Yes, you can combine augmentation options 1 and 3 so that you won't take any ability damage when using the power (it is delayed and fades when the power expires).
If the power is dispelled, then it has "faded", and all the ability damage is applied immediately, and only is removed when the power's duration is reached.
I mean, this is all just off the top of my head. If I were *really* trying to break it, I could do worse. But I'm damn hard to kill at this point, unless the DM is building something specifically to kill me. And I still have plenty of PP for tossing Concussion Blast and whatever else I might feel like. And even if I run out of PP I can still use Steal Health for free.
If you really want overpowered healing, try a level 2 vitalist (getting the spirit of many ability) and couple it with magical healing.
Take a mass heal, applied to everyone in your collective, and then redirect that to anyone you want that is also in your collective.
James Risner wrote:
By the FAQ, yes. Personally, I don't see a problem with it.
By the FAQ this build completely eliminates the monk ac bonus and a stat bonus to ac just because the source is a single stat vs multiple stats. It doesn't make it more powerful than a standard build.
I have a more specific case of this that I have a question about. I've got a Scaled Fist Monk 1/Lore Oracle 1/Flying Blade Swashbuckler 9 character that I've just started playing. Scaled Fist monk makes all monk abilities that go off wisdom instead go off charisma so the monk's AC bonus comes off charisma. The Lore Oracle with the Sidestep Secret Revelation replaces their dex to AC with cha to AC. Do these count as the same source? Hero lab is letting me do this but its making this character rather ridiculous. He worships desna and uses Desna's shooting star and I took noble scion of war as well as osyluth guile. The build as a whole gets charisma to AC twice, and a third time as a dodge bonus, cha to initiative, cha to att and dmg, and cha to saves due to swashbuckler. All of this works in hero lab but I know that is not a valid rules source.
I just did your build in hero lab, and there multiple bugs involved.
In the abilities tab, if you look at the mouse tool tip text, you'll see +A (Cha) and +A (Dex) and dodge bonus in there. Dex should be a 2nd Cha and the dodge bonuses from fighting defensively and osyluth's guile are not stacking. Also, the dodge value is bad and not applying Osyluth's guile properly. (I did a 18 charisma, and it only applied +5 as the dodge bonus -- it should be +6).
James Risner wrote:
Right, but untyped bonuses from different sources do stack in most cases, do they not? So you have two sources adding a bonus that would normally stack.
Also, I did an edit stating that on the FAQ technicality, they do not stack -- even if they apply differently.
So the underlying answer to this build is whether you think that a untyped bonus from class A and an untyped bonus from class B are considered different sources if happen to use the same ability score or not.
I, personally, don't have an issue with them stacking, as it really isn't "broken" from a balance standpoint. It doesn't really change the numbers.
Hit this guy with CHA damage/drain and he is toast. Touch of Idiocy is this guy's bane.
James Risner wrote:
I'm not so sure.
Normally, monk's armor class is calculated from wisdom and then dexterity modifies armor class normally (standard dex bonus to AC).
In your build, your monk uses charisma to calculate his normal armor class and then uses charisma again to give a bonus to armor just like dexterity normally would?
If this is the case, then it's legit. Mechanically, all it does is consolidate what would otherwise be two abilities into one. It just changes you from MAD to SAD.
The monk's AC bonus is different than the dex bonus to AC -- it applies at different times. It is a baseline AC value, as it applies a +1 per 4 levels to AC on top of the normal wisdom bonus to AC. Not really the same bonus -- they stack.
Moreover, the Monk's AC bonus ability is an (ex) ability, and the Sidestep Secret is (su). They aren't the same source.
Edit: However, from a strict technical standpoint, James Risner is likely correct.
I just checked an analogous situation with the zen archer (3rd level) and the guided enchant -- both shift attack bonus to wisdom for ranged weapons -- and even under hero lab these two abilities do not stack.
However, the build you have isn't really game-breaking as you trade off being SAD for AC instead of MAD -- and both Wis to AC and Dex to AC stack, replacing them both with CHA to AC doesn't seem to be game breaking.
Two different allies using menacing would not stack, just as if you received a bulls strength spell from two different wizards.
They are applying the same enhancement to the same situation.
The confusion, I think, from Menacing comes from the weapon providing what looks like a bonus to the character and not to attacks from the weapon itself. This is *slightly* incorrect.
The bonus applying to all attacks and not just attacks from only that weapon is due to the nature of flanking and threatening, which are more like situational bonuses for melee in general. As a result, wielding two menacing weapons are redundant (and thus do not stack), as they provide the same bonus to the same situation -- flanking.
I will agree that the definitions of source are entirely ambiguous and situational and need clarification, to the point of the OP.
This is correct. You can make only 1 extra attack per weapon per provocation per round. You have to keep track of which weapon has made any specific attack when provoked.
Heather 540 wrote:
If a player tries this, I would enforce the rule for iteratives to natural attacks as well.
Essentially by BAB in descending order -- which would make manufactured weapon attacks first.
Which would completely prevent the entire intent of the player in making hammer the gap useful.
So, proceed at your own risk.
Bill Dunn wrote:
Multi-attack reduces the penalty for secondary natural weapons to -2 vs -5.
So, higher "accuracy".
The problem is that they haven't been proven to be a) unique nor b) deities.
The proof to the opposite is a) a generic stat block, and b) the "deific" ability is available to mortal creatures (specifically mythic creatures, which are by RAW, mortals).
These counter-arguments are being ignored by the "interpreted RAW" group in preference to their preferred conclusions.
It would be more honest to open a FAQ to ask the question of whether green men are able to be used by the plant form spell series or not.
But as it stands now, the evidence weights heavily in the favor of the "strict raw" group.
Note: I'm neither.
Moreover, they are expressly not deific because it states in the Mythic Adventures handbook that Mythic Rank 10 is the "height of mortal power". So any mythic ability that deities somehow mimic is well within the realm of mortal power.
The Green Man monster is more of a summoned creature that manifests spontaneously, not a deity.
Powerful, yes. Deific, no.
John Mechalas wrote:
You can sell the spell after creation to recoup the cost. You'll have some upfront costs, sure, but it should sell like gangbusters to every LG wizard around, as well as to governments, etc. Anyone that wants to potentially pacify a population without harm. Which is pretty much everyone.
John Mechalas wrote:
Instead of trying to shoehorn a cloudkill spell with the merciful feat, why not just research a new spell that does what you want?
Poison Dusk wrote:
As an aside, being "deific" is not a refutation of being generic. or confirmation of being a deity. Mythic creatures can do the same thing.
What I'm curious about is the level of power that poeple ascribe to Orcus -- he's *almost* a deity -- but still just a Demon Lord in power (Mythic 10 Rank).
As far as I'm aware, there is no power ascribed to knowing what happens to all symbols of their faith that is available.
I think that in the rush to punish actions of blasphemy, GMs ascribe power to beings above their actual power level.
There is no "authority" that a GM can enforce that doesn't have to be voluntarily accepted by the player. This is a cooperative game, not an antagonistic one.
A player or GM can always leave the table.
It really isn't much of a loophole. he's trying to use a contract devil as a contract negotiator when crafting wishes from a Genie.
It's an interesting premise. His wishes weren't really outside the bounds of standard game mechanice -- except maybe granting a template -- which can't be done with polymorph magic -- but can be done via Occult ceremonies.
Personally, I'd let him role play it out. And as a GM, I'd have the contract devil put a bad loophole in the wish and bargain with the Genie to give the devil a wish for giving him info on how to exploit the loophole.
I've done essentially what he wanted to do without the contract devil part. That's largely wasted effort.
I can tell you from experience that "losing the GM" is not even close to the death knell of a campaign. It has happened in the campaign that I'm currently playing in -- someone else familiar with the setting and that was a player under the former GM simply took over running the game. Players come and go, and so to GMs. All of them are replaceable. Sometimes GMs burn out and sometimes players want to GM. As long as everyone is flexible in their role, everyone goes home happy.
As for "all participants are satisfied not being always possible" -- of course. But it is still a goal that should be aspired to.
'Cuz you gotta have goals :P
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Yeah, I'm not in any way attempting to criticize anything that happened on a personal level -- it sounds like the player was disruptive and that is always problematic.
I don't want to involve myself in that discussion.
I've been gaming for roughly 35 years, and just trying to put forth a suggestion that in character/in game actions should have in character/in game consequences. Introducing non-rules (again barring rule zero) based consequences can destroy campaigns and ruin long standing friendships. Don't make it personal, even if the guy is being a d*ck.
This applies equally well with Paladins as CE clerics -- or any sort of event that can change the direction of a campaign. Often enough, having a player go off script and ruin all the preparation work a GM goes through can cause bad reactions. It's all to human a thing.
The best GMs I've played under all could think on their feet and react to off the wall actions by creating realistic consequences.
Here's the thing -- and I'm not criticizing you in any way. What I'm talking about is simply a method of interaction and what I think (again giving advise -- take it for what you will) --
It sounds like all of this discussion is out of character, from GM to player. What is preferable, IMO, is this discussion should never have happened.
The description of what he said is entirely in character for a CE Cleric of Orcus. Megalomania is entirely appropriate, his reaction to the Bebilith is not out of character.
I'm currently in a campaign where we are mostly Chaotics and/or Evils -- with a priest of orcus -- who just became a vampire and who's end goal is to overthrow Orcus. "The son deposes the father" and all that.
It is my impression that his behavior as a player and it's negative effects bled over into what happened in game -- and in a game as personal as RPGs, that can happen. I'm not blaming anyone - I was attempting to stay out of that aspect of the discussion.
As a point of advice, here, is regardless of his behavior as a person, keeping the response to his in game actions in game would be much better in the long run. You don't have to discuss Orcus' response to his actions or even outline what will happen. He was obviously metagaming. Arguing over what the response will be or not be out of character is not something that needed to have happen. Just let it happen over the course of the campaign.
Hound him down. Don't follow the guidelines of a normal campaign (i.e. 4 encounters per day or whatever). But be fair and realistic to the campaign setting.
Anyway. Take it for what you will.
I guess we are disagreeing with the subtext of the initial OP. Any "warning" from the GM about whatever action, to me, is simply a GM using OOC commentary to dissuade a player from using his character in whatever fashion.
The player did what he did, and from the description knew that he would "anger the deity". And the GM agreed that this would do exactly that -- however, the GM then when OOC to warn the player of the consequences -- which amounted to actions not supported by the rules (other than rule zero), which, imo, amounts to out of game punishment.
A better response to player actions of this kind is to allow it to happen without comment and then have the deity notify his worshipers via whatever method and then have them mobilize to ensure punishment is performed. The followers can summon the demons, or whatever is needed.
Note that this completely negates the need to have the GM decide what punishment is appropriate and is completely supported by RAW (action of NPCs in game), and would be a much more fun result for all involved.
I absolutely agree. Here's the difference though. A "divine retribution" from a deity cursing the character for whatever actions is not supported by any rule that I'm aware of (beyond rule zero). There is no crunch that determines the level of punishment for the degree of blasphemy performed. It is completely arbitrary.
What you are describing is what I am promoting -- but using a deity's resources instead of that of a mundane king.
What I am not saying is that the deity would ignore the blasphemy. He obviously wouldn't. What I'm talking about is the method of punishment -- that method should be via the abilities of the clergy/worshippers of the deity in question, not some undefined curse from on high.
Yeah, but a game in which a player is being a disruptive dick should give the GM the prerogative to say "Rocks fall, your character is strangely the only one crushed to death".
I was intentionally not commenting on the disruptive behavior of the player, but instead talking about the use of "divine retribution" as a GM Ex Machina device for punishment for actions the GM simply disagrees with for whatever reason.
While there are some examples of direct divine retribution in canon, I see that sort of thing in a game (vs being part of "historical record") is more of GM Ex Machina and far too heavy handed a response to what is perceived as player misbehavior and is too easily perceived as punishment vs a cooperation play environment.
Which is why I would recommend avoiding it.
A DM has no authority. It is as much the player's game as it is the GMs. The players have a role and so does the GM.
A good and cooperative game environment is one where all participants are satisfied.
An environment wherein the GM says "I'm the GM, suck it". Is one where he's going to be GMing an empty table.
I suspect that Kleestad and Lamia of Avalos might have some thoughts about that. Even Erastil has been known to engage in such divine retribution from time to time.
I doubt that desecration of a statue would trigger that level of power output, even by one of the flock.
Letting your other faithful do their jobs is much easier.
If you rescind spellcasting from a cleric, is he still one of your followers? Isn't that considered divine retribution?
I disagree. The deities themselves have a compact that they cannot break without the intervention of their enemies -- or retribution in the form of an enemy deity that is just looking for an excuse will intervene -- any excuse will do.
As for authority, yes and no. There is an agreement between cleric and deity - and the deity has every right to rescind that agreement if the cleric breaks the rules -- but he doesn't have to.
He could just simply be amused by said cleric enough to watch the chaos from afar like some television show.
There are plenty of options below direct divine retribution to make thing interesting -- with the ability to continue the campaign and not destroy it.
I'm not going to comment on the personal issues here.
That being said, I do not believe the desecration of a statue would invoke the wrath of anyone other than the followers of the deity in question. As a rule, if a deity gets involved, the other deities get involved in equal measure. That is why the fight is left to mortals. If you are playing frog god games' world (given you are playing with orcus, it's a possibility), and if you read the source material, you'll find quite a bit of the desecration of good aligned deities by orcus and other evil deities' forces. I don't believe that the source material indicates any sort of deific retribution to the extent that you are doing so.
As for Orcus' punishment -- He's a chaotic deity, so he may allow the cleric to keep his powers, but alert all other Orcus worshippers (not just clerics) forces that killing said cleric will gain his favor - and let the chips fall where they may.
He definately will be hunted, but no direct divine retribution should occur. Deities use mortals as agents for a reason.
Personally, I wouldn't even have given him a warning. Just a lot of heavy hints (like wanted posters with his image), and let him figure it out.
I came up with a plan to draw the Orcus clerics out into a region outside the town itself, exposing them to hostile action.
Using a necromancer's beacon, I'd draw out all the mindless and some of the intelligent undead to a point outside the town. Surrounding the beacon will be some positive energy elementals.
As the undead are destroyed by the elementals, I'd have some snipers prep'd to take out any clerics that come out to investigate.
Not sure if this is viable, as a 3rd party mercencary troop that is friendly to undead has recently come into town, so I'll need to take that into account in my plan before execution.