Have I discovered a new route to immortality?


Rules Questions

201 to 219 of 219 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

WWWW wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:
And that depends on what you mean by set parameters anyways. ALL characters are made within set parameters of the ruleset. You can toss in additional parameters because of GM houserule of course. Your basically playing at a word game here. So I'll return in kind.
Well it is not like you have actually given a reason why the character is unacceptable except that no character ever played by anyone trying to optimize could ever have such a particular weakness. I have however presented a situation in which such a character would be the one to play. That situation being when one chooses to impose restrictions on the character and then attempt to make the most optimal one under said restrictions. So either you do not accept playing under any restrictions at all or there is some problem with these restrictions. So which is it and if the second what is the problem with these restrictions.

And what restriction is that? To have a 2 str? Frail means a 2 strength is that it? If the restriction was to make the waterbender Hama...well RD didn't exactly do that either. He made his stats and made the best fit he could to make something that kinda resembled Hama.

Hama the water bender (sorceress)

young:
str 12
dex 12
con 14
int 13
wis 13
cha 18

She was an able fighter of the water nation tribe after all.

Old:
str 6
dex 6
con 8
int 16
wis 16
cha 21

This is not optimized...this is for stats that are more in line with the actual Hama character.

For optimized...

Young:
str 14
dex 14
con 16
int 7
wis 7
cha 19

Old:
str 8
dex 8
con 10
int 10
wis 10
cha 22

However the optimized but random creepy old lady stats don't really fit Hama the waterbender.

Grand Lodge

Come to think of it...hama probably should have more con...she did survive in the south pole after all. So maybe drop the cha to 16...14+2 racial, and use the points to get con...shrug. Either works I think.


Cold Napalm wrote:

And what restriction is that? To have a 2 str? Frail means a 2 strength is that it? If the restriction was to make the waterbender Hama...well RD didn't exactly do that either. He made his stats and made the best fit he could to make something that kinda resembled Hama.

Hama the water bender (sorceress)

young:
str 12
dex 12
con 14
int 13
wis 13
cha 18

She was an able fighter of the water nation tribe after all.

Old:
str 6
dex 6
con 8
int 16
wis 16
cha 21

This is not optimized...this is for stats that are more in line with the actual Hama character.

For optimized...

Young:
str 14
dex 14
con 16
int 7
wis 7
cha 19

Old:
str 8
dex 8
con 10
int 10
wis 10
cha 22

However the optimized but random creepy old lady stats don't really fit Hama the waterbender.

Oh so your problem is that he did a bad job of duplicating an existing fictional character. Well if it is just fictional character reproduction I can not chime in on how close he came since I am not exceptionally familiar with said show.

Though I must say that I do not agree that optimization of D&D characters is so intrinsically linked to accurate reproduction of preexisting fictional characters that mistakenly giving such a reproduction a weakness that the original did not have disqualifies one from being competent at optimization as per.

Cold Napalm wrote:
No optimizer worthy of the name would ever make a character like Hama with such glaring weakness other then as a thought exercise.

Of course if your problem is not just with accuracy of character reproduction then your answer does not make sense to me since as far as I can tell you have not actually answered my question as to just what is the problem with the restrictions in question.

Grand Lodge

WWWW wrote:


Of course if your problem is not just with accuracy of character reproduction then your answer does not make sense to me since as far as I can tell you have not actually answered my question as to just what is the problem with the restrictions in question.

Well if you see the second set of stats, you still have the ditzy in youth who grew old and yadda yadda that RD talks about...only without the 2 str...and a better dex even. Yes the int and wis are lower so you don't get as much from the venerable age...but I also don't have 2 str.


Cold Napalm wrote:
WWWW wrote:


Of course if your problem is not just with accuracy of character reproduction then your answer does not make sense to me since as far as I can tell you have not actually answered my question as to just what is the problem with the restrictions in question.
Well if you see the second set of stats, you still have the ditzy in youth who grew old and yadda yadda that RD talks about...only without the 2 str...and a better dex even. Yes the int and wis are lower so you don't get as much from the venerable age...but I also don't have 2 str.

Yeah that is still about accurate character representation. Is that really your whole complaint. If it is then well your definition of optimization is much more linked to accurate translation of characters then mine making it so different that reconciliation of the two does not seem possible.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
WWWW wrote:
h so your problem is that he did a bad job of duplicating an existing fictional character. Well if it is just fictional character reproduction I can not chime in on how close he came since I am not exceptionally familiar with said show.

I am. and I'd say that the two Hamas other than both being evil, resemble each other in name only. Bending magic in Avatar is evoked by an outgrowth of martial arts moves. Benders in general have to be pretty fit to work their magic. Hama in the show was a waterbender who became seriously bent due to cruelty and imprisonment by the Fire Nation. She was smart, and wise, she was also one of the quietly insane and would fit quite well in the Neutral Evil trope. She was the main antagonist in the episode "Puppetmaster" generally considered Avatar's "Halloween" story. At the very least, she was fit enough to maintain her Inn by herself.

Grand Lodge

WWWW wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:
WWWW wrote:


Of course if your problem is not just with accuracy of character reproduction then your answer does not make sense to me since as far as I can tell you have not actually answered my question as to just what is the problem with the restrictions in question.
Well if you see the second set of stats, you still have the ditzy in youth who grew old and yadda yadda that RD talks about...only without the 2 str...and a better dex even. Yes the int and wis are lower so you don't get as much from the venerable age...but I also don't have 2 str.
Yeah that is still about accurate character representation. Is that really your whole complaint. If it is then well your definition of optimization is much more linked to accurate translation of characters then mine making it so different that reconciliation of the two does not seem possible.

No it's not the second set of stats is not like the Hama of the cartoon series, but it fits what RD's made up story is...without having a glaring I have 2 strength an can barely move under the weight of this backpack weakness.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Cold Napalm wrote:
Which is against RAW as NONE of those feats actually prevent anyone from figuring out that your casting a spell. You know the RAW that you say you haven't broken. And if the group decided to houserule that it does...was it at your instigation/behest or did the new DM go well you just cast a still/silent/eschew spell so I rule that they can't detect the spell casting with not ONE peep out of you? Consider the other thread you had about this, I'm guessing you were the pushing force for that in your game. Not to mention that by RAW your still silent echew sorcerer spell takes 3 rounds to cast or can't be done at all. The metamagic casting section specifically says A (as in one, singular...not all that you want) metamagic can be applied for a longer cast time. So you apply one to full round, the second becomes 2 rounds, 3 becomes 3 rounds. Or you can only apply one at all...which would seriously nerf the sorcerer and make the bonus echew material feat rather useless.

To identifying spellcasting: Sure you can interpret the rules that way if you want. I personally don't see how you would know as their are no outward signs other than "he seems to be concentrating on something." At the very least you would need ranks in spellcraft to see the telltale signs (of which I personally don't believe there are any).

As for multiple metamagic:

THE RAW:
Multiple Metamagic Feats on a Spell: A spellcaster can apply multiple metamagic feats to a single spell. Changes to its level are cumulative. You can't apply the same metamagic feat more than once to a single spell.

Don't you think they would have mentioned it here if the increased casting time stacked? Only the level slots stack.

In short, I disagree with you on this point.

Cold Napalm wrote:
The point wasn't that you can't have weaknesses...it was that you can't have glaring "why are you not dead as an adventurer weaknesses". It's like making a character for a court intrigue game with no social skills or charisma or wisdom or int and using your strength to crush anyone who opposes...

I still don't get what your talking about. What glaring weaknesses? Hama is a 10 constitution sorcerer. That's not ideal, but it's not "guaranteed death" either--not even in what you would consider a normal game (whatever that is).

Str and Dex are nigh useless to sorcerers. Str helps nothing except carrying capacity and melee touch attacks, but why would you want to be in melee anyways? Dex primarily helps initiative (probably the most missed component), Ref saves, and AC. Reflex saves are considered one of the best saves to dump since they usually don't take you out of the fight like a failed Fort or Will save will. A smart spellcaster will rarely if ever have to worry about AC due to buffs and barriers.

This is all from advice floating around in mass on these very forums. Yet you continue to imply that it is a horrible character.

LazarX wrote:
I am. and I'd say that the two Hamas other than both being evil, resemble each other in name only. Bending magic in Avatar is evoked by an outgrowth of martial arts moves. Benders in general have to be pretty fit to work their magic. Hama in the show was a waterbender who became seriously bent due to cruelty and imprisonment by the Fire Nation. She was smart, and wise, she was also one of the quietly insane and would fit quite well in the Neutral Evil trope. She was the main antagonist in the episode "Puppetmaster" generally considered Avatar's "Halloween" story. At the very least, she was fit enough to maintain her Inn by herself.

The character, Hama, was never meant to be like Hama the Waterbender. Instead, the concept was designed around a dozen or so different characters and inspirations, many of them old witches of one kind or another:

Frollo (Disney's Hunchback of Notre Dame) -- her distorted view of religion
Hama (Avatar: The Last Airbender) -- her sweet grandmotherliness when hiding her true self, love of deception, penchant for revenge taking
Jafar (Disney's Aladdin) -- her lust for power and love of corrupt, deceptive plots
Maleficent (Disney's Sleeping Beauty) -- her general attitude when not concealing her evilness
Queen (Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs) -- venerable hag appearance and love of deception
Ursala (Disney's Little Mermaid) -- her flare

Hama having 2 strength is a successful representation of her having had a stroke and having little to no control over her own body (what control she does have is due to her magic). It's not a failed representation of her being like the Avata character.

It seems to me at this point that you, Cld Napalm, and MyNameIs Jake are deliberately looking for things to argue about. As such, I'm going to politely ask you all to either leave my thread alone, or at least get back onto the original topic in the OP. If you wish to continue arguuing certain points (such as stacking metamagic or identifying spellcasting) please take it to another thread.

This surely is not an unreasonable request.

Grand Lodge

That bit of RAW does indeed allow you explicitly to apply more then one metamagic as a sorcerer then. But that still does not negate the longer cast times. You apply one to full round and any additional ones make it take one round longer and takes up higher level slots. NOBODY I know plays it that way...but that is what RAW says. There is no if and or buts about. The rule says A metamagic...not any. So by RAW Hama doesn't work. Then again by RAW most sorcerers wouldn't work very well. But generally speaking everyone ignores that bit o RAW so Hama can cast a still/silent/eschew material spell in one round.

As for detecting spell casting...you need spellcraft to know WHAT is being cast, you need nothing to know a spell is being cast beyond line of sight to the caster. Think of it this way if you want a reason behind the rules...casting a spell, no matter what makes audible crackling sounds and collection of sparkly magical lights before the spell goes off, like you see in anime and movies and TV shows so much. So stilled and silent makes it you may not have to say anything or move...but those gathering of power effects till happen. But by RAW, stilled and silent spells don't let you hide your spellcasting at all.

And back to your OP. By RAW, casting magic jar again may or may not extend the duration since the exact term is generally...not always. It is ruled in many games by many posters now that magic jar is one of those spells that don't get the extention and you get tossed back in the jar when you recast it. So in general convention, no your idea doesn't work out too well.

Once again, your the one being the RAW monkey, not I. See it's one thing to say is this balanced for my game? Is this legal for my game with these rulings? But no, you had to try and convince everyone that your idea is somehow universally right...again....


Cold Napalm wrote:
That bit of RAW does indeed allow you explicitly to apply more then one metamagic as a sorcerer then. But that still does not negate the longer cast times. You apply one to full round and any additional ones make it take one round longer and takes up higher level slots.

I will have to check on this. I won't be enforcing it, but it will be nice to know if I meet someone who does.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:
That bit of RAW does indeed allow you explicitly to apply more then one metamagic as a sorcerer then. But that still does not negate the longer cast times. You apply one to full round and any additional ones make it take one round longer and takes up higher level slots.
I will have to check on this. I won't be enforcing it, but it will be nice to know if I meet someone who does.

I've created a thread in the rules forum a few hours ago if you want to try and find your answers there.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I was hoping to resume the discussion as outlined in the first post. Any takers?


I will have to tackle this piece by peice. Binding is an enchantment spell that is cast on a body(the old you) that is not mentally occupied for the purpose of your experiment. I don't think the old body serves as a proper target for an enchantment spell.

Let's say we have someone use magic jar, and they inhabit an ogre. Let's also say that someone else cast dominate monster on the occupied ogre. Since the ogre's mind is no longer in his body he can't be affected by the spell so the occupying soul(the caster) has to be the target of the dominate spell. If the intruding soul is affected by casting dominate on the new body then I don't think it would be fair to also have him subject to dominate monster by casting on his old body if it were there.

The rules debate now becomes which body has to be targeted if you want to affect the invading caster with enchantment spells. I don't think this is covered in the rules, but I guess we can try to come up with something reasonable. I would argue from a point of neutrality in order to not take sides since the old body might be removed from the jar and targeted*

*I have not looked into this yet, but it is a point to consider.


I would allow it RD no problem in my games and even promise no Imp shenaigans while the game was active and work with you for a final story to include in a later game in which said imp finally found the perfect moment to screw you over. Such as at the end of a game with Hama as the BBEG the imp tired fo centuries of dealing with you hands your phalactery over to the party after an epic battle begging them to free him.

Silver Crusade

Here is what I think:

1) Magic jar leaves your body lifeless. Lifeless bodies are objects.
2) Binding must be cast on a creature. So once you magic jar you cannot cast Binding on your lifeless body.
3) You could reverse the order as binding does not specify that the creature cannot cast spells. The target is one living creature and that could be yourself.
4) You should set release conditions that your familiar could meet in case of emergencies.

If I were a GM I would disallow it based upon the following: Binding requires a gem. You are using the same gem to be your magic jar. But once you cast binding on it the gem is now a magic item. That is easily fixed by having an amulet with 2 gems.

I think all you really need to do is Bind yourself. Since Binding (minims containment) does not preclude spell casting you can just have you familiar wear the amulet and you cast spells from it. Put two gems on the amulet and you can magic jar when you desire or cast other spells if you desire it.

The main problem is that an anti magic field throws you right out of the crystal. Mage's disjunction totally unravels it. If you are using magic jar then either one of those could totally ruin your day.


With a wonderous item: permenant magic effect magic jar on a gem, you then make it an intelligent object. Per RAW, intelligent items are treated as constructs (ie cannot be dispelled or disjunctioned and are immune to anti-magic fields). Give it a power (say teleport) to get you out of dodge if your body dies to a pre-set location with a fresh body on hand (By clone or temporal stasis etc.)

Also, you could then create it at the minimum caster level for magic jar (10th) to reduce the cost (which will probably be negligible due to the extra cost of making it an intelligent item...)

I was trying this in 3.5 when you had to worry about Ruby Ray of Reversal etc which led me to this idea. You could also create an actual golem (think shield warden) with your gem embedded in it to carry it around when you are in a body. Your body dies, you go into the jar (which is attached to the Golem) and then poof you disappear.

I also toyed around with the idea of giving the gem another special purpose power, Attraction (and / or Mind Fog) for more easily taking bodies. The intrepid adventurers kill the evil sorceress and then all of a sudden turn on one another to possess the Ruby Headband that she was wearing (at this point the items name would be "Prescious")

*Edit to add: Since the gem itself is a slotless item, I would attach it to another item; say set into a magic ring, the cap of my favorite staff or as a brooch on the +6 Cloak of Charisma that would be really helpful to have around.


Sorry for the double post but it would also key in to a lot of great villian concepts. Just on the fly here but the party defeats the big bad (insert evil monster here) and lay claim to his hoard. Amongst the items is a beautiful (obviously enchanted) ivory gripped pistol with a ruby pommel cap. The gunslinger runs over and snags it admiring the craftsmanship and suddenly reaches down, grabs a battered hat from amidst the loot and turns to the female cleric in the party and, tipping his hat says "ma'am" with an evil glint in his eye and vanishes. The gunslinger has just been taken by the immortal spellslinger, Durant Cole and his infamous pistol, Gutshot.


By all accounts, Marut should also kill doctors, alchemists, healers, and any other creature that tries to unnaturally extend your life through artificial means. Mixing up some antidisease or antitoxins is going against the nature of the universe, by using the universe to extend a creature's life that would have otherwise died.

In fact, if extending your life magically is illegal, then obviously they should be murdering druids left and right for using reincarnate to keep cycling a soul back into a fresh body. Or slaughtering clerics of Imoedae, because they are healing people and casting remove disease on people who would otherwise die of natural causes.

Inevitables are stupid, as a concept. Cosmic enforcers of some non-existent law? Meh.

201 to 219 of 219 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Have I discovered a new route to immortality? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.