won't suffer the penalty because the combat will be over."

While it indeed is a powerful spell, it can also have detrimental side effects.  Nivian's only win against Malificus was due to Celerity, because it leaves the caster in a dazed state for a round after the casting.

However, I can see where using it in cohorts with super powerful spells might get a little out of hand.  As with other "over powered" spells, I think it wouldn't be a terrible thing to limit the spell level of a spell cast using the standard action granted by Celerity.  However, I think that like other popular spells it will lose it's luster once someone exploits it's weakness.

My problem with Celerity is that due to the wording, it can be used to get out of jail free (you can see a shit storm coming [say a nastier disable than a daze] and 'Celerity', 'disabling spell X' to get out of the hurting you were going to take); mind the other guy usually has to fail his save (he may not) but if your were going to be dazed or worse, you essentially downgraded to daze and probably nixed the damage as well.  You could also use it to 'oh hey, incoming fireball?  Celerity->Resist fire' or some such.  I say using Celerity out of turn should require 'readying' because of the combo potential (you don't need to say what you'll do with your action, just that you intend to use 'Celerity' under X condition [targeted for a spell, for example] and be ready to justify the spell you cast as not being meta [Energy resistance would be hard to justify unless you have sufficient spellcraft, for example])

Just to point out readying for x condition doesn't stop 90% of its uses snce you allready have to ready an action to use it.

As a GM, I can tell you that every time I've seen Celerity in use since after the "immediate actions need readied" rule passed that it has indeed been "Readied" in the private lines.  Because it is an immediate action, you needn't post that you are "readying" it to your opponent because it doesn't take up an action to ready.

What's a good counter to undead for non-clerics or even non-casters? Sucking it up and investing in holy undead bane weapons? Necropolitian is crazy good in arena play.

Edit: Just realized undead are NOT immune to illusions of the shadow descriptor. Less desperate now for an undead counter. Still a little desperate. Just not super desperate.
This message was last edited by the player at 07:08, Fri 08 June 2012.

Non-clerics can still use most damage types and there are some spells that deal positive energy damage (and most designed to do that deal extra damage to undead) as well as some powers that do that as well.  As for non casters...scrolls or bite the bullet (though specialized weaponry tends to cost almost as much as buying consumables...)

Yea, you'll have to go with a "Disruptive" weapon. I believe it's a plus 4 enhancement, but if you hit them enough eventually they will fail their save.

EDIT: Just noticed you referenced a "Holy Undead Bane" weapon. In case you do not know of the "Disruptive" weapons, they eradicate undead whenever damage would be dealt upon the failing of a fort save, something like DC 17.
This message was last edited by the player at 21:24, Mon 11 June 2012.

disruptive is not that high of a DC

Any undead creature struck in combat must succeed on a DC 14 Will save or be destroyed. A weapon of disruption must be a bludgeoning weapon.

There are some low level potion that can be useful, like the one that makes you invisible to undead.  Again the DC isn't very high.

I thik I remember someone saying that custom made potions, scrolls and wands are allowed, but not weapons or wondrous items.  What about magical rings?  I'm not sure if they are allowed or not.  I'm thinkig about a ring that continuosly bestows the effects of a level 2 spell for example.

Weapons and armor are by definition custom (usually) within the parameters provided by the system.  Same with potions/scrolls/wands.  Rings, Rods, Staves, and Wonderous items (and their psionic equivalents) however are limited to printed material (Unless you can convince Marcus to change his mind...)

Which will not happen when it comes to this :).

lol if it is allowed then you can get a HUGE discount on all your items by taking the relivent crafting feats and making every item your alignment, race and class only with minimum BAB/Spellcaster lvl/initiator level requirements that you allready meet and the wielder must follow same diety as you e.t.c

Which is probably why it isn't allowed...a caster already has a big enough advantage not taking items into account, the ability to cheaply craft their own items by throwing on all kinds of conditions is outright broken.

That's almost exactly the argument Marcus gave me when i asked to use the artificer class

The problem is the game is (slightly) balanced around Players vs Monsters...it is in no way designed with PvP in mind...the custom item crafting rules are great for a dungeon crawl, but in an arena setting, it creates a double advantage (extra money from cheaper items, and slowing down leveling [longer leveling = more item power = more relative power for your level])

Does anyone know how the hide in plain sight ability would work here in the arena?  I mean i tasys ten feet from a shadow, but how would that be played out?
Another question maybe someone can answer, I just figured out you can use a level 3 wiz, or level cleric spell to "locate object".  It says in the text that: Creatures cannot be found by this spell, but what about if the creature is wearing the object?  Isn't this pretty much a failsafe way to find any hiding, invisible, disaapearing dust using... opponent?  Can this be used against mirror image?  I just wanted to know what you guys thought before bothering gm marcus again.
(here i go with my hiding questions again, o boy...)

I thuink the best way for hide in plain sight to operate is within 10ft of a wall. Its nice and simple and walls generally produce shadow but that would be GM discression really.

For the Locate object if the object was work it would allow you to find the creature but thaey would still have total concealment from you. Also since you need a very clear mental image of the object it really only would work if you had seen said object in the duel before the spell was cast.

In reply to Edward Stoneharber (msg # 96):

I had thought of ten feet from a column or wall rule for hiding in plain sight, I think that would be the easiest way to do it.

about locat object, although you could have seen the object outside of  duel, you could also have seen it in a previous duel, for example.

Rather moot as you only get the direction to the object AND the spell explicitly states it can't locate creatures AND it takes a standard action to cast (by the time you can reliably haste, you probably have true-sight or something similar) making it useless as an anti-invisibility spell (someone who is invisible should be moving around as much as possible within their action parameters...)

For locate object, i figured it would just give the general direction of the object and as i used it, i used another spell to pinpoint the location.

I thought it was legit.

In the rules thread it says spells that last 24 hours con be activated before you enter the arena.  Obviously GM Marcus gets final say, but I was wondering what you guys thought about magical items of unlimited duration, like wings of flying, for example.  Can those be activated 24 hours thus eliminating the need to activate them at the beginning of the duel?

Off hand, yes.
An item with unlimited duration is the same as an item that is always active other than the fact that it can be activated and deactivated at will (assuming no daily use and/or charge limitations apply) and then there's Psionic Focus (which is similar in that it's duration is until expended or forcibly cleared [by knocking the focused individual out, sleep, or some similar method] but otherwise unlimited) so it would seem to be the same thing as a 24+ hour duration spell/power.

Right now, I'd say yes to the items if they can indeed be activated for 24 hours continuously.

When using warblade manouver ecovery that's a swift action followed by a melle strike do you recover the manouvers after the swift action or after the melle strike?

Probably the melee strike to remove any 'wiggle room' to use a maneuver as part of the melee strike (IE to prevent any possible misinterpretation of the rules...a rare thing in D&D 3.5...)

In reply to GM Marcus Attilius (msg # 102):

cool

Theoretically: If you had a Warlock/Scout (Probably not an optimized build, but whatever) would you allow the character to apply Skirmish to their Eldritch Blasts?
By the same token, what about Sneak Attack, Sudden Strike, or other conditional extra damage dice?
If you're leaning no, what about in the instance they beat the target's normal AC (IE beat Touch to apply EB damage, beat normal AC for bonus damage to apply as well)?

Uh... Can't SA, Sudden Strike, Skirmish, etc, all be applied to whatever weapon or weapon-like attack within a 30ft range? I'm pretty sure it's explicitly allowed by core RAW. The Spellwarp Sniper is explicitly built around it for spells.

BUMP !

Correct.

Concerning ToB, the first time I've had access to and considered using it, the prerequisites for maneuvers seem straightforward.  However, each discipline has a key skill.  Is this just to let one know that this skill makes the different maneuvers more effective?  Or, is there a prerequisite # of ranks required in the key skill before learning a maneuver in that discipline?  Or, both?

Disciple Key skills are sometimes used in some maneuvers, like diamond mind maneuvers requiring a concentration check. However, you dont need any ranks in them to take maneuvers, and unless the maneuver states that you make a skill check as part of it, your skills dont effect it.

That said, not having ranks in the related skill if probably shooting yourself in the foot...

VOTE - Wall of Blades TOB maneuver:

Should the Wall of Blades maneuver work against magical and psionic touch attacks (ranged and melee)?

Possible answers: Yes or No.  Majority will rule.

Each player (not character) gets one vote only.  Only votes cast on this thread will be counted and the voting will end Thursday morning.


Results thus far (through post #132):

Yes = 8
No = 7

VOTE is now closed:  The yes' win by an 8-7 majority.  Wall of blades will work against any magical/psionic (melee and ranged) attack that requires an attack roll.
This message was last edited by the GM at 14:06, Thu 18 Oct 2012.

Yes.

Yes

Yes

Yes.

Yes

No

In reply to Balsanasar (msg # 120):

A very self serving no.

In reply to Zindor of Suel (msg # 121):

No.

No

Yes. =P

This is probably gonna bite me in the back, but to me,  RAW is RAW.. =P

After some more consideration... still no.

No.

In reply to Spark (msg # 126):

No, and if I was a cheater I'd have my alt say no too. :p

A qualified yes. Obviously it should work on any attack that might strike the weapon. Incorporeal attacks however should not be affected.

I've already voted, but a compromise might be to require a magic weapon and not apply the user's Str bonus to the 'attack' (I don't see how swinging harder is going to help stop a ray easier, but I can see Dexterity helping you get a weapon in the right place faster and more precisely) [just throwing a though out there]

In reply to Seth 'Shard' Gray (msg # 129):

yeah but if it's a big weapon your speed means nothing if your muscles can't effectively move the weapon quickly.

Guys, let's keep this thread for voting and discussions on builds.  If you'd like to discuss the issue, please do so in the OOC thread.

Yes

Even though I hate it so much and think it was within the GM's right to disagree with Cust serv on how to interpret the maneuver, in the end I think it isn't unbalancing (so far) and those who have the ability would be more negatively impacted as a group than those of us who don't are harmed by it being part of the game.

I find myself increasingly frustrated with my lack of effectiveness in the arena (or maybe it's the obscure and/or overly powerful combinations I keep getting pitted against) despite having what should be perfectly legitimate build (I recently switched from a pure psion to something else [still mostly psion, but with some extra tricks for [eventually] 2 manifester levels]) I seem to get creamed by other builds (Bruiser builds get in close and full attack maul me while caster builds mob me with minions*) and it seems I come across "nope" FAR to often (Auto success vs Trip, 1 turn delay on conditions while I get face rolled, etc).  My question is how to fix this (especially against casters who can render any power of 4th level of lower irrelevant thus killing a lot of a Psions "kill" techinques that would otherwise scale [to my knowledge, we don't actually have any save or die powers of at least 5th level that scale properly (IE rising DC)+])

~~~
*Psions get screwed on summoning (like most anything that is not blasting or mind control) because they can only have 1 astral construct at a time (to be fair, they can summon a few other things, but a slow moving mist that deals crap for damage is barely worth noticing) while "traditional" casters can not only drop 3 summon spells in prep and have an army, but can trade down and get 3 packs (so 6-9 easily)

+Psionic Disintegrate only scales on damage, requires a ranged touch attack and allows a fort save (though it can effect objects [not sure if "immune to fort saves" that some people have would apply]).  Most other "save or lose" powers don't scale at all (leaving them only relevant for a level or two) or (worse) only work against lower level creatures/characters (useless in an arena situation).

I am thinking about building an new character. I am needing ideas as to which way to go. I will take any advice I can get.

Try something out of the ordinary. An interesting race or a new twist on a seldom used class. Are you looking to go spellcaster, martial, or something altogether different?

Here are a couple higher level save or die:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psio...ers/psychicCrush.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psio...wers/recallDeath.htm

Really nice Construct Prc:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20040625b

Disintegrate does indeed work on undead.

In reply to Zindor of Suel (msg # 135):

Not sure. I built a tank. Didn't like how he turned out. So I made this cleric. I like it alot. Not sure what I want to do next. The ranger I have now kind of sucks.

While rangers are great in an actual game, they don't have much utility here. If you don't mind complexity, try out psychic warrior...for a more simple approach there is duskblade. Those make fun plays.

 - doesn't scale DC (which comes with a +4 situational bonus for the defender) and the damage is a joke if they save (and the augmenting is really poor, +2 pp for +1d6 damage if when they make their save)

 - essentially a stronger (and weaker) psychic Crush, doesn't scale at all (the weaker), but doesn't have the save bonus either, still semi-relivant in a high-level game (it's a level 8 power) but fades out in an epic game


 - Actually pretty nice (despite the 2 level hit to manifesting), though a little end loaded (the two biggest reasons to take this PrC are not until level 9 and 10); but the PrC is aimed at a dedicated "summoning" Manifester, my complaints are more on the line of I can't effectively counter spellcasters who chose to employ a single summoning spell (without taking a PrC the focuses on summoning)


 - I though it might, but it's nice to know for sure (the lack of DC scaling hurts a little though)

~~~
@ Thoman
It kinda feels like if you're not a divine caster (generally considered to be the strongest classes) your ability to compete is reduced.  Fighter types can dominate (if you're willing to burn gold on Potions of Expansion) at lower and even into mid and the early "high" levels (this kinda surprised me, but some players figured out how to put out a lot of damage in a single full-round attack...otoh, the abuse of Spiked Chain+Expansion+Power Attack combo does get kinda dull after a while)

The problem is you only have one chance to fix things if you make a major mistake in your build (feats, skills, and spells/powers can be fixed repeatedly for a price [http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psio...ychicReformation.htm] but if you choose the wrong class...) and there are the ladders (which encourages tried and true cookie-cutter builds over 'this could be neat' experimental builds that take a lot of time and effort to come to fruition*)

*When I joined, the starting level was 1, it was raised (once) to 2, but the vote to raise it to 3 was a failure; IMO, we need to (eventually) raise it to about 5 (enough to actually start to have a distinct character)

In reply to Seth 'Shard' Gray (msg # 133):

I don't play with psionics much, so I can't give you a whole lot of advice, but I don't see where you're getting the "1 construct at a time" rule from.  It's not mentioned in the power description or in the description for the constructs themselves.

Have you looked for guides online?  There's a lot of people who've put a lot of thought into how to make characters.  The advice isn't duel-specific, but it can still be really useful.

Does anyone know if there is a feat that lets you power attack with light weapons

So Im working on a focused fighter type build. Any suggestions from the masses?

Check out occult slayer from complete warrior.

Edit :

Also, as Spectre is using a katana, go check the exotic weapon master from the same book, it would allow you to add your str x2 with your sword instead of x1.5
This message was last edited by the player at 01:38, Sat 16 Mar 2013.

I really like the Occult Slayer. It could be great for a 2 or 3 level dip!
This message was last edited by the player at 13:41, Sat 16 Mar 2013.

I'm personally planning to use my rebuild in a few levels to go into a mage-hunter/lockdown fighter build.  Occult slayer, the "mage-slayer" feat tree, as well as improved sunder, stand still and Robilar's gambit.  What Seth might describe as a "Nope!" build.
This message was last edited by the player at 02:57, Thu 21 Mar 2013.

Mage Slayer feats are nice, but I don't want to specialize against spellcasters specifically. I just need to make sure I keep a rigorous defense on all fronts. I think I have a suitable set up now though. The Occult Slayer dip I plan on doing will give me a pretty cool defense against certain folks.

Is two levels of occult slayer worth a 1/day spell turning?

Yes.

bonus to saves, full bab, casting a spell that pretty much immune you for a couple of turns to targeted magic as a free action ?

Yes it is.

and the third lvl is good for fast bruisers too.

Can the quicken spell feat be applied towards a warlock's eldritch blast?

In reply to Adyla The Unseen (msg # 149):

You would need quicken spell-like ability.

Is there suck a feat? Im not near my books at the moment and am. . . Plotting.

Another debate i got into with my buddies a little while back nut never came to a real conclusion a out it. Can you reserve the right to learn a feat on an off level?

So say you hit level 3 and the feat requires level 4. Can you say im not going to learn my level 3 feat till level 4?

Nope when you gain something you gain it, you canlt delay aquiring anything.

In reply to Adyla The Unseen (msg # 151):

It's in the Monster manual, at the end.

Yes, because warlocks are monsters. :)

Monsters? Awww if i had feelings you'd have hurt them.

Im surprised i don't see many barbarian/frenzy beserker players running around here. Is that not as good of an buikd as im thinkingit is or has no one tried it yet?

Im sure there was one way back in my first stint in this arena .... although I think I have something quite vicous in the making .... just need GM Marcus to be back online ;)

I'm thinking warlock with a summoner side at the higher levels. I just gotta make it all work together.

That may be kind of hard to optimize. If you don't care about that though, it sounds like an awesome character!

I've seen it before and the character was pretty dangerous if you let them get going. They're a slow start but facing dozens of summoned monsters can be a pain no matter what level you're at.

True, but remember that if the opponent can get to you, the minions don't matter anymore. Having said that, conjurers, and their ilk, have done well here (Solitude or Bollo for example), but they are far from unbeatable. I would suggest in investing in some way to remain untargeted by your foe (Invisibility, Blink, Fog Cloud, and  an illusion + Sonorus Hum are great ways to control your opponent but they aren't invocations and I don't know if equivalents exist).

We have a frenzied berserker. I think he had to rebuild though because the spell Grease shuts down frenzy (can't use the balance skill during frenzy so you can't move).

Summons obviously do well, as you're upping the total CR stacked against the other person. But many summons, as stated, aren't particularly great detectors so there are ways to lessen the advantage.

In reply to Tel'adrel (msg # 162):

Brilliant...that hadn't crossed my mind.

I was just going to blast him to small bits when I fought him.

Can't rage if I disintegrate the whole berseker. =)

DAmm i thought about doing that in our match but then i realised that rqage has an exclusion for balance. Didn't even check Frenzy.

I believe any source of Freedom of Movement would negate the effects of Grease, though that might be a grey area. Does it let you walk through magical walls too? Render you immune to reverse gravity and such? Not my favorite spell.

Does anyone know if items that are destroyed in battle (other than consumables used) replaced, or permanently gone? I'm sure I'll be tempted to destroy items, but I wouldn't want to permanently cripple a gladiator (like destroying all of a beatstick's equipment might do).

Any non consumable that is destroyed returns to the gladiator for the next match.

In reply to Edward Stoneharber (msg # 167):

Okay, thanks!

NEW VOTE

Can a blink dog start blinking and stop blinking on the same turn?  If yes, it allows a blink dog (or a character who is somehow changed into one) to be blinking, then stop during it's turn, attack (avoiding the 20% miss chance usually associated with blinking), and resume blinking all in the same turn.

Vote:

A.  YES, a blink dog (and changed character) can BOTH stop and start blinking in the same round.

B.  NO, they can only start OR stop blinking on their turn.

Blink dog: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/blinkDog.htm
Quote from 3.5 on free actions: "There may be limits to the number of free actions you can perform in a turn."  Basically, it allows for a GM to set how many free actions of one sort or another can be done in one turn and hence the vote.

**This vote can either reflect your interpretation of the rules or be a houserule.

Majority rules and the vote will end on August 14th.
This message was last edited by the GM at 22:50, Mon 19 Aug 2013.

Sorry to be pesky, but can you post/link to the text for the ability?

Link has been added.  Basically, this is a question about free actions and the number and type of free actions we'll be allowing in the Colosseum since WotC leaves it up to the GM.

In reply to Gar (msg # 170):


I vote yes to the Blink Dog, but abstain from the character portion of the vote, since I think we need more information on how a player can replicate supernatural abilities, such as if a feat is being used, etc.

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Blink_Dog

The text for blink dog pretty clearly states they can stop and start blinking as a free action.



However, this is a supernatural ability, so unless the character somehow acquires the ability to replicate supernatural abilities, than I'm not sure they are able to replicate this same effect.

As for the free actions portion, I think it would be good if the GM just set an action conversion table, such as 3 free actions = 1 standard = 2 swift actions. If there already is a table like this out there though, lets use that!

RAW, I believe the dog can do this, as can anyone changed into one. I think it is fair enough for the dog, but shapechange abilities, despite their 3.5 HP nerf, are still quite powerful.

I vote a person changed into a blink dog cannot ignore the blink miss chance for their own attacks, if they choose to have blink active at any point that round. Absolutely a house rule unsupported by RAW. Otherwise people will just have to ready their actions for when the dog stops blinking to attack and it just gets unnecessarily complicated.

TL;DR: Vote for house rule that blink dogs can't evade the miss chance for their own attacks.

I vote A. Yes !

I say by RAW, a blink dog could, so yes

I'm dubious about anyone with the ability to assume the supernatural ability of a blink dog, using said ability to assume the supernatural ability of a blink dog. Let them have at it.

I vote yes.

I agree with Talon that there should be some kind of limit/conversion for free and swift actions.

In a single round:

"3 free actions"

      -or-

"1 free and 1 swift/immediate action"


With that, and even though I think it makes blink dog a borderline overpowered creature, I'd say yes
This message was last edited by the player at 19:31, Mon 12 Aug 2013.

see invisibility and ghost touch weapons, suddenly blinking is worthless.

I disagree with the limit on free actions, it has a potential for unforeseen consequences. Rather if you must limit this ability, follow the trend of the game. Quickened spell were 1/round free actions, now they are swift actions. Feather Fall was a free action you could use at any time, now it is an immediate action. Simply call the blink dog's ability a swift action.

Cai's idea is pretty good as well.  A simple fix, and it won't affect the current mechanics of the game.

Yes

Raw seems pretty clear, and it's hardly excessive use of free actions. I would save a free action limit for genuinely ridiculous stuff like standing on a stool and dropping infinite daggers.

No need for house rules either - this isn't very powerful.

Answer: B

I think all toggle-able abilities should be covered by this and I vote for B (either or, not both)

Remember, despite the "turns" setup, everything is supposedly happening (more or less) simultaneously, so if a Blink Dog turns off his blink everyone should get a shot at it (not just those that readied against such an event).

This vote is closed. I'm clarifying one person's vote and then I'll display the results.

Votes on blink issue:

Yes - keep as is: Thorn, Thomas, Sen, Cai and Gar = 5
No - change it: Bogan, Trindon, Shard = 3

Yes wins and it will stay as is.

Any chance of Verstile Spellcaster (Races of Dragon p 101) being allowed? it wouldn't benefit wizards, druids or clerics since it says "you can... to cast" not "you can ... to prepare and cast"

The pre-req alone (Ability to spontaneously cast spells) precludes Wizards.  Clerics and Druids could (theoretically) benefit from it, but only when converting spells (IE a Cleric burning a spell for a cure/inflict or a Druid burning a spell for SNA), or that's the way I interpret it.

Given that a spell of a given level is only stronger than two spells of one level lower in terms of action economy, I'd say the feat is fairly balanced.

Naturally, this is Marcus's game so it's his decision, but I'd recommend allowing it.

I would warn that for theurge-type characters the ability to burn spells from one class to fuel spells of another is very strong for sustained casting.

I wouldn't allow cross burning unless it was a class feature (IE no making a Cleric/Sorc Theurge and burning Cleric spells for Sorc spells or Sorc spells for Cleric spont heals unless the class explicitly allows you to burn spells/spell slots of one kind for the other)

I agree it should work that way, but that would need to be a specific ruling on the use of the feat, since the feat iself doesn't make that distinction.

It's a blind eye that ignores the example in the feat not the writers.

They're 'examples'; by definition, they illustrate a general application of the feat, not all applicable circumstances to which the feat could be applied.
This message was last edited by the player at 07:01, Mon 04 Nov 2013.

Virtually every caster explicitly mentions that their spells known and spell pool are strictly for their own casting and that multi-class casters keep each spell set separate.  Further, most 'thurge' classes only advance casting for two classes; there are some that allow cross-casting [it's usually something to the effect of burning casting on one side to apply metamagic on the other or for some inefficient slot gain (burning 2 slots on one side for 1 slot of the same level on the other or burning 1 slot on one side for a slot of a lower level on the other)] but they are rarer.

In general, if you're trying to do something beyond what a feat/spell/whatever says you can, you should have to justify it and, even if you can, there's always rule zero to slap your cheese down.

So any verdict on this? (Allowing Versatile Spellcaster from RoD)?

Cai, Since all Casters spell lists are separate you couldn't mix and match just to activate a feat. It would have to be a special ruling just to rule it the way you wanted to use it Cai.

No to versatile spellcaster.

Decent feats get taken away when you start trying to exploit them stop it.

@shard - All spells known/slots are kept separate, but that doesn't stop this feat due to how it's worded. If you're thinking of something more specifically worded, then I'd love to see it. I like learning new rules.

@Ajah - the feat says you sacrifice two lower level spells for a higher level one. Considering only the feat's language, there's nothing that limits it to one caster pool. If you had three classes, you could burn one spell from two different classes to power a spell from a third. That's how the feat is read. Now, other rules might prevent this, but this argument only concerns the feat itself. I'm sure it'd be preferred to have this in a PM thread as opposed to clogging up this thread, so if you'd like to contest this point lets do it there.

If I see an exploit, should I keep quiet so someone can use it later, or would you prefer I point it out so we can address it early?

I have no interest in versatile spellcaster.

I think RAW is frequently misused to affirmatively read in exploits under the guise of some sort of permissive omission of limiting language.

Does the feat specifically say anywhere a level 1 warmage level 1 cleric CANNOT combine two 1st level spell slots from the spontaneous class to cast a 2nd level cleric spell? Nope.

Because it is not prohibited by the feat, does that mean it is per se legal by RAW? Nope.

Does limiting the feat to known spells from the spontaneous class only, of a level you could already cast from the same class violate RAW? The feat doesn't say it isn't limited in that way, as a reader would likely assume.

I'd definitely be a happy camper if I never had to type "RAW" out again lol.

Please point it out as early as possible :).

Sad to hear that I guess spontaneous casters cannot have nice things -and as the weakest charcter in the arena feels discouraging being denied a possible boost I would have used as intended because someone else would missuse it-. Ok how about metamagic song from races of stone?  You cant really call that overpowered it is a way weaker form of divine metamagic. It comes from a more limited pool that grows slowly, capped to spell levels you can already cast and an all or nothing thing.  Not something you can just take a great benefit from with a bard dip

This message was deleted by the player at 15:45, Sun 10 Nov 2013.

Versatile Spellcaster

( Races of the Dragon, p. 101)

[General]

You can use two lower-level spell slots to cast a spell one level higher.
Prerequisite
Ability to spontaneously cast spells,
Benefit
You can use two spell slots of the same level to cast a spell you know that is one level higher. For example, a sorcerer with this feat can expend two 2nd-level spell slots to cast any 3rd-level spell he knows.

The only way for a cleric to Spontaneously cast is for them to drop a prepared spell. So they have to fill that spell slot with an actual spell to be able to drop it for there spontaneous spell.

PHB on page 178 defines a spell slot as "Openings for daily spells" Opening means empty spell slots. Meaning only a sorcerer could actually use this feat since they don't have to prepare spells and can use this feat.

If a cleric doesn't prepare a spell in a spell slot by RAW they can't change it to a cure spell, because on page 32 it specifically states "The cleric can "lose" any prepared spell that is not a domain spell in order to cast any spell with cure in it's name."

I say RAW because I am giving you page numbers.

Edit: I guess  you could probably let a cleric drop 2 lower level cure spells for a higher level cure spell since that is the only spontaneous spell they have unless they take alot of other feats.
This message was last edited by the player at 15:52, Sun 10 Nov 2013.

Tel'adrel is a sorcerer and has one of the stronger winning records in the arena. Spontaneous casters aren't totally without options.

Tallulah, isn't there a complete Mage feat that allows burning bardic music uses per day to cast spells?

No, there is one which is only a mild DC booster for illusions and enchantments (and it involves a check) and one that lets you drop concentration and obviate masterwork instruments to cast and play.

In reply to Ajah (msg # 202):

Lets say I'm a Beguiler/Sorcerer/Favored Soul.

Complete Adventurer, Lyric Spell


In an old arena and a game, I had a Bard / Lyric Thaumaturge / Sublime Chord, so I knew it wasn't only in Races of Stone.

-
Regarding versatile spellcaster:
I think the standard rules of magic and the lack of any language to the contrary clearly enough limits Versatile Spellcaster to only sacrificing two "spell slots" of a single lower level to "cast" a single known spell of a single higher level, impliedly of the same spontaneous category as the sacrificed spells. I also think we can all easily accept that despite a warmage or beguiler "knowing" all spells on their list from the beginning, the feat does not explicitly grant the ability to cast spells of a higher level than the character has normal access to.

A character can already elect to prepare or cast a lower level spell in place of a higher level spell, and versatile spellcaster is a feat that effectively enhances that ability for spontaneous spells.

Feats like Versatile Spellcaster don't necessarily need I result in insanity, but because of simplistic wording they're prone to ridiculousness, which I believe is why they are frequently banned.

I don't think we should allow feats or spells in isolated cases. We should either find a way to make them work for everyone and clearly list that in the rules or keep it banned. The feat is, after all, from a book we shouldn't even be using...

God Munchkins annoy me sometimes they have to squeeze the fun out of anything they can get there hands on. I am hoping Tallulah didn't really want this feat, because you probably are taking it away from her the more you try to exploit it.

In reply to Ajah (msg # 207):

Having so many classes has nothing to do with being a munchkin, I have four classes myself with possibly one prestige class ahead and I'm as far from being a munchkin as it can get.
So having said that, any chance of Metamagic song (Races of stone 142)  being allowed? I mean almost every argument against including it applies to Divine Metamagic too, and that one is legal here.

Being a munchkin has nothing to do with how many classes you take, being a munchkin is when you try to look for any kind of exploit you can find when it is there or when it isn't there instead of taking the feat or rule at face value.
This message was last edited by the player at 02:59, Mon 11 Nov 2013.

Metamagic song is good to go.

I actually would like to make an argument for a limitation on both of them: no Quicken spell.  It's utterly broken when you can essentially freely dump your highest level spells (in any capacity) through an ability that no one else has a remote equivilant to.

Let me get this straight, for a bard to use quicken spell, she needs: to be able to cast at least 3rd level spells (to quicken a cantrip, 4th to quicken a 1st level spell, that is a 10th level bard thank you), have quicken spell, have one of three feats to be allowed to use quicken (one is off limits -in RoD-, the other doesn't works with neither metamagic song nor Lyric spell, and the last one is limited to 9th level or higher) and given the order of feats that is going to be 12th level before being allowed to do it. Now divine metamagic has less limits a cleric only needs quick spell and divine metamagic: quicken and isn't limited by spell levels, there is a reason they are so strong.

Tallulah, isn't using Metamagic Song a full round action? Quicken isn't possible then...

It says "increases time as normal" the action itself is part of the same action to cast the spell. With rapid metamagic quicken becomes viable too. still it implies going through lots of hoops  and it isn't as powerful as with divine metamagic

In reply to Tallulah (msg # 214):

So Shard, Metamagic Song requires Rapid Metamagic and Quicken spell to be able to quicken AND it doesn't allow divine metamagic hijinks. Even though a metamagic song quickened cure light wounds uses a 1st level spell slot to cast, it still requires the ability to cast 5th level spells. I don't think quickening up to 2nd level bard spells is going to be worth it, let alone game breaking.

If someone makes an uber-bard and proves me wrong with allowing metamagic song - we can revisit the issue then.

What is the ruling in Rainbow Servant? text triumphs table or table triumphs text? (in other words they contradict each other regarding casting advancement)

The rule is: "text trumps table."

In reply to Shen Lakshima (msg # 217):

Rule is always text trumps table.

Rainbow servant is indeed a full casting class.

Every international printing of the book has the correct table for rainbow servant as well.

In reply to Ajah (msg # 219):

That makes Sacred Fist an insanely better build, then.  I might have to remake my "Friar" from an old campaign now.