The phrasing used might be a legacy of the old - very old - 'ubercharger' build from 3.5, which was made to produce damage in scientific notation. People took to calling almost all charge-based builds 'uberchargers' for awhile after that, and the phrasing can still be seen on some forums.
I preferred the old planet smashing throw builds myself.
The phrasing used might be a legacy of the old - very old - 'ubercharger' build from 3.5, which was made to produce damage in scientific notation. People took to calling almost all charge-based builds 'uberchargers' for awhile after that, and the phrasing can still be seen on some forums.I preferred the old planet smashing throw builds myself.
I'm a sucker for the big names - Emperor Tippy's Mailman (Cindy), Fax Celestis's Pauper of Smack, that kind of thing.
|
I'm a sucker for the big names - Emperor Tippy's Mailman (Cindy), Fax Celestis's Pauper of Smack, that kind of thing.The phrasing used might be a legacy of the old - very old - 'ubercharger' build from 3.5, which was made to produce damage in scientific notation. People took to calling almost all charge-based builds 'uberchargers' for awhile after that, and the phrasing can still be seen on some forums.I preferred the old planet smashing throw builds myself.
Yeah, I guess I should be looking at it in those terms instead.
And god, I did always love named builds. Nothing was cooler than having a definition to your character's style of cool. I know I call top tier Vivisectionist builds Zahhak due to my own that I love dearly.
I'm a sucker for the big names - Emperor Tippy's Mailman (Cindy), Fax Celestis's Pauper of Smack, that kind of thing.The phrasing used might be a legacy of the old - very old - 'ubercharger' build from 3.5, which was made to produce damage in scientific notation. People took to calling almost all charge-based builds 'uberchargers' for awhile after that, and the phrasing can still be seen on some forums.I preferred the old planet smashing throw builds myself.Yeah, I guess I should be looking at it in those terms instead.
And god, I did always love named builds. Nothing was cooler than having a definition to your character's style of cool. I know I call top tier Vivisectionist builds Zahhak due to my own that I love dearly.
Even better were the named monster builds. Fax (again) did The God of Crabs, a Psuedonatural Paragon Divine Rank 0 crab. You...don't want to know how high above its theoretical CR this thing could punch. It could fight wizards. Plural.
HE's also ignoring the fact his 'instantaneous' quote is referring to two different spells. NOT the same spell twice, which falls under the 'same source' rule and disqualifies itself.
Eh. I don't mind looking at some loopholes, but this trick is not one of them and doesn't work.
==Aelryinth
No, it is referring to the same spell or multiples of it. Instantaneous spells are different from most spells in that once they are cast they are no longer affecting you. Ie. Once Awaken is cast, there is no spell affecting you merely the results of the spell which is the increased HD, INT and CHA. This is why what MattR1986 and I assume Aelryinth are referring to namely;
Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths
In cases when two or more identical spells are operating in the same area or on the same target, but at different strengths, only the one with the highest strength applies.
Does not apply here. It applies in situations where you have a spell effect like say Bull's Strength and then another Bull's Strength is cast on you. Once you cast Awaken, however it is no longer operating you on. It did its work instantaneously and is no longer affecting you. When you cast the second Awaken, you are not under the effects of Awaken. You may gotten a benefit from the past, but the spell itself is no longer in effect (due to it being instantaneous).
Thus we need to look at the section covering instantaneous. And that explicitly clears up how things that do not continuing operating after being cast work by noting that they stack cumulatively with each other. I'm sorry you don't like it, but its very very RAW.
I would point you at the Wish spell, which can do something very similar.
Note that attaining Inherent bonuses is also instantaneous.
Note that Inherent bonuses only stack because they are specifically cited to stack, and then only to +5, and then only if the wishes are made sequentially.
Awaken has NONE of that defining language in it. Which means that, even instantaneous, none of its bonuses stack with themselves, because they are all same source. You are effectively re-applying the same spell, and unlike wish, it doesn't have the language letting them stack.
What you are attempting to do is say 'this spell is more powerful then Wish, because it doesn't have any language limiting its bonuses.'
The correct interpretation is "This effect doesn't work, because even Wish has to specifically cite how it bends the rules with stat-granting effects, and even then they are limited in scope. Awaken has none of this language allowing such a thing, so the effects do not stack."
==Aelryinth
I'm running a Ranger with 10 int and 7 charisma who used his traits to grab Diplo, Sense motive, and Bluff as class skills (took a drawback to suffer a -2 on charisma based rolls for 24 hours if I failed a cha based check). He's a mounted combat Ranger with all his feats and stats put towards one thing, that big mounted charge damage! To an extent you could call this guy a "mini-uber build," but I wouldn't call him useless at everything else. Of his Hippogryph he is still capable of plenty of damage, taking hits, and being useful to the party. A proper Uber build is the same. Mr RAGELANCEPOUNCE, Uber Archer, "my charisma replaces everything Oracle", and others don't sacrifice any out of combat utility being uber.
He started level one with a +3 bonus in Charisma, which admittedly isn't that high, but it was good enough to not have the character be a laughingstock. I had GMs in the past who bullied players for not having ranks in diplomacy by making almost any attempt to be social a critical fail, so since then I always traited into diplo just so I wouldn't ever have to deal with that again. I also quit playing classes with less than 4+ skill points a level.
Using Ranger skill points he has max rank in those 3 skills and perception, a decent amount in Survival because the DCs for that are laughable, and the rest of the points spread out.
Skill points and traits are how you make your character "adaptable" not by using terrible stats or picking bad feats. If you wanna be better at skills grab the alternate racial for humans that gives them a skill focus every three levels.
I never had a problem with a martial based character not having out-of-combat abilities. There are plenty of ways to have fun and roleplay without using class ability X.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
HE's also ignoring the fact his 'instantaneous' quote is referring to two different spells. NOT the same spell twice, which falls under the 'same source' rule and disqualifies itself.
Eh. I don't mind looking at some loopholes, but this trick is not one of them and doesn't work.
==Aelryinth
No, it is referring to the same spell or multiples of it. Instantaneous spells are different from most spells in that once they are cast they are no longer affecting you. Ie. Once Awaken is cast, there is no spell affecting you merely the results of the spell which is the increased HD, INT and CHA. This is why what MattR1986 and I assume Aelryinth are referring to namely;
Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths
In cases when two or more identical spells are operating in the same area or on the same target, but at different strengths, only the one with the highest strength applies.
Does not apply here. It applies in situations where you have a spell effect like say Bull's Strength and then another Bull's Strength is cast on you. Once you cast Awaken, however it is no longer operating you on. It did its work instantaneously and is no longer affecting you. When you cast the second Awaken, you are not under the effects of Awaken. You may gotten a benefit from the past, but the spell itself is no longer in effect (due to it being instantaneous).
Thus we need to look at the section covering instantaneous. And that explicitly clears up how things that do not continuing operating after being cast work by noting that they stack cumulatively with each other. I'm sorry you don't like it, but its very very RAW.
I would point you at the Wish spell, which can do something very similar.
Note that attaining Inherent bonuses is also instantaneous.
Note that Inherent bonuses only stack because they are specifically cited to stack, and then only to +5, and then only if the wishes are made sequentially.Awaken has NONE of that defining language in it....
Wish is not Instantaneous and thus needs that clarifying language. Its pretty simple, once you cast Awaken and get the stat buffs, you are no longer being affected by it. It's intrinsically part of you. It can't be dispelled, suppressed, etc. Therefore (assuming you can become an animal again and reduce your INT) you can be targeted by it again. Because instantaneous effects work cumulatively which clarifies that this works explicitly.
...
Thus the difference between Uber and One Trick Pony.
Uber does everything.
One Trick Pony does one thing well, which it seems the OP was talking about, and again, seemingly exclusively in a martial sense.
Sorry, for the confusion. At my local 'uber focused' = 'one trick pony'
I was just using what I've heard others use.And no, I didn't mean just martials. I've seen casters do the same thing. Yes, I agree a caster should have other options. But the way I've seen some built and played, they don't seem to think they have options.
|
Yes, I agree a caster should have other options. But the way I've seen some built and played, they don't seem to think they have options.
I enjoy fighters who focus so tightly on one specific tactic that they forget to bring a bow.
Then they scream flying opponents are unfair. Or that fighters are broken.
I never had a problem with a martial based character not having out-of-combat abilities. There are plenty of ways to have fun and roleplay without using class ability X.
I love roleplaying (and am quite good at, I think) but I'm always scared that if I do it too much in a precarious situation the GM is going to make me roll a diplo check eventually. That... usually doesn't end well. The dice is my greatest nemesis.
I'll never forget my first session of Pathfinder, in which my bare knuckle boxer put such a tremendous verbal smackdown on a pair of guards as we were about to fight them that the GM awarded us bonus XP for my roleplaying.
I then rolled a 2 on initiative and both guards were dead before I got to touch them.
I always suggest using a trait to grab diplo. A few ranks in it will keep you from ever making the situation worse when speaking to a neutral NPC.
There are plenty of ways to have fun and roleplay without using class ability X.Ah, the "Fighters are fine because you can roleplay" argument.
One of my favourites, really
Or a response to the OP's question about uber focused builds.
Aelryinth, I'm going to break down your post. Pardon. :)
I would point you at the Wish spell, which can do something very similar.
Only tangentially, and then only as similar as, say, fireball and fire storm. But sure, let's go with this.
Let's look at Wish.
Note that attaining Inherent bonuses is also instantaneous.
Note that Inherent bonuses only stack because they are specifically cited to stack, and then only to +5, and then only if the wishes are made sequentially.
Actually Wish, the spell, is not an Instantaneous spell.
Grant a creature a +1 inherent bonus to an ability score. Two to five wish spells cast in immediate succession can grant a creature a +2 to +5 inherent bonus to an ability score (two wishes for a +2 inherent bonus, three wishes for a +3 inherent bonus, and so on). Inherent bonuses are instantaneous, so they cannot be dispelled. Note: An inherent bonus may not exceed +5 for a single ability score, and inherent bonuses to a particular ability score do not stack, so only the best one applies.
In fact, though the bonuses are Instantaneous, the Wish spell is not. But, even if you accept that (because it's instantaneous, it would normally stack) your reading of common English is non-standard.
Stacking bonuses of the same was not covered in my previous post where I quoted the rules, stacking bonuses of different types was noted as usually not working.
Spells that provide bonuses or penalties on attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and other attributes usually do not stack with themselves. More generally, two bonuses of the same type don't stack even if they come from different spells (or from effects other than spells; see Bonus Types, above).
^ This is the rule the Inherent bonuses are violating. There is clarifying language because 1) the bonuses are typed (Inherent, and thus normally wouldn't stack) and 2) even though they stack, they stack in an unconventional manner.
Awaken has NONE of that defining language in it. Which means that, even instantaneous, none of its bonuses stack with themselves, because they are all same source. You are effectively re-applying the same spell, and unlike wish, it doesn't have the language letting them stack.
Wish grants a bonus.
Awaken does not. It grants a score (replacing the original score with the new one), and it grants an increase to the charisma score and hit dice. If you insist that the charisma score is a bonus... then, you're free to do so, but in that case it's an untyped bonus (notice that there is no type given) in which case, it falls under,The bonuses or penalties from two different spells stack if the modifiers are of different types. A bonus that doesn't have a type stacks with any bonus.
... which, you know, is not what wish does (as the bonus that wish grants is a typed bonus).
What you are attempting to do is say 'this spell is more powerful then Wish, because it doesn't have any language limiting its bonuses.'
Nope. This is fallacious. Wish can imitate any 6th level or lower spell, even if it's not on the sorcerer/wizard spell list and it's an opposition school. Awaken is a fifth level spell, thus Wish can accomplish the same effect.
What is being said is, "A particular long-term 20th level race/class/spell combination is more powerful than a generic effect available to anyone with access to the spell." which, in the end, isn't that surprising, as that's exactly how Dazing Spell combos, Rage-lance-pounce barbarian, or other stupendously powerful effects function in the game.
The correct interpretation is "This effect doesn't work, because even Wish has to specifically cite how it bends the rules with stat-granting effects, and even then they are limited in scope. Awaken has none of this language allowing such a thing, so the effects do not stack."
==Aelryinth
No. The "correct" interpretation is not the one you give.
By the logic you give above, Bull's Strength is (in the short term) more powerful than wish because it instantly gives a +4 bonus to strength (instead of requiring four sequential castings) despite the fact that it runs under entirely different rules (and is a different kind of bonus).
So... no. You are incorrect.
@Tactics Lion: at initial reading of your post since your wording was odd, it seemed like you were saying banning the bad behavior was jerkish, thus my analogies made sense in response to that. People also need to start understanding how analogies work. Saying A1 is to A2 as B1 is to B2 is not saying you are B. No one is saying using that exploit is as bad as murdering. Its showing a parallel situation to explain your point. I could use other analogies if that language is too loaded and gets people in a fuss.
I can understand the misunderstanding, but my point was: ban the effect, don't try to be clever and "twist" <insert thing here> after you've allowed the affect into play (which is advice that I've seen often enough).
In other words, resolve problems out of character instead of trying to keep getting "one-upsmanship" in-game (unless your table prefers the one-upsmanship; most do not). Outside of very specific table environments, the latter doesn't end well.
And if it was from 1-20 then the Player had better clear this with the DM before creation. If the Player got to 8th (can't remember where you can Para-cheese) or 20th and then suddenly tried to spring this like "too late cat's out of the bag". I'd still shut them down. "But I made this character just for this!"
Common sense should have told you to ask before even considering it. At 20th I might let them do it like the last session and take on a pack of Tarrasques or something ridiculous but never during the course of normal play.
Common sense isn't common. Discuss things with the player, regardless. Just explain, "I'm sorry, it doesn't work that way." and work with the player to either rebuild the character ("suddenly, you try this effect, and instead this thing happens" or something, if you want in-character reactions) or something else, but just twisting things is a jerk response.
Being a jerk (aka, "GOTCHA, sucker!") isn't good from either side of the screen... and one person doing jerk things doesn't make another doing jerk things the right one.
And the last sentence is more or less my point: depending on how you're looking at this (i.e. when you're expecting it to come online) will vary how you respond to it. Personally, I don't have a problem with paragon surge, even in normal play.
... it certainly expands the number of potential spells a character has on hand, but at the cost of a third level spell and an extra standard action, and you'll never know your highest level spells. It's an incredibly potent combo, but not so potent as to usually ruin a combat encounter, at least compared to other combinations. But that's just my take.
And if you have someone that's trying to overturn everyone else's game, you need to discuss that with them out of character too. Because that's a different problem than the combination itself.
EDIT: Also, to be clear, I've looked jerkish plenty of times on the 'net. My advice is built out of experience not some sort of innate superiority. I honestly just want people to have better 'net experiences over all. :D
EDIT: making a tag work, and noting my experience.
My point is many DMs out there (how many really comb these forums?) Wouldn't see paragon surge coming. They wouldn't see its possibility at creation or the awaken one. It would be pretty easy for a player to try to sneak it in last second during combat and then claim its raw so it has to be allowed.
The DM would likely say uhh no and now you have a whiny player saying they built him specifically for this and I've waited months to use it and its raw and this isn't fair and blah blah. That player should've cleared it at creation to make sure the dm allowed it before assuming his cheese was allowed on the DMs plate.
I honestly don't really think Paragon Surge is cheesy. Extremely strong? Most definitely. Cheesy? Not especially. Sure it expands your spell options to the entire Cleric/Oracle list when you get it level 6, but it costs one of your 3rd level spells per day each time you want to swap. What about combining it with Improved Eldritch Heritage at 11th to get the entire Sorcerer/Wizard list? Does that make you incredibly more versatile then pretty much any other build? Absolutely. Is that really cheesy? No, not especially, again it has a action cost and a spell cost, which makes it best suited for downtime stuff. Having used it in actual play it's very powerful, but hardly the end of the campaign. Honestly Planar Binding is way more damaging to a campaign if used as written then Paragon Surge could ever be.
As a side note, how would GMs that think Paragon Surge is overpowered react to 9th level Razmiran Priest Sorcerers with Divine Scrolls of (Spell that Costs Money)... genuinely curious, since that's on my to play list at some point after a Sadist Lifeleech Soulthief Vitalist or before if I end up with a campaign that doesn't use Psionics.
In other words, resolve problems out of character instead of trying to keep getting "one-upsmanship" in-game (unless your table prefers the one-upsmanship; most do not). Outside of very specific table environments, the latter doesn't end well.
<snip>
Common sense isn't common. Discuss things with the player, regardless. Just explain, "I'm sorry, it doesn't work that way." and work with the player to either rebuild the character ("suddenly, you try this effect, and instead this thing happens" or something, if you want in-character reactions) or something else, but just twisting things is a jerk response.
The intent behind the above is that sometimes the player just doesn't realize they're wrecking things for everyone. Discuss it. If they're reasonable, they'll (eventually) see it. Whiny is annoying, but it's surmountable with time and patience.
Anzyr, I'm curious: how does Eldritch Heritage gain you access to the full suite of sorcerer/wizard spells? How do you guarantee having the Skill (focus) necessary, for that matter, or do you read it as two castings of the spell for different feats (which I would tend to think would fall under "the same spell with different effects" clause)?
I'm just really curious - often I can figure those things out, given time, but I am just not seeing it. It's probably the one first level bloodline power, somehow, but there are a lot of bloodlines - a lot - and I really don't feel like combing through them to find the one bloodline that allows this to work right now (plus I'm working on other things). :)
EDIT: tag fix
Ah, okay. Thanks!
Working this out, now, so it'll be repetitious and linky.
Arcane Bloodline determines Skill Focus (any knowledge). Thus, so long as you've got Skill Focus (Knowledge) it doesn't matter which one.
The Arcane Bond special ability Eldritch Heritage would grant normally relies on any of your spells known, but, using the paragon surge spell to nab Improved Eldritch Heritage feat (which grants you the third or ninth level ability of that bloodline) let's you grab the 9th level ability New Arcana to get one spell from the sorcerer/wizard list of a spell level that you can cast; at 15th level (because you're treated as two levels lower) you can choose two new ones, and at 19th level (again, you're treated as two levels lower) you can choose three new ones.
Okay, yeah. I can see that.
Thanks! :)
Sweet! Thanks! :D
You start off with Skill Focus (any knowledge) and Eldritch Heritage (Arcane). You use Paragon Surge to gain the Improved Eldritch Heritage feat. You choose New Arcana as the ability and add 1-3 wizard spells to your spells known list. These can be different spells each time you do so.Anzyr, I'm curious: how does Eldritch Heritage gain you access to the full suite of sorcerer/wizard spells? How do you guarantee having the Skill (focus) necessary, for that matter, or do you read it as two castings of the spell for different feats (which I would tend to think would fall under "the same spell with different effects" clause)?
I'm just really curious - often I can figure those things out, given time, but I am just not seeing it. It's probably the one first level bloodline power, somehow, but there are a lot of bloodlines - a lot - and I really don't feel like combing through them to find the one bloodline that allows this to work right now (plus I'm working on other things). :)
EDIT: tag fix
This sounds like a ridiculously permissive way to rule the results of Paragon Surge. To me, the correct interpretation looks like you should gain 3 spells for the 20 minutes that Paragon Surge lasts for (at level 20). The spell doesn't say you get and keep the benefits of one feat, it says you're treated as if you possessed the feat. Since Paragon Surge is not instantaneous, the effect lasts right up until the spell ends, not permanently.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This sounds like a ridiculously permissive way to rule the results of Paragon Surge. To me, the correct interpretation looks like you should gain 3 spells for the 20 minutes that Paragon Surge lasts for (at level 20). The spell doesn't say you get and keep the benefits of one feat, it says you're treated as if you possessed the feat. Since Paragon Surge is not instantaneous, the effect lasts right up until the spell ends, not permanently.You start off with Skill Focus (any knowledge) and Eldritch Heritage (Arcane). You use Paragon Surge to gain the Improved Eldritch Heritage feat. You choose New Arcana as the ability and add 1-3 wizard spells to your spells known list. These can be different spells each time you do so.Anzyr, I'm curious: how does Eldritch Heritage gain you access to the full suite of sorcerer/wizard spells? How do you guarantee having the Skill (focus) necessary, for that matter, or do you read it as two castings of the spell for different feats (which I would tend to think would fall under "the same spell with different effects" clause)?
I'm just really curious - often I can figure those things out, given time, but I am just not seeing it. It's probably the one first level bloodline power, somehow, but there are a lot of bloodlines - a lot - and I really don't feel like combing through them to find the one bloodline that allows this to work right now (plus I'm working on other things). :)
EDIT: tag fix
Oh no one thinks you get them permanently. You lose the spells as soon as Paragon Surge wears off. But still thats 20 minutes of whatever spells you need and that's perfect for downtime stuff.
Oh no one thinks you get them permanently. You lose the spells as soon as Paragon Surge wears off. But still thats 20 minutes of whatever spells you need and that's perfect for downtime stuff.This sounds like a ridiculously permissive way to rule the results of Paragon Surge. To me, the correct interpretation looks like you should gain 3 spells for the 20 minutes that Paragon Surge lasts for (at level 20). The spell doesn't say you get and keep the benefits of one feat, it says you're treated as if you possessed the feat. Since Paragon Surge is not instantaneous, the effect lasts right up until the spell ends, not permanently.You start off with Skill Focus (any knowledge) and Eldritch Heritage (Arcane). You use Paragon Surge to gain the Improved Eldritch Heritage feat. You choose New Arcana as the ability and add 1-3 wizard spells to your spells known list. These can be different spells each time you do so.Anzyr, I'm curious: how does Eldritch Heritage gain you access to the full suite of sorcerer/wizard spells? How do you guarantee having the Skill (focus) necessary, for that matter, or do you read it as two castings of the spell for different feats (which I would tend to think would fall under "the same spell with different effects" clause)?
I'm just really curious - often I can figure those things out, given time, but I am just not seeing it. It's probably the one first level bloodline power, somehow, but there are a lot of bloodlines - a lot - and I really don't feel like combing through them to find the one bloodline that allows this to work right now (plus I'm working on other things). :)
EDIT: tag fix
What are some examples? If Wish is one of them (or used at all), where is the 25,000 gp diamond coming from?
Blood Money of course. But things like Explosive Runes and Shrink Item are also fantastic. As well Wall of Iron and what not. Really just go down the list and pick stuff and random and you'll find some goodies.
Of course there is a means for Shaman to get paragon surge and whatever they want ina similar fashion. I wonder how the playtest will affect it.
I'm an oracle and I dont have X situational spell! Time to paragon surge.
Aelryinth, I'm going to break down your post. Pardon. :)
I would point you at the Wish spell, which can do something very similar.Only tangentially, and then only as similar as, say, fireball and fire storm. But sure, let's go with this.
Let's look at Wish.
Note that attaining Inherent bonuses is also instantaneous.
Note that Inherent bonuses only stack because they are specifically cited to stack, and then only to +5, and then only if the wishes are made sequentially.Actually Wish, the spell, is not an Instantaneous spell.
There are, in actuality, no instantaneous spells, you have only instantaneous effects.
Inherent Bonuses are an instantaneous effect of a Wish, in the same way the ability score adjustments of Awaken are instanteous effects of 8 hours of casting.
Grant a creature a +1 inherent bonus to an ability score. Two to five wish spells cast in immediate succession can grant a creature a +2 to +5 inherent bonus to an ability score (two wishes for a +2 inherent bonus, three wishes for a +3 inherent bonus, and so on). Inherent bonuses are instantaneous, so they cannot be dispelled. Note: An inherent bonus may not exceed +5 for a single ability score, and inherent bonuses to a particular ability score do not stack, so only the best one applies.In fact, though the bonuses are Instantaneous, the Wish spell is not. But, even if you accept that (because it's instantaneous, it would normally stack) your reading of common English is non-standard.
addressed above, your reasoning is erroneous in this matter. There are no instantaneous spells
Stacking bonuses of the same was not covered in my previous post where I quoted the rules, stacking bonuses of different types was noted as usually not working.
Spells that provide bonuses or penalties on attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and other attributes usually do not stack with themselves. More...
The rest of that didn't copy over, so I'll summarize.
Bull's Strength is a short term, dispellable, non-permanent and easily attained bonus that has no relationship whatsoever to a permanent, non-dispellable, non-magical and hard to attain bonus like an untyped or inherent bonus.
The fact is Awaken grants an untyped bonus, and untyped bonuses do not stack with themselves. In the same manner that you can't have Str+Str damage or Dex+Dex to Ac and Reflex saves, all of which are untyped, you can't have Awaken+Awaken bonuses to Charisma. Same source trumps them, even if they are separate instances. Untyped bonuses from several sources, fine, they all stack.
So, no, the combo doesn't work. You're trying to stack the unstackable. It would work ONCE, and that would be it. Getting your Int set to some random number might be worth the permanent 1-3 Cha bonus, but that's about it.
==Aelryinth
There is an order of priority. Specific trumps general. The part discussing "Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths" is true, in most cases. The case where it is not true is the specific case of "Instantaneous Effects", which covers this topic specifically.
You have to understand what's going on. There is no point where you are actually benefiting from Awaken. Once you cast Awaken you get X benefits. There is no longer a spell (hence why its Instantaneous). You aren't benefiting from Awaken once it's cast, so you are perfectly viable target for another. The first Awaken is no longer "operating" on you when you cast the second one, so the "Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths" never actually comes up.
The one that is talking about instantaneous effects which Awaken is obviously? Since its a subcategory under "Stacking Effects" intended to clarify a particular case and is extremely explicit about instantaneous effects working cumulatively. The general rule is being overruled by the more specific subcategory and you'll note that the wording of "Stacking Effects" *itself* indicates that it is "USUALLY" the case.
Oh hey, if that's only the usual case then there's no conflict at all when "Instantaneous Effects" says otherwise now is there? That's pretty basic stuff.
Okay, Aelrynth,
The bonuses or penalties from two different spells stack if the modifiers are of different types. A bonus that doesn't have a type stacks with any bonus.
... please, parse that for me.
Hint: "any" bonus is means "any" bonus. That means an untyped bonus stacks with an untyped bonus. If they didn't, level up ability score increase wouldn't stack with itself... but it does.
At 4th level, a character can increase one ability score by +1. This is a typeless, nonmagical bonus that cannot be changed once selected.
(bold mine; note that this is a FAQ for clarification, not part of the written rules)
I mean, here's a case where bonuses of the same type explicitly stack from the same source, but, of course, that's "explicit stacking", as opposed to the aberrant bloodline arcana which is explicit overlapping - it seems that they feel compelled to point out when things don't stack just as much as when they do. Intriguingly, no one actually questions whether or not
And here's and example of the same source granting the same type that stacks with itself - as, since we've already established, an "increase" is used interchangeably with "bonus" (though in that spell, unlike Awaken, it gives a limit). I mean, no one questions that base attack bonus stacks with itself (i.e., if I have a +6 from fighter, and a +3 from rogue, I have a +9) despite being the same kind of bonus (explicitly "base attack" by name), and not being clearly spelled out (I mean, I think it's clear, what with "or combinations thereof", but, given the hem-haw about "stacking with any bonus", it seems uncertain that everyone would think it's as clear as I do).
But here, I'll help you out. You should be quoting rules at me, instead of just going "No, you're wrong." and giving incorrect reasons* for why I'm wrong, but you didn't, so I'll grant you an assist.
I'll even quote it to you to help you out!
The important aspect of bonus types is that two bonuses of the same type don't generally stack. With the exception of dodge bonuses, most circumstance bonuses, and racial bonuses, only the better bonus of a given type works. Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source.
(the bold comes from the document)
With the bolded part, one could certainly make an argument. But it's not a terribly strong one.
Why?
Twofold: one, the instantaneous thing, as noted earlier, above, and expanded upon on below; two: the nature of the effect.
The problem is that since it's instantaneous, the effect is already complete. I go into this more below, once I saw Matt's link to the PRD.
The spell energy comes and goes the instant the spell is cast, though the consequences might be long-lasting.
(bold mine)
"Comes and goes", as in, "it's not there anymore." Obviously, specific trumps general: in Wish's case, the specific (Inherent Bonus) trumps the general ("comes and goes"; this is similar to a simulacrum, actually). That means the spell isn't doing anything anymore. The spell is gone. There is no spell. Thus it's not the "same source" any more a fireball is the "same source" as an earlier fireball.
You are attempting to place a specific stacking rule (that of Inherent bonuses via Wish) which differs from the general stacking rule (that of untyped bonuses stacking with all bonuses) as a general ruling (which, you know, is silly) in order to create a "rule" that isn't part of the game.
Had you actually argued the rules, which I cited above, your argument would have been more valid. As it is, you were arguing opinion (flawed opinion, that contravened the written rules), and declaring it "fact". I had to give you the only basis for rules you could find.
Also, you entirely missed the point of the Bull's Strength in a hurried attempt to be "right". Bull's Strength grants you an enhancement bonus and you can easily get it lasting all day long... effectively constantly... for few castings of the spell. This would seem (on the surface) stronger than Wish's multiple (more expensive) castings for less benefit. It's not. Wish can do what Bull's Strength can do. It can also do what Awaken can do. Thus, no: it's not claiming that Awaken is more powerful than Wish. That was a false statement. I mean, really, you can get Bull's Strength constantly for a fraction of the price, if you want to go that route.
I will, however, grant you the instantaneous thing. The duration is variable, though it seems to use an instantaneous spell and instantaneous duration interchangeably in some cases. But
The fact is, you were wrong. You made a definitive statement* backed by nothing but your insistence that "This cheese doesn't work." and a flawed analogy. It's fine, it happens to all of us.
As a GM, feel free to rule it that way, or read the rules in your favor (now that I've actually provided rules for you to use in your favor, which you were lacking in your argumentation before), but
And Matt, that's a cheap, personal attack. Please do not do so again.
Of course the GM gets to set limits. That's why I said the GM should set limits.
Obviously you're uncomfortable with Paragon Surge being used in the way that it can be used by RAW. That's fine. I strongly recommend you rule it differently in your games. I use House Rules too. Most people do without realizing it. I strongly recommend them, because they're great.
Also, you really worked that order over to get that impression, didn't you?
Stacking Effects: Spells that provide bonuses or penalties on attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and other attributes usually do not stack with themselves. More generally, two bonuses of the same type don't stack even if they come from different spells (or from effects other than spells; see Bonus Types, above).
Different Bonus Types: The bonuses or penalties from two different spells stack if the modifiers are of different types. A bonus that doesn't have a type stacks with any bonus.
Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths: In cases when two or more identical spells are operating in the same area or on the same target, but at different strengths, only the one with the highest strength applies.
Same Effect with Differing Results: The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.
One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant: Sometimes, one spell can render a later spell irrelevant. Both spells are still active, but one has rendered the other useless in some fashion.
Multiple Mental Control Effects: Sometimes magical effects that establish mental control render each other irrelevant, such as spells that remove the subject's ability to act. Mental controls that don't remove the recipient's ability to act usually do not interfere with each other. If a creature is under the mental control of two or more creatures, it tends to obey each to the best of its ability, and to the extent of the control each effect allows. If the controlled creature receives conflicting orders simultaneously, the competing controllers must make opposed Charisma checks to determine which one the creature obeys.
Spells with Opposite Effects: Spells with opposite effects apply normally, with all bonuses, penalties, or changes accruing in the order that they apply. Some spells negate or counter each other. This is a special effect that is noted in a spell's description.
Instantaneous Effects: Two or more spells with instantaneous durations work cumulatively when they affect the same target.
Note the differences in the bold and the italics? The bold is the major headers, as you noted.
First, however, comes the "stacking effects" part. Normal English usage indicates that this is the most general part of the related texts. Underneath the stacking effects are a bunch of descriptors, indicating exceptions and clarifications to the over-all "stacking effects" clause above. Next comes "spells with opposite effects" indicating that this is something different from the stacking effects clause (though it's clearly related). It also comes after the "stacking effects" indicating (in normal English) it's more specific than that which has gone before. Then comes "instantaneous", which gives a further heading clarification (at least in normal English readings) that says, "Hey, this is something that's different from the above affects and supersedes what you see written there."
That's the normal, standard way you read English writing.
Now, can you come to a differing conclusion? Yes. But it's a non-standard conclusion.
Fortunately for all of us, numerous Paizo staff have repeatedly gone on record** as noting that the rules are not supposed to be such a codified matrix of inviolable truth that we can't read "common sense" (i.e., what we of think is common sense, as, you know, "common sense is not common"), though they have their own intent; this intent (i.e. "RAI" in the vernacular) can sometimes be taken into account (such as when they give it to us directly) but it also can be guessed incorrectly or heavily veiled (as charm person is a perfect example of), and has no bearing on RAW discussions... which are the grounds on which "THAT COMBO DOESN'T WORK" is being argued.
Thus, in terms of RAW, the combination certainly works.
In terms of RAI, I suspect the combination was simply never considered, originally... after all, how often does it come up? (Hint: once. In the game.***) I mean, once an animal is turned into a magical beast, outside of that one combination in the game (out of literally hundreds, if not thousands of viable permutations on the same character class/combination) is it possible to pull this trick off. And now? Until there is a FAQ or errata, it's certainly possible, RAW. I mean, I wouldn't have thought, by common sense (see above) that Charm Person could take violent sadomasochistic undeath-worshiping cannibals and turn them into a harpy's love slaves/body guards... but that exact thing happened in one AP, so... you know.
In terms of personal tables, be a mature adult, and talk to a "whiny" player (some, I've found, are indeed very whiny... on the other hand, some GMs simply say they're "whiny" when they are not, thus I've learned to take that idea with a grain of salt - in either direction); who feels put upon because their combo was crashed. Don't talk down to them. Just talk. Like a mature adult. Come to a compromise. Make it work only once, or let some great power alter the character to something else the player wants (within the bounds of reason as your table collectively defines it). This is what maturity is all about; besides, I can't imagine it'd be a terribly fun thing to play^. (Related, but different issue: there's nothing wrong with solving an in-character or in-game conflict through out-of-game dialogue or "metagaming"... in fact, that's what needs to happen. We really need to get over that concept.^^)
What you are attempting to do is say 'this spell is more powerful then Wish, because it doesn't have any language limiting its bonuses.'
This is not true. If Awaken can do it, Wish can do it.
[b]The correct interpretation[b] is "This effect doesn't work, because even Wish has to specifically cite how it bends the rules with stat-granting effects, and even then they are limited in scope. Awaken has none of this language allowing such a thing, so the effects do not stack."
This is debate-ably true for the reasons I cite above, and definitely not for the reasons you cite, which are incorrect.
** Hey, I'll let someone else win one over on me: find a post in which a developer goes on record stating that you can only go by RAW; alternatively, since I'm currently spouting anecdotal evidence, instead of providing proof (the burden of proof is definitely on myself for making such a strong statement), someone feel free to make me look lazy (which I am, at present) by finding the statement yourself! I don't feel like looking right now. Maybe later, if I feel up to it.
*** In 3.5, it was far more common, because polymorph affects actually changed your type. From memory (though, again, I'm going to suck at the burden of proof thing here, too****), rulings at that time (never directly contravened by Paizo), it functioned as it's hypothetically being utilized now. But in PF, polymorph no longer changes your type. Instead, it changes your form, but leaves you basically yourself. Thus, the loophole was closed, without ever having to change the wording or other rules.
**** Feel free to provide links that prove me wrong! I love being proved wrong in a valid way! It's so educational!
^ link "Oh, what's that? Yeah, sure, I hit it four times for maximized damage. Oh, it doesn't kill him? Sure, I'll just spam my spells until he's dead. Oh, nations at war? I auto-succeed my skill check to make them all - all of them - indifferent at worst. Except that guy. I intimidate the ever-loving crap out of him, and then bribe the authorities when he eventually reports me. Oh, Big T on the loose again? *sigh*, yeah, sure, I'll put him down. Again. Today. I've got a round." (after all, as the section notes, "Note that these guidelines aren't robust enough to keep the game vibrant and interesting on their own for much longer past 20th level," and if you've ever experience 3.0's ELH, you know just how broken that one is, in every regard)
^^ This doesn't directly apply to the conversation, however it's a pet peeve of mine, is tangentially related, and it's 1:28 in the morning. I'm tired, cranky, frustrated due to having spent two hours cleaning a fridge, and slightly ranty. My apologies.
EDIT: to remove potentially insulting wording
...Aelryinth, I'm going to break down your post. Pardon. :)
I would point you at the Wish spell, which can do something very similar.Only tangentially, and then only as similar as, say, fireball and fire storm. But sure, let's go with this.
Let's look at Wish.
Note that attaining Inherent bonuses is also instantaneous.
Note that Inherent bonuses only stack because they are specifically cited to stack, and then only to +5, and then only if the wishes are made sequentially.Actually Wish, the spell, is not an Instantaneous spell.
There are, in actuality, no instantaneous spells, you have only instantaneous effects.
Inherent Bonuses are an instantaneous effect of a Wish, in the same way the ability score adjustments of Awaken are instanteous effects of 8 hours of casting.
Grant a creature a +1 inherent bonus to an ability score. Two to five wish spells cast in immediate succession can grant a creature a +2 to +5 inherent bonus to an ability score (two wishes for a +2 inherent bonus, three wishes for a +3 inherent bonus, and so on). Inherent bonuses are instantaneous, so they cannot be dispelled. Note: An inherent bonus may not exceed +5 for a single ability score, and inherent bonuses to a particular ability score do not stack, so only the best one applies.In fact, though the bonuses are Instantaneous, the Wish spell is not. But, even if you accept that (because it's instantaneous, it would normally stack) your reading of common English is non-standard.
addressed above, your reasoning is erroneous in this matter. There are no instantaneous spells
Stacking bonuses of the same was not covered in my
wow... you sure are dense.
UNTYPED BONUSES STACK WITH ANYTHING. ANY....THING. I.e. they stack with enhancement, they stack with inherent, they stack with anything, including itself.
No, they don't stack with themselves.
It's why you can't get your Str bonus twice to damage, or your Dex to AC twice. Bonuses from the same source have never stacked with themselves. Even Defender, the original hot button argument for this, has to have multiple sources to operate. This is simply a resolution of an effect, and it's always going to come from the same source...the Spell Awaken.
The per-level example doesn't work, either. the level 4 +1 to stat is not the same as the level 8 +1 to stat, and, I believe, has language that allows it to accumulate.
Bull's Strength, btw, is a minutes/level spell, and would be quite difficult to make last all day without dipping into 3.5 persistent spell.
There is no language inside Awaken that allows multiple castings of it to stack on a creature. i.e. what if six people were casting it on the creature and resolved it simultaneously? would it instantly gain 3-18 points of Charisma?
No, because Awaken is still the source effect, and won't stack on itself without language specifically allowing it, untyped bonus or no.
-------------
Yes, at this point it's getting circular, with you ignoring the 'same source' argument, and me citing it as the primary reason this doesn't work.
I'm willing to leave it here and let the DM's make their own decisions on what actually functions. I have the feeling that while RAW may be in flux, RAI and rule 1 will simply squash this infinite power loop flat.
==Aelryinth
I'm not ignoring your argument (in fact I addressed it), but you are rejecting my use of most standard English... from what I can tell, you're rejecting it "because you don't like it".
So, instead of continuing on this train, I'll let it go as well.