Silly loopholes that are clearly not RAI...
2. Did you really mean for a one level dip in Crossblooded Sorcerer to apply to Wizard spells?Sorcerer: Do the bonuses granted from Bloodline Arcana apply to all of the spells cast by the sorcerer, or just those cast from the sorcerer's spell list?
The Bloodline Arcana powers apply to all of the spells cast by characters of that bloodline, not just those cast using the sorcerer's spell slots.General rule: If a class ability modifies your spellcasting, it applies to your spells from all classes, not just spells from the class that grants the ability. (The exception is if the class ability specifically says it only applies to spells from that class.)
—Jason Bulmahn, 10/21/10
This ruling seems in contradiction to the recent ruling on Magus Spell strike and what was meant with that. . . seems to have been a shift of opinion by the devs partially on this type of loophole.
I think anything that lets a 1 level dip give you extreme power should be closed. . . 3 feats at first level for certain classes, this-- I wouldn't allow a player in one of my games to do this, certainly not to take two that directly increase damage.
Simulacrum:
"Simulacrum creates an illusory duplicate of any creature. The duplicate creature is partially real and formed from ice or snow. It appears to be the same as the original, but it has only half of the real creature's levels or HD (and the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD). You can't create a simulacrum of a creature whose HD or levels exceed twice your caster level."
Note that special abilities are included in the list of things it has only half of, and it doesn't specifically state who decides, but since it doesn't give that power specifically to the player, the DM has at a minimum veto power; simple answer is don't let wish be one of the abilities copied?
Tyrannosaurus can swallow triceratops whole.
Just gonna go out on a limb and say that's an oopsy.
I laughed out loud.
|
Meh, it's by no means nothing, but compared to losing a spell every level, it's less than half.regarding crossblooded and disadvantage - is the -2 to will saves suffered by the crossblooded sorcerer negated by the dip case you are asking about, or considered inconsequential in general?
It is somewhat ameliorated by stacking 2 classes with good will saves. The crossblooded sorcerer 1/wizard X will have the same saves of a level X wizard. At some level that could mean a -1 to 3 saves when you compare them to the saves of a wizard of your current character level, at some level you will have exactly the same saves of a wizard of your current character level.
Not nice but less problematic than a -2 to a single, generally very important, save.The thing about dipping into crossblooded sorcerer; it also means you are sacrificing a full level of casting in your other class; including spells known, spells per day, saving throw DCs, and so on. It also sucks up an extra point of attack bonus. Maybe those are seemingly inconsequential sacrifices, maybe they are not - that depends heavily upon the build used. But just because there is a way to ignore one or more penalties does not mean those penalties do not exist.
Yes, that is a more relevant drawback. As you say it all depend on your build.
Thus, using Crossblooded then switching to Wizard means you gain the advantage (in the usual example, both Orc and dragon so +2 to fire spells) but there's no disadvantage.Wait, I'm confused. Are we talking about, for example, a sorcerer 1/wizard 10 as being potentially abusive compared to a wizard 11? I'm not seeing that -- at all. There is no way I'd give up 6th level spells in exchange for a couple of minor bloodline arcana, even with a bunch of 1st level spells thrown in.
I think I'd still much rather have 6th level spells (from a "which is better for my PC's survivability" standpoint). That makes me sort of wonder that if two people look at it and say it's "obviously" better to do opposite things -- maybe it's more or less balanced after all? Dunno.
I'll admit I haven't seen it in play, so I have no actual experience with it, and I'll also note that I haven't given it much thought past my initial reaction, so this isn't really "theorycrafting" either. It's just a gut sense of things, so take it with a grain of salt.
Actually that wizard would have access exactly to the same levels of spells of a sorcerer of his character level.
A character level 11, wizard 10 sorcerer 1 will have 5th level spells, like a 11th level sorcerer.
A character level 12 he would become a level 11 wizard and get 6th level spells. His level 12 sorcerer buddy will get 6th level spells at the same level.
What matter is if the drawbacks overcome the gains or not for your build.
|
|
Along with "simulacrum" and "scry and fry" which apparently has never happened to him personally in a game. But still gets him all riled up.Me, too. When you look at an ability explicitly granted by the rules, and say to yourself, "Self, this would potentially ruin my game, if people ran with it" -- I'd say that's maybe something to look at. Combine it with 15 years worth of essays on "how to best nerf this, or accommodate it without it breaking the game," and at some point it bears looking at.
when the rules say:
It appears to be the same as the original, but it has only half of the real creature's levels or HD (and the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD).
it is a far stretch to claim that "he will retain the wish granting abilities" is allowed by the rules.
People saying that essentially are throwing away a piece of the rules, the piece where they say that the creature maintain only the: "special abilities for a creature of that level or HD".
it is a far stretch to claim that "he will retain the wish granting abilities" is allowed by the rules.People saying that essentially are throwing away a piece of the rules, the piece where they say that the creature maintain only the: "special abilities for a creature of that level or HD".
Thanks Diego, and we have a thread going on this issue in Rules Questions.
Diego,
For many of us, a rule that says, "DM decides what happens" doesn't really qualify as a rule. If it did, I could save a whole lot on rulebooks and dice and stuff, and just decide everything on the fly, always. And the so-called "game" would be Happy Magic Story Hour and we'd all sing Kumbayah.
But if I and the players all want a game with actual rules, in which everyone pretty much knows what to expect going into it, then that approach is a problem.
Imagine if the directions for chess stated, "The Knight moves by jumping around in a kind of L-shape or something, but it's up to you to decide how; there aren't actually any guidelines for it or anything."
For many of us, a rule that says, "DM decides what happens" doesn't really qualify as a rule. If it did, I could save a whole lot on rulebooks and dice and stuff, and just decide everything on the fly, always. And the so-called "game" would be Happy Magic Story Hour and we'd all sing Kumbayah.
And the so-called "game" would be: Original Dungeons & Dragons. <sigh> Those were the days.
But here's the thing- no two groups could play with each other. I kid you not. Arduin, Aurania, "Dungeons & Beavers"- and that was just in CA.
The big advantage to a solid set of rules is that I can sit down at a table in another state, pull out my dice, and be ready to play in five minutes, after reading maybe a page of houserules.
The big advantage to a solid set of rules is that I can sit down at a table in another state, pull out my dice, and be ready to play in five minutes, after reading maybe a page of houserules.
Yes, indeed.
[sarcasm]
Yes, lets all long for the days when the rules changed day to day, nothing was consistent and how things functioned with one guy was completely different with how they functioned with someone else.
It's always fun to have to sit down at a table with a list of pre-typed questions to clarify how things do and do not work at a table. It'd be like if every day you woke up and had to wonder if today was the day that rain would be made of apple juice today instead of water; whether or not the sky would remain blue; or if turning on your stove would instead cause the water main to burst.
[/sarcasm]
I never played the older editions of D&D, but I game with people who were teenagers when it came out and started playing as teenagers. They have some awesome stories to tell and fond memories of the game. When asked, every one of them said they wouldn't return for the very reasons I listed above. Things were just so unclear you never knew how the rules would function from one campaign to the next. They much prefer the Table Edition (3rd edition and later) because you can, generally, be reassured that the rules of the game are going to function across the varied tables you play at.
[sarcasm]
Yes, lets all long for the days when the rules changed day to day, nothing was consistent and how things functioned with one guy was completely different with how they functioned with someone else.It's always fun to have to sit down at a table with a list of pre-typed questions to clarify how things do and do not work at a table. It'd be like if every day you woke up and had to wonder if today was the day that rain would be made of apple juice today instead of water; whether or not the sky would remain blue; or if turning on your stove would instead cause the water main to burst.
[/sarcasm]
I never played the older editions of D&D, but I game with people who were teenagers when it came out and started playing as teenagers. They have some awesome stories to tell and fond memories of the game. When asked, every one of them said they wouldn't return for the very reasons I listed above. Things were just so unclear you never knew how the rules would function from one campaign to the next. They much prefer the Table Edition (3rd edition and later) because you can, generally, be reassured that the rules of the game are going to function across the varied tables you play at.
To be fair, standardized rules did exist in previous editions through organized play via the RPGA, ect-- the difference is the existence of the internet to communicate those rules more readily.
Tels, you make a point. But of course, within any one group, the game was still fun. I miss those days, but there were also many more table-top gamers. We hadn't lost so many to MUD and other videos games. There was never an issue of finding more players, the issue was picking which one to play with and who could DM.
Seriously, when i opened a game at my shop, I had to play with three groups, each of 6-7 players, soon whittled down to 2 groups.