| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| SigmaJargon02-27-05, 07:23 PM | The H.I.V.E. – Hyper Intelligent Vermin Enclave Original Flavor ---------------------------------------- You want to be a mage of unsurpassed power? You might try being a cleric. NOTE: The use of UMD in the fashion described in this build is highly contested. For a non-contested version, please see the Child of Winter Flavor build below. The Original Flavor is being kept as is for historical purposes. :D Magic-Blooded Human Human Paragon 1 / Marshal 1 / Cleric 1 / Human Paragon 2 / Cleric 4 / Vermin Lord 10 / Fang of Lolth 1 The trick here is to use the Verminlord’s 10th level ability, Hivemind(Su) to produce a hivemind with as many creatures as possible. You are only limited by the number of swarms you can summon and control to keep within a 10’ radius of you long enough to activate the hivemind ability (the ability does not specify how long it takes, so it is more than reasonable to assume it takes a standard action). Unfortunately, only so many creatures can fit in a 10’ radius from you. Swarms offer an interesting exception to the normal space rules, however. Normally, only 100 fine creatures can fit in a square, but in a swarm, 2,500 fine creatures fit in a square. You could stack multiple swarms in the same square, though they'd deal damage to each other, so they cannot live in such conditions very long. Enough rambling. Here is what you do: Use the Human Paragon’s adaptive learning to nab yourself UMD as a class skill for all your classes. As a marshal, grab Inspire Charisma. At level 20, you should have a charisma of 40 (18 base + 6 item + 5 level + 5 tome + 2 magic-blooded + 2 human paragon + 2 age). So, your UMD check will be: 23 base + 15 cha + 15 inspire cha + 30 skill item (competence) + 23 item familiar + 2 Magical Aptitude + 3 Skill Focus + 4 Fang of Lolth --------------- +115 Grab yourself a Staff of Gate. Use UMD to emulate spellcasting as if you were a (check-20) level cleric, and then summon as many Wasp Swarms (Fiend Folio, 4HD swarms of fine creatures) as possible. Don't go for contract service - you only need them for about a round, and then they will obey you forever thereafter The minimum result on the UMD check is 115 + 1 – 20 = emulated caster level 96, or enough spellcasting power to summon and control 24 wasp swarms. The average result is 115 + 10 - 20 = 105, or 26 wasp swarms. The maximum result is 115 + 20 – 20 = 115, or 26 wasp swarms. As per the hivemind rules in the BoVD, the resulting hivemind will have stats of: Minimum: (24 swarms, 240,000 creatures) Int: 4807 +2398 Cha: 4804 +2397 Bonus Feats/Skill Points per HD: 2398 Casts Spells as a 4787 Level Sorcerer Bonus Sorcerer Spells by Spell Level -1- -2- -3- -4- -5- -6- -7- -8- -9- 600,599,599,599,599,598,598,598,598 Average: (26 swarms, 260,000 creatures) Int: 5207 +2598 Cha: 5204 +2597 Bonus Feats, Bonus Skill Points per HD: 2598 Casts Spells as a 5187 Level Sorcerer Bonus Sorcerer Spells by Spell Level -1- -2- -3- -4- -5- -6- -7- -8- -9- 650,649,649,649,649,648,648,648,648 Best: (28 swarms, 280,000 creatures) Int: 5607 +2798 Cha: 5604 +2797 Bonus Feats/Skill Points per HD: 2798 Casts Spells as a 5587 Level Sorcerer Bonus Sorcerer Spells by Spell Level -1- -2- -3- -4- -5- -6- -7- -8- -9- 700,699,699,699,699,698,698,698,698 While all the swarms have to be within the 10’ radius when the hivemind is formed, you can send them elsewhere afterwards. Keep in mind that you can keep the swarms in the material plane for an indefinite period. As per the Hivemind ability, you control the hivemind, so negotiating for extended service will be rather easier than normal. So what do you gain out of the deal? You don't gain the intelligence and charisma of the swarm, but you gain all the other benefits - including an astronomical number of feats and skill points, and access to an earth-shatteringly powerful pool of sorcerer spell-casting ability. And as icing on the cake, you cast spells as a 13th level cleric as well. :D Bibliography: Magic-Blooded Template (Dragon Magazine 306) Human Paragon class (Unearthed Arcana) Item Familiar feat (Unearthed Arcana) Marshal class (Miniatures Handbook) Vermin Lord prestige class (Book of Vile Darkness) Fang of Lloth prestige class (Song and Silence) Swarm, Wasp creature (Fiend Folio) Everything else is Core, methinks. EDIT: Spelling and added in the Wasp Swarm to the bibliography. Added in Item Familiar feat and recalculated everything. Any ideas on how to bring the UMD check up a bit more? Child of Winter Flavor: ---------------------------------------- A Child of Winter H.I.V.E. is very similar to the Original Flavor, but it relies on the use of the Child of Winter feat from Ebberon rather than UMD and a Staff of Gate. The basic Child of Winter build would be as simple as: Human Druid 10 / Vermin Lord 10 The strength of this build comes from the ability to summon locust swarms using Summon Nature's Ally, which lasts 1 round / level. (Use extend spell to boost this in times of need.) I won't bother working out the maximums, as they can vary wildly depending on what equipment one uses to raise the caster level. In theory, one could work with a UMD build and use a staff to send the caster level through the roof, but that seems rather cumbersome when compared to the druid who quickens a SNA to create a hivemind of 20,000 creatures (vermin companion + summoned locust swarm), with a caster level of 387 or so. FAQ: ---------------------------------------- Q: Doesn't the intelligence and charisma of the hivemind remain unchanged? A: No, the intelligence and the charisma of the hivemind formed change, but the intelligence and charisma of the Vermin Lord themselves do not change. However, if you have a Vermin Lord cohort, he/she can include you in a hivemind, provided you wildshape/polymorph/whatever into the appropriate race. If the hivemind is used this way, your character does gain the increased intelligence and charisma. Q: Does the Vermin Lord gain the skills and feats granted to creatures in a hivemind? A: There are two camps on this issue, but my answer is yes. The BoVD states that creatures in a hivemind gain one feat and skill point per hit die "for every point of intelligence bonus possessed by the hivemind." As the hivemind in general possess the high intelligence and charisma, it is more than reasonable to say that the Vermin Lord gains the appropriate feats and skill points. Q: Can the Vermin Lord form more than one hivemind at a time? A: No, the text in the 10th level ability seems to limit the Vermin Lord to one hivemind at a time. Q: How do you fit so many vermin in such a small area? A: MOVING AROUND IN SQUARES In general, when the characters aren’t engaged in round-by-round combat, they should be able to move anywhere and in any manner that you can imagine real people could. A 5-foot square, for instance, can hold several characters; they just can’t all fight effectively in that small space. The rules for movement are important for combat, but outside combat they can impose unnecessary hindrances on character activities.This works for out of combat hivemind making. In combat, you can only fit a couple swarms in the required area. Still, even a single fine swarm hivemind is enough to blow away just about anything. Q: Can the hivemind take epic feats? A: Perhaps. This one is entirely up to DM's call. Certainly, the hivemind possess many sorcerer levels, but whether the virtual levels the hivemind gains is enough to qualify for epic feats is not really discussed in the hivemind description. Q: Does UMD work the way you say it does? Can you really use staves like that with the insane caster level? A: Ack. You ask the hard question. Truthfully, the issue is under deep, deep debate. The topic was discussed at length in Interested2's Stafficer (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=387497) thread, which was eventually locked when the discussion disintegrated into flames. The issue has also been discussed more recently in the Why does the myth of UMD for caster level persist? (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=427485) thread and the Throwin' down the gauntlet: Staffs & Artificers (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=448722) thread. Some say yes and some say no. However, the Vermin Lord still functions via Summon Nature's Ally + Child of Winter. Q: Don't swarms count as a single creature? A: A swarm of Tiny creatures consists of 300 nonflying creatures or 1,000 flying creatures. A swarm of Diminutive creatures consists of 1,500 nonflying creatures or 5,000 flying creatures. A swarm of Fine creatures consists of 10,000 creatures, whether they are flying or not. Q: Doesn't the hivemind dissipate after a while? A: Using a Child of Winter variant, yes. Using a Staff of Gate variant, you can contractually gain control of the swarms. Simply give them a dead cow and the instruction to stay put for a moment, and poof! you have a hivemind. Recall that you control them now, and can thus compel them to remain. Q: Throughout the text of the hivemind as described in BoVD, it refers to a hivemind 'a swarm' or 'the swarm.' Can a hivemind be only formed of a single swarm then? A: Not at all - the hivemind can be as many swarms as you want. All of the instance where the hivemind is referred to as a swarm or the swarm are examples. They show possibilities of things you CAN do with the hivemind, not what you MUST do. Its like the example characters for prestige classes in all the recent books. You CAN qualify for the PrC the exact same way the example does, but you don't have to, if you think of a different class combo that does the same thing in terms of BAB, skill ranks, or whatever. The requirements are spelled out quite firmly near the beginning of the hivemind entry, and that is all that is required to form a hivemind. As these rules do not state that a hivemind must be formed of a single swarm, it is not limited by such a supposition. Q: Can't the swarms be blown away by a Supernatural Gust of Wind? A: ... yes. It is one of the few weakness of the build. Q: What happens when a Vermin Lord goes into an Anti-Magic Field? A: As Hivemind is a supernatural ability, it is suppressed while in an AMF. Thus, the hivemind is disbanded while the Vermin Lord is in the AMF. When he leaves, however, the hivemind is restored. Q: Can the hivemind cast multiple spells each round? A: Yes, each component creature can cast spells separately, though the spells are drawn from the same pool of spell/day. E.g., a hivemind of 4 locust swarms can cast four spells a round. (Why can't each individual locust cast a spell seperately? Because each seperate locust does not gain actions every round - only the swarm as a whole does. If the locusts in a swarm could each take seperate actions, then they each could cast a spell by using a standard action. However, as only the swarm gains actions under the current rules, only the swarm as a whole can cast a spell.) |
| Dark_and_Stormy02-27-05, 07:57 PM | Well, without books, it's a bit hard to check, but I remember Hive Mind being a beast (hohum). If this all checks out, well, you deserve a :pint: Well Done! Nice use of the Fang of Lolth, btw. |
| djinni02-27-05, 08:02 PM | As per the hivemind rules in the BoVD, the resulting hivemind will have stats of: Did you miss the whole part about how the intelligence and Charisma remain teh same? |
| SigmaJargon02-27-05, 08:28 PM | Did you miss the whole part about how the intelligence and Charisma remain teh same?I did not. The exact wording is "his [The Vermin Lord's] intelligence and charisma are unaffected." Now, the Vermin Lord's int and cha are unaffected, but the Hivemind in general still gains those scores. The sorcerer casting, feats, and skills are based on the hivemind's int and cha, not those of one individual. :P |
| djinni02-27-05, 08:34 PM | The sorcerer casting, feats, and skills are based on the hivemind's int and cha, not those of one individual. and the verminlord is part of the hivemind therefore if the hivemind's ability scores are changed then his are as well... |
| SigmaJargon02-27-05, 08:49 PM | and the verminlord is part of the hivemind therefore if the hivemind's ability scores are changed then his are as well...Except the ability (The 10th level ability of the Vermin Lord, Hivemind) states that his and only his abilities are unaffected. I don't have the exact wording for the sorc casting part in front of me, but I know the he gains one feat and skill point per hit die "for every point of intelligence bonus possessed by the hivemind." I'm afraid I don't see any space for ambiguity there. The Vermin Lord does not gain the new ability scores, true, but the hivemind does possess them. I'll check the sorc casting tomorrow when I get my hands on BoVD again, just to make sure. I don't think there will be any problem, though. |
| Lavis Knight02-27-05, 08:54 PM | I would take away Human Paragon and take the Feat Able Learner instead. ^^. I would suggest you take the Feat Rogue as one of those levels and whatever would raise your caster again for the other. -Lavis |
| Tempest Stormwind02-27-05, 09:13 PM | This looks VERY interesting, and oh-so-ba-roke that I just can't resist looking into it. I'll check the requisite books the first chance I get. If it works the way you claim, bravo. Even more points if you can end up getting the most powerful spellcaster in existence without any major spellcasting levels yourself (but Verminlord may preclude this -- I'm not very familiar with the BoVD). EDIT -- Holy ****. It works. And not just with that particular swarm either. Note, though, that the Vermin Lord himself cannot cast with those ability scores or that many bonus spells (literally reading the rules), though he can command the hivemind to do it for him. So, while you're not the most powerful sorc in existence, you have him on a collar, and there's nothing he can do about it (unless he manipulates you. I mean, LOOK at those scores! You'd have better luck bargaining with Azmodeus here). You just discovered the Great Granddaddy of Summons. Congratulations. Hm.... after reading Bone (http://www.boneville.com) again, and thinking of the summoner controlled by the summon, I'm reminded vaguely of the Lord of the Locusts (the H.I.V.E. here, or at least a formerly abandoned one) and the Hooded One (the verminlord, though druid might work better than cleric here). Bonus points there. Anyway, I'd have also done the Able Learner thing, racing for Fang of Lolth or throwing in a rogue level to set it as a class skill. Alternately, go ahead and delay this, taking FoL as soon as you can buying the skill at 1 point a rank (but with cross-class max ranks, so level 14). Replace the HP levels with FoL -- flavor works perfectly here. |
| ming_the_meaningless02-27-05, 10:15 PM | This also highlights another interesting issue - does the hivemind get the same spells known each time you reform the hivemind, or do you choose them again when the hivemind reforms? This could also be the most flexible sorceror build as well. |
| Lord Likk02-27-05, 10:46 PM | 1. i thought the vermin lord's tenth level ability was that it could wildshape into swarms. did i read it wrong? do they get that ability earlier, or something? 2. what is this 'magic-blooded' template? it's la+0? every time i see it used around here it looks more and more enticing. |
| Tempest Stormwind02-27-05, 10:49 PM | This also highlights another interesting issue - does the hivemind get the same spells known each time you reform the hivemind, or do you choose them again when the hivemind reforms? This could also be the most flexible sorceror build as well. For that matter, does it ever dissolve except at your command? Or for that matter, can he form more than one? (Oh god, I hope not, but RAW...) |
| SigmaJargon02-27-05, 10:57 PM | @ ming_the_meaningless - Heck, with that many feats, you can just have the creatures take Extra Spell, and gain whatever spells you want. Of course, I'd reserve some for Toughness, so that those swarms can actually live past a fireball, but even so.... lots of feats to work with. Lots and lots of feats to work with. :D @ Tempest - You could switch the cleric levels for druid, which might actually be better for flavor. (Both cleric and druid gain Giant Vermin as a 4th level spell, so you fufill reqs) You won't be able to enter FoL until 18th level though, if you don't have UMD as a class skill. So I think a level of something is needed to kick it off. If not human paragon, then something like feat rogue, like Lavis Knight suggested. @ Lord Likk - The Vermin Lord's 10th level abilities in my book are Chitin +4 and Hivemind. :confused: Magic-blooded template is LA +0, and it is from Dragon Magazine 306. +2 cha, -2 wis, and a few other goodies. If anybody knows of a swarm of fine sized creatures with less than 4 HD, or a swarm of diminutive creatures with 1 HD, be sure to tell. This could easily become much more powerful if such a thing exists. Bonuses to UMD from any source would be sweet. |
| Ashlan02-27-05, 11:02 PM | As per the rules, the swarm is the actual caster of the spells, so does that mean that if the swarm casts a spell with an XP cost, on the character, (for instance... Wish) that there is no penalty to the player? Cheater of Vermin maybe? Ash |
| Lord Likk02-27-05, 11:07 PM | this is the vermin lord from the book of vile darkness, isn't it? does that prc in underdark have the exact same name (that's what i was thinking of)? |
| Lavis Knight02-27-05, 11:11 PM | Also just noticed not sure if this would help though because it really hurts your caster level, however in this months dragon there is a PRC called Thrall of Pazuzu, you become immune to swarms, all swarms you summon or conjure gain the fiendish template, you can turn into a swarm yourself and finally you can by 10th use your breath weapon to summon 3 swarms at once/3 times a day. Not sure if this would help at all but i thought i would just throw that out there. My question is, if you have Hivemind, could you use this all on yourself if you turn into a swarm? -Lavis |
| SigmaJargon02-27-05, 11:13 PM | As per the rules, the swarm is the actual caster of the spells, so does that mean that if the swarm casts a spell with an XP cost, on the character, (for instance... Wish) that there is no penalty to the player? Cheater of Vermin maybe? AshWow, I never thought of that. This could get interesting. Oh, I could mention, though, that members of a hivemind do not require somatic or material components, and can substitute squeaks/clicks/whatever for their verbal components. Too bad it doesn't specify that they do not require XP, like the description of SP abiltiies. @ Lord Likk - I actually don't know. I don't own Underdark. Could somebody check this out? @ Lavis Knight - Really? That could like some awesome flavor, if nothing else. I'll try to pick up a copy ASAP. |
| Lavis Knight02-27-05, 11:15 PM | Yep Issue 329 ^_^ EDIT to add: Were you thinking of the Vermin Keeper? I looked through the Underdark and that's the closest i could think of. You need wildshape to get in. -Lavis |
| Tempest Stormwind02-27-05, 11:24 PM | Wow, I never thought of that. This could get interesting. Oh, I could mention, though, that members of a hivemind do not require somatic or material components, and can substitute squeaks/clicks/whatever for their verbal components. Too bad it doesn't specify that they do not require XP, like the description of SP abiltiies. @ Lord Likk - I actually don't know. I don't own Underdark. Could somebody check this out? Don't know about XP. They could have XP equal to their equivalent Sorceror level's requirement (and lose power if they cast from it), or they could have none (and not be able to cast it). Either way, I smell a rulehole. Underdark's PrC isn't as good. It's the Vermin Keeper, essentially a druid themed for vermin. Full casting, Vermin companion, all abilities dealing with Vermin Wild Shape... In short, about as connected as the myriad "Bladesinger" or similar named classes are. |
| Ashlan02-27-05, 11:34 PM | Don't know about XP. They could have XP equal to their equivalent Sorceror level's requirement (and lose power if they cast from it), or they could have none (and not be able to cast it). Either way, I smell a rulehole. I wish I had the Epic Level book to see how much XP a lvl 4587 sorc would have to play with casting Wishes. Probably not enought rounds in a day for it to matter, and couldn't you just create a new swarm the next day with full caster level? Ash Guess I could look it up in the DMG and do some annoying math, but after an 11 hour day at work, I think i want to eat my chicken wings and enjoy the sickness that you guys/girls are creating.\ |
| Lord Likk02-27-05, 11:35 PM | wow, i had the wrong idea from the beginning of this thread. i'm still a little confused about how these sky-high cl's and mental ability scores are attained. are they based on the number of component swarms, or the number of total creatures, or what? are the swarm rules from the bovd (hivemind or otherwise) still valid in 3.5? edit: changed best to based. |
| Tempest Stormwind02-27-05, 11:47 PM | wow, i had the wrong idea from the beginning of this thread. i'm still a little confused about how these sky-high cl's and mental ability scores are attained. are they best on the number of component swarms, or the number of total creatures, or what? are the swarm rules from the bovd (hivemind or otherwise) still valid in 3.5? Number of creatures, working roughly off of +1/50. Int scales faster to start, then evens out, and for every point of charisma over 17, you have an effective sorceror level. Wheeee! |
| SigmaJargon02-27-05, 11:51 PM | Yes yes. Anyways, the swarm rules are from the 3.5 Monster Manual, so they are quite legitimate. The rules for hiveminds, which are completely different, are set forth in the BoVD. Hiveminds are basically swarms, but deliciously evil. |
| Tempest Stormwind02-28-05, 12:24 AM | Whoops... something slipped my first reading of the ability. It's not within 10' of you. Everything has to be within 10' of every other creature. So, you have a 10' DIAMETER circle. Significantly smaller swarmage. But still delightfully potent. Another odd trick you might want to try: The bard. Gets UMD as a class skill, access to Ironskin Chant feat. Use that feat. Your summons count as your allies, and get DR for long enough to stack swarms without them killing each other. (This is from memory, so I might be off...) |
| PhaedrusXY02-28-05, 12:51 AM | Ok, I am soo going to have to use this for a BBEG in the game I DM. Of course, there is no :censored: way I'd let a PC based on this in the game, but that's the fun part about being the DM. :dancin: :evillaugh Time to finally buy the BoVD, hehe. |
| SigmaJargon02-28-05, 12:56 AM | Ack! Silly me, not to notice that. That considerably cuts down on the space for swarms to fit in. Still, I'm sure we can work this out, we only need to give DR 4 or so for the swarms to survive, though DR 6+ would be perferable, because there wouldn't be anything left up to chance. I'm afraid Ironskin Chat does not work - you have to use a swift action to use it, it only lasts until the beginning of your next turn, and it only affects one creature. In other words, not useful to use on ~20 swarms. However, I've got a list of spells to check to see if they'll provide a workaround - I only have access to a very short description of these spells, so I am unsure whether they will be of any use. Celestial Blood from BoED, Bolster Damage Reduction from Dragon 304, and Infuse with Element from Dragon 285. EDIT: (Removed to be posted seperately) |
| Tempest Stormwind02-28-05, 01:08 AM | I'm positive there was a way to grant DR 1/- to an area around you... can't remember it. Thought it was Ironskin Chant, but I guess I was wrong. If that's the case, simply grab the smallest vermin you can find in a swarm, the ones that only do 1 damage, and fire away. Now that I think of it, it might have been some sanctum effect. As in, buff an area, and as long as you don't leave it, you enjoy certain benefits... perfect for an NPC. Celestial Blood is a single target, so no. |
| SigmaJargon02-28-05, 01:15 AM | No, what I am saying? From the swarm subtype description: "A swarm composed of Fine or Diminutive creatures is immune to all weapon damage." There is just enough space for all the swarms to stack on each other while leaving an empty space for the Vermin Lord, so he/she doesn't need DR either. They don't deal damage to each other, and we have our hivemind! |
| Tempest Stormwind02-28-05, 01:40 AM | No, what I am saying? From the swarm subtype description: "A swarm composed of Fine or Diminutive creatures is immune to all weapon damage." There is just enough space for all the swarms to stack on each other while leaving an empty space for the Vermin Lord, so he/she doesn't need DR either. They don't deal damage to each other, and we have our hivemind! Is the swarm attack considered a weapon attack, though? That's the key. And while I'm at it, the only benefits the Lord himself recieves are the insight bonuses. The wording is unclear whether he can actually access the same spells the hivemind has -- I.E Hivemind casts some ungodly-highly-metamagicked spell on its turn, then the Lord casts the same thing on HIS turn. You do NOT gain the feats (thank god -- with that many to spend, even Toughness seems like a respectable choice!). |
| Sentient02-28-05, 03:05 AM | Super-high level Sorcerer's don't have super high level spell slots. They can't cast ungodly-highly metamagicked spells. They can, however do a terrible thing with the Extra Spell feat and Holy Word. |
| Tempest Stormwind02-28-05, 03:35 AM | Super-high level Sorcerer's don't have super high level spell slots. They can't cast ungodly-highly metamagicked spells. They can, however do a terrible thing with the Extra Spell feat and Holy Word. With that many feats, you can fit in Improved Spell Capacity plenty of times, followed by enough metamagic feats to make the soul quiver. But yes, spells like that are absolutely terrible -- remember The Word? |
| Sentient02-28-05, 03:41 AM | Holy Epic Feats, Batman! Did you know ten Epic Toughness's = 300 extra hitpoints! edit: one hundred Epic Toughness = 3000 extra hitpoints. :weep: |
| Tempest Stormwind02-28-05, 04:03 AM | Holy Epic Feats, Batman! Did you know ten Epic Toughness's = 300 extra hitpoints! edit: one hundred Epic Toughness = 3000 extra hitpoints. :weep: or one better: one Improved Toughness = 3587-4587 extra hitpoints, depending on the UMD check at the summoning. Ways To Make Your DM Cry, Volume One... ...if your PC says "okay, I DO need to roll. The die alone is about a thousand caster levels"... or "Okay, so he's at ten thousand hit points, and I still have fifty feats to spend"... or even "Guys, I'm out of skills to max. Yes, even the Craft and Profession ones. And Control Shape and Lucid Dreaming, while I was at it. Make up a skill, right now." |
| Shebnar02-28-05, 06:06 AM | But...but... :eek: Great build. GREAT. Anyway, can the Vermin Lord really assume all of the Swarm's feat? Please tell me it is not true... It is vulnerable to Gust of Wind and similar effects, though. ;) |
| Ashlan02-28-05, 08:15 AM | or one better: one Improved Toughness = 3587-4587 extra hitpoints, depending on the UMD check at the summoning. While I think the swarm would get the ~4k hp, the way I read it, the VL would get the feats but he still counts as his own creature too so I think he would use his own HD for things like Improved Toughness It is vulnerable to Gust of Wind and similar effects, though. First round after getting this swarm, have it cast Spell Resistance on itself and then on you. SR 4599.... woot! Ash PS. Thanks for proving again, beyond any shadow of doubt, that UMD is broken! |
| Lavis Knight02-28-05, 09:00 AM | How many HD does the Hivemind have? Because if you took the Thrall of Pazuzu all of your swarms would gain the Fiendish template and effectively gain Damage reduction and resistance to cold and fire. 12 or more and you gain 10/magic also SR 25 and a Smite at +20 damage (If you have 20 HD or more) -Lavis |
| Lavis Knight02-28-05, 09:05 AM | Holy Epic Feats, Batman! Did you know ten Epic Toughness's = 300 extra hitpoints! edit: one hundred Epic Toughness = 3000 extra hitpoints. :weep: Improved Toughness? +1 Hp per Hd ^_^? take that 100 times and +100 Hp per HD ^^? |
| lokkesmadr02-28-05, 09:23 AM | Ashlan, bear in mind that UMD isn't actually the broken thing in here; the Hivemind is broken. If you based the build on druid levels you could blow a normal feat on Child of Winter (ebberon) and summon your own swarms using Summon Nature's Ally VII. Assume it's extended and you've got 26d4+26 Locust Swarms. That's a minimum of 260,000 creatures, 455,000 on average or 650,000 maximum. Who needs UMD? |
| Tempest Stormwind02-28-05, 09:27 AM | Nonononono.... reread the Verminlord. He does NOT gain the feats of the swarm. The only benefits he gets are the insight bonuses and - possibly, it's hard to untangle intention in these words - the spellcasting. |
| lokkesmadr02-28-05, 09:40 AM | Hivemind (the class feature) states that the Vermin Lord is a member of the hive mind, agreed? Hivemind (the rules in chapter 2) states that each member of the hive mind is awarded a feat and a skillpoint per hit die for every point of intelligence bonus posessed by the hivemind. Now, clearly the Vermin Lord is not meant to gain feats and skills from the hivemind's high stats, however, by the rules as written (which are all people are interested in in builds so patently absurd as this) it's valid. |
| Lavis Knight02-28-05, 09:51 AM | Nonononono.... reread the Verminlord. He does NOT gain the feats of the swarm. The only benefits he gets are the insight bonuses and - possibly, it's hard to untangle intention in these words - the spellcasting. But what if the caster becomes a Swarm himself? Via Thrall of Pazuzu? |
| Ashlan02-28-05, 09:57 AM | Ashlan, bear in mind that UMD isn't actually the broken thing in here; the Hivemind is broken. If you based the build on druid levels you could blow a normal feat on Child of Winter (ebberon) and summon your own swarms using Summon Nature's Ally VII. Assume it's extended and you've got 26d4+26 Locust Swarms. That's a minimum of 260,000 creatures, 455,000 on average or 650,000 maximum. Who needs UMD? What I consider 'broken' about UMD is the whole part where you immitate a class feature at Check-20. With items that give a +30 bonus to the skill, this just gets wrong. I don't think anyone would allow an item that would give you +30 caster level to spell x. If I were a GM, I would try to house rule it that the max class level you can imitate is your character level. That aside, lets keep any further debate about UMD (non)-brokeness to a different thread. Ash |
| Ashlan02-28-05, 10:01 AM | Nonononono.... reread the Verminlord. He does NOT gain the feats of the swarm. The only benefits he gets are the insight bonuses and - possibly, it's hard to untangle intention in these words - the spellcasting. I can see where it states that he does not get the bonus Int or Chr and that it does state he gets the insight bonus and 'takes advantage of' the spell casting, but where does it state that 'he does NOT gain the feats of the swarm'? Ash |
| Khan the Destroyer02-28-05, 10:28 AM | The way I see it, the Verminlord follows the rules for being a part of the Hivemind, with the exception of his Intelligence and Charisma scores. BoVD, page 34: For every point of intelligence bonus possessed by the hivemind, award each individual creature one feat and one skill point per Hit Die. Bold Mine. The bonus feats are based on the intelligence of the hivemind, which does not include the Verminlord. However everyone in the hivemind gains the feats and skill points, which includes the Verminlord. The class ability says his intelligence and charisma are unaffected, but says nothing about the feats and skills. It says that he is included in the hivemind though, so we should assume that he gains the feats and skills as the hivemind does. I think it is pretty clear about the spellcasting as well (although not as clear as it could have been). The sentence that includes the bit about spellcasting is the one that explains what the verminlord gains from being in the hivemind. BoVD, page 75: However, he controls the hivemind, gains the insight bonuses, and can take advantage of the spellcasting abilities of the hivemind if enough individuals are present. I take that to mean that the verminlord can casts spells as an Xth Sorcerer if there are enough vermin in the hivemind, in the same way the hivemind woud "take advantage" of the spellcasting ability if the vermindlord were not there. Otherwise, I think the rules would read: "He controls the hivemind, and therefore can take advantage of the spellcasting abilities of the hivemind, commanding it to cast whatever spells he wishes." But the rules do not say this. It lists his ability to control the hivemind first, then lists the fact that he gains the insight bonues, and then goes on to say that he can take advantage of the spellcasting. |
| Vecna02-28-05, 11:22 AM | A H.I.V.E spellcasting ability/feats can be used to meet requirements for PrC? :schemes: |
| Shebnar02-28-05, 11:45 AM | First round after getting this swarm, have it cast Spell Resistance on itself and then on you. SR 4599.... woot! OK, then I'll go for Dweomercheating Supernaturalized Gust of Wind and literally blow away his caster levels ;) :D ;) Seriously: what the heck does 'you get the insight bonuses' mean? ... We badly need to pray a Requiem for D&D. |
| MustafaHazaraKhan02-28-05, 11:57 AM | The Hivemind rules are broken and twisted beyond all belief. I think it is another case of screwed-up generalised math like with the Hulking Hurler. Let's look at a simple build that maxes Vermin Lord and incorporates even a single level of Warlock. Such a character can summon a swarm of bats at will, with duration concentration (this is even without taking into account the improved-duration Hungry Darkness invocation), which doesn't matter because forming a hivemind doesn't cost an action. A swarm of bats, as a diminutive flying swarm, has 5,000 members. This apparently yields a hivemind with Intelligence 107, Charisma 104, and casts spells as an 87th level Sorcerer. USEABLE AT WILL! Such a character effectively has an unlimited pool of spells, because when one swarm runs out of power they drop it and create another one next round! Something seriously needs sorting out with that math. |
| Jeremymc02-28-05, 12:06 PM | Ummm... When did everyone on this thread forget that in 3.5 a SWARM counts as a SINGLE creature, no matter how many creatures actually compose it. If you summon 26 swarms of locusts, you're only summoning 26 CREATURES. Look up the Monster entry for "swarm". P.S. Does anyone know how to add your own animated smiley to this board. For some reason, I can't find that ability anywhere. |
| MustafaHazaraKhan02-28-05, 12:13 PM | Jeremymc, though that would be somewhat sane it is in contradiction of the Hivemind rules on p34 of the Book of Vile Darkness. There it is made abundantly clear that the Hivemind functions according to the number of individual members of the swarm, even going so far as to state what happens when individual rats / snakes / whatever are slain. |
| Jeremymc02-28-05, 12:17 PM | Well, in that case, why is everyone lumping all of these swarms together as if they were a single creature? If it really does work that way, (aside from it being really F*****G retarded), then it would only count the number of creatures in a SINGLE swarm to comprise the "hivemind". |
| Zubon02-28-05, 12:29 PM | Well, in that case, why is everyone lumping all of these swarms together as if they were a single creature? If it really does work that way, (aside from it being really F*****G retarded), then it would only count the number of creatures in a SINGLE swarm to comprise the "hivemind". While staying out of that rules debate, if your interpretation is correct, I would still be happy with: A swarm of bats, as a diminutive flying swarm, has 5,000 members. This apparently yields a hivemind with Intelligence 107, Charisma 104, and casts spells as an 87th level Sorcerer. USEABLE AT WILL! Assuming that you can exploit multiple swarms at once, why are people having trouble fitting them into a 10' diameter? Stop thinking in 2D - levitate or fly 5' off the ground and summon yourself a sphere of swarms. That should give you enough squares to get as large a Hivemind as you can summon in pre-epic levels without stacking them atop one another. Granted, given enough time, we'll find a way to summon more than would fit in a 30' sphere, because we're the CO board, but... |
| Surreal02-28-05, 01:18 PM | And then the swarm(s) can cast shapechange... hmm, I'm not even sure what happens there. |
| Interested202-28-05, 07:46 PM | Very awesome, I've been looking for a good Vermin Lord build for a while now. |
| SigmaJargon02-28-05, 08:14 PM | Well, in that case, why is everyone lumping all of these swarms together as if they were a single creature? If it really does work that way, (aside from it being really F*****G retarded), then it would only count the number of creatures in a SINGLE swarm to comprise the "hivemind".Not at all my friend. The ability states it includes all applicable creatures, as long as no two creatures are more than 10ft away from each other. If mutiple swarms fit in that area - and they easily do - then there is no trouble at all including them in the hivemind. @ Venca - I don't see why not. However, the number of levels required to complete this combo (a minimum of 17 = druid or cleric 7 + vermin lord 10) leaves little space pre-epic to do anything with it. EDIT: I'll post a H.I.V.E. Lite Vers. and a H.I.V.E. using lokkesmadr's Child of Winter suggestion in a few. |
| PhaedrusXY02-28-05, 08:19 PM | And then the swarm(s) can cast shapechange... hmm, I'm not even sure what happens there.Ragnarok starts, the Universe implodes, and the DM starts a new campaign with a slightly longer "banned" material list. :P |
| Interested202-28-05, 08:24 PM | I'll work on a build to optimize the UMD check, I'm sure I can get your check above 110. |
| SigmaJargon02-28-05, 08:27 PM | Ragnarok starts, the Universe implodes, and the DM starts a new campaign with a slightly longer "banned" material list. :PWell, if the DM is letting the players use the BoVD, the universe deserves to implode, I say. ;) That book has so much cheeze it oozes out of the pages when you squeeze it. |
| Dark Kyosuke02-28-05, 08:48 PM | Quick. Someone break the BoED. Please. I'll be your best friend. |
| The Thing in the Night02-28-05, 08:52 PM | Jeremymc, though that would be somewhat sane it is in contradiction of the Hivemind rules on p34 of the Book of Vile Darkness. There it is made abundantly clear that the Hivemind functions according to the number of individual members of the swarm, even going so far as to state what happens when individual rats / snakes / whatever are slain. No, no, Jeremyc's right. A single swarm counts as ONE creature. In case of making a swarm Hivemind, each swarm counts as a single individual for purposes of death, etc. Also, bear in mind that the 3.5 MM is the most current rules source, while BoVD is 3.0. Some things just weren't meant to be compatable. |
| SigmaJargon02-28-05, 09:16 PM | No, no, Jeremyc's right. A single swarm counts as ONE creature. In case of making a swarm Hivemind, each swarm counts as a single individual for purposes of death, etc. Also, bear in mind that the 3.5 MM is the most current rules source, while BoVD is 3.0. Some things just weren't meant to be compatable. Really? In the entry in the MM for swarms, I see the phrase: A swarm of Tiny creatures consists of 300 nonflying creatures or 1,000 flying creatures. A swarm of Diminutive creatures consists of 1,500 nonflying creatures or 5,000 flying creatures. A swarm of Fine creatures consists of 10,000 creatures, whether they are flying or not.This seems pretty clear cut. A swarm consists of multiple creatures, though for ease of use they are clumped into collectives. It doesn't mean they count as one creature - they are treated as one for many purposes, but the text seems to spell it out plain - they also are counted in terms of the many. |
| Part-Human202-28-05, 09:17 PM | ... Grab yourself a Staff of Gate. Use UMD to emulate spellcasting as if you were a (check-20) level cleric, and then summon as many Wasp Swarms (Fiend Folio, 4HD swarms of fine creatures) as possible. Don't go for contract service - you only need them for about a round, and then they will obey you forever thereafter The minimum result on the UMD check is 92 + 1 – 20 = emulated caster level 73, or enough spellcasting power to summon and control 18 wasp swarms. The average result is 92 + 10 - 20 = 82, or 20 wasp swarms. The maximum result is 92 + 20 – 20 = 92, or 23 wasp swarms. Don't Staves operate on the caster level they were created with? Or is there a Staff of Gate somewhere that does otherwise? |
| The Thing in the Night02-28-05, 09:37 PM | Really? In the entry in the MM for swarms, I see the phrase: This seems pretty clear cut. A swarm consists of multiple creatures, though for ease of use they are clumped into collectives. It doesn't mean they count as one creature - they are treated as one for many purposes, but the text seems to spell it out plain - they also are counted in terms of the many. Touche. I guess it'll all boil down to individual DM rulings, as the RAW is so convoluted. My DM instinct got away from me there. |
| SigmaJargon02-28-05, 09:44 PM | Don't Staves operate on the caster level they were created with? Or is there a Staff of Gate somewhere that does otherwise?Nope. From the SRD:Staffs use the wielder’s ability score and relevant feats to set the DC for saves against their spells. Unlike with other sorts of magic items, the wielder can use his caster level when activating the power of a staff if it’s higher than the caster level of the staff. The Staff of Gate is a custom crafted item. I haven't actually worked out the price, though I suspect its going to be something rather high. Gate costs XP, and even making it use 2 charges a cast, thats 25 castings worth of XP to pay for... expensive. |
| Jeremymc02-28-05, 10:32 PM | MM entry: "...FOR GAME PURPOSES A SWARM IS DEFINED AS A SINGLE CREATURE WITH A SPACE OF 10 FEET." Sorry boys. Doesn't matter how many individual creatures comprise the swarm, the swarm ITSELF counts as ONE individual creature. So you could make a Hivemind out of 50 SWARMS, but that would be a 50 CREATURE hivemind, and NOT a 50 000 creature Hivemind. Now, if instead of casting the "summon swarm" spell, which only summons ONE swarm (ONE INDIVIDUAL CREATURE), you could cast a bunch of Summon Monster II spells and summon a bunch of dire rats. Each of those would be an individual creature. And the Vermin lord gaining the bonus feats are... debatable. There's no rule one way or the other, so it's a total DM's call. I'd probably say he gets the feats and skill points, because it makes it very cool to be a high level Vermin lord. But that's just me. |
| Ashlan02-28-05, 10:56 PM | The rules that we also need to follow are detailed in BoVD for a Hivemind. BoVD pg 34. Hivemind "If at least 50 vermin or animals of the same species are arranged so that no one individual is more than 10 feet from another individual, the hivemind may come into effect. All the creatures operate with an Intelligence of 5, even if they previously had no Intelligence score (as with vermin). The creatures' Intelligence score increases by +1 for every additional 20 individuals (beyone the first 50) in the hivemind, up to an Intelligence of 10 for a hivemind of 150 creatures. Beyond the 150-creature threshold, Intelligence increases by +1 for every 50 additional individuals." (now the key example, bold is mine) "Thus a swarm of 500 rats would have a hivemind Intelligence of 17." This does not contradict what the MM say that a swarm counts as one creature but further adds that Hiveminds (a special rule) are based off the number of creatures that make up the swarm. Ash ps. Hope I didn't quote too much stuff here, I can edit it down if need be. |
| SigmaJargon02-28-05, 11:06 PM | Oh! I didn't even notice that. The BoVD, despite having been published before swarm type creatures exsisted, seems to provide a space specifically in its rules for them. The text certainly implies that, for the purposes of creating a hivemind, a swarm counts as its component creatures. Thank you, Ash, thank you very much for pointing that out. :clap: |
| Jeremymc02-28-05, 11:08 PM | "Thus a swarm of 500 rats would have a hivemind Intelligence of 17." This does not contradict what the MM say that a swarm counts as one creature but further adds that Hiveminds (a special rule) are based off the number of creatures that make up the swarm. If you summon a "SWARM" of rats, you are summoning ONE creature called a "Swarm". It even has its own entry, and it's own HD, it's own attack form. These only count as a SINGLE attack form. If you summon, or gather 500 single-creature rats, by animal empathy or by sumoning, then you can form them into a hivemind of 500 rats. It then becomes a swarm. Actually, I suppose what you COULD do is summon a bunch of swarms, blow them all to pieces with a fireball, then "animal empathy" the survivors into your little hivemind group. That's crude. But it's legal. You first have to dispose of the "swarm" in order to access any of the individual creatures that make up the swarm. The swarm is "DEFINED" as a single creature.... |
| SigmaJargon02-28-05, 11:19 PM | Indeed, it is defined as a single creature. However, the MM is ambigious - a little bit below that, it states that a swarm is composed of a certain number of creatures (ergo it is not a single creature. but many), depending on its size and whether it flies or not. In essance, it could be taken either way, looking ONLY at the MM. However, the text in BoVD specifically states that if you had a swarm of 500 rats, they would gain the int and such as if they were indeed 500 creatures. If that isn't setting a precedent, I don't know what is. |
| thegreatbuddha03-01-05, 01:09 AM | Magic-Blooded Human Human Paragon 1 / Marshal 1 / Cleric 1 / Human Paragon 2 / Cleric 4 / Vermin Lord 10 / Fang of Lolth 1 Relevant stats: Cha 40 (with items), Verminfriend feat, Able Learner feat, and 23 ranks of UMD. See the initial post for any questions about the above setup. Now read the Darklight Codex (artifact)*. This has the effect of stripping away all of your class levels. It does however, leave you a little. You now have a BAB+1, good fort save (+2 for 1st level), and you retain your feats, skills, and ability scores. Also, your max ranks is only limited by your character level (1 at this point) for new skills that you learn. Now just repeat the above setup, swapping out a level of Human Paragon for your new level in Darklight Wizard. So we have... Magic-Blooded Human Darklight Wizard 1 / Marshal 1 / Cleric 1 / Human Paragon 2 / Cleric 4 / Vermin Lord 10 / Fang of Lolth 1 You get another 7 feats, and another 5 ability boosts due to level, for a final Cha of 46 (previous total of 40 +1 paragon +5 level) with 46 ranks in UMD :) So, your UMD check will be: 46 base + 18 cha + 15 inspire cha + 30 skill item (competence) + 2 Magical Aptitude + 3 Skill Focus + 4 Fang of Lolth --------------- +118 Or, a new average of 27 swarms. *Like I said the Darklight Codex is an artifact. Don't know if that rules it out or not. Also, it is a WotC-approved artifact, albeit one made by a third party. It is from the villian Design Handbook. |
| Interested203-01-05, 07:06 PM | See here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=387497). You can easily substitute the Artificer levels for Vermin Lord and more Warlock, and the UMD check remains about the same. |
| Jeremymc03-01-05, 07:16 PM | Indeed, it is defined as a single creature. However, the MM is ambigious - a little bit below that, it states that a swarm is composed of a certain number of creatures (ergo it is not a single creature. but many), depending on its size and whether it flies or not. In essance, it could be taken either way, looking ONLY at the MM. However, the text in BoVD specifically states that if you had a swarm of 500 rats, they would gain the int and such as if they were indeed 500 creatures. If that isn't setting a precedent, I don't know what is. Well, that's actually NOT what the text says. The text says the following: "...a HIVEMIND of 500 rats has a charisma score of..." When you FORM the HIVEMIND out of 500 INDIVIDUAL rats, it gains all of those bonuses. But each individual rat has to begin as an individual creature. A swarm is itself an individual creature, so you can't use the elements that comprise it to make the hivemind. It's like saying "well, my skin and my bones are TWO different creatures...". You can't split up the elements that comprise a monster. That's what's called "killing" the monster. |
| Ashlan03-01-05, 08:03 PM | Well, that's actually NOT what the text says. The text says the following: "...a HIVEMIND of 500 rats has a charisma score of..." While it does say this, above it refers to this as a swarm. Previous paragraph "Thus, a swarm of 500 rats would have a hivemind Intelligence of 17." It also includes rules in BoVD for how to handle this swarm with a hivemind as one creature, just like you would a swarm listed in MM. As well, the MM also states that a swarm is composed of many individual creatures. "A swarm of Tiny creatures consists of 300 nonflying creatures or 1000 flying creatures." However, the swarms in the MM have not developed Hiveminds. The way I see this is very simple, insects in real life form swarms/colonies with a leader (Queen bees/ants). The leader controls the swarm/colony but each individual insect in the swarm is an individual. Seperating an ant from the colony still means its an ant. Seperating your skin from your bones is completely different. You also can't mash skin and bones together and create one creature (except for flesh golems) however you can combine swarms. Ash |
| Shebnar03-01-05, 08:22 PM | The rules that we also need to follow are detailed in BoVD for a Hivemind. BoVD pg 34. Hivemind "If at least 50 vermin or animals of the same species are arranged so that no one individual is more than 10 feet from another individual, the hivemind may come into effect. All the creatures operate with an Intelligence of 5, even if they previously had no Intelligence score (as with vermin). If you summon a "SWARM" of rats, you are summoning ONE creature called a "Swarm". It even has its own entry, and it's own HD, it's own attack form. These only count as a SINGLE attack form. If you summon, or gather 500 single-creature rats, by animal empathy or by sumoning, then you can form them into a hivemind of 500 rats. It then becomes a swarm. [...] The swarm is "DEFINED" as a single creature.... Jeremymc, text-wise it doesn't matter if a Swarm counts as one, two or a thousand creatures. The Hivemind rules states that "if at least 50 vermin or animals of the same species are arranged so that no one individual is more than 10 feet from another individual, the hivemind may come into effect". Period. It doesn't matter if they are considered an 'individual', it counts that they are many. The Hivemind is not activated when you are in presence of a swarm of "at least 50 vermin or animals, wherein each one must be considered an 'individual' for game purposes": the text does not specify anything about that. It is sufficient they are 50 or more, as I said, and swarms, though possessing stats as a singular creature, are phisically composed by thousands of little creeps (for instance a Locust Swarm, Rapture from Fiend Folio "contains approximately 10,000 individual creatures" - pag. 170, emphasis mine). Besides, since Hivemind rules have not been updated to 3.5, we have to adopt 3.0 rules. So SigmaJargon's build is legal. It's just another chime at the funeral of D&D. The only real problem I see with it is the obscurity of the text when reports expressions like 'take advantage of hivemind spellcasting' or 'she gains the insight bonus of the Hivemind'. 'take advantage of': IMHO that means that a Verminlord is enabled to use his standard actions to cast spells as a Hivemind (and using the Cha of the Hivemind), instead of spells from his own clerical list. The 'insight bonus' matter totally eludes me. Uh, wait, no: if we exclude the spellcasting ability and the ability bonuses, the only bonus left for the Hivemind is the one which provide it with feats/skill ranks. So yes, logically the H.I.V.E. should gain the feats and the skill ranks from his Hivemind ability. The Hive should not be allowed to take epic feats: many swarms don't merge in one bigger swarm (RAW don't cover swarm merging), so their HD don't increase...and you hit epic 'only when your ECL is 21 or more', IIRC. When the Verminlord itself hits epic, he cannot share the Improved Spell Capacity with the Hivemind (nothing in the RAW allows that). |
| SigmaJargon03-01-05, 09:07 PM | I actually agree, Shebnar: I don't think the members of the H.I.V.E. can take epic feats. I don't remember the exact wording, but I think that they only cast spells as if an X level sorcerer, not gains X sorcerer levels. Ergo, while the CR shoots through the roof, there is no increase in ECL. I have a thought brewing in the back of my mind, a terribly evil and delicious thought. Lets say our Vermin Lord has a cohort. This isn't hard to imagine, after all, he has an excellent charisma score, and though Leadership is bit anti-flavor considering the text of the Vermin Lord, it isn’t unimaginable. What if this cohort is also a Vermin Lord? Say this cohort got to Vermin Lord through levels in Druid, so he has wildshape. When the cohort is wildshaped, he counts as an animal, therefore he may be included in the main Vermin Lord's hivemind. However, the cohort would gain the increased int and charisma, just as if he was another individual in the hivemind, as well as the feats and such! Then, hand the staff of Gate to the cohort, and have him gate in swarms on his own right, this time with a charisma score that is somewhere in orbit around the earth (High charisma = high UMD check). Have him bind the astronomical number of summoned swarms into a hivemind. Volia, instant exponential gain of hivemind power. Err... I'll do the number crunching in just a bit, probably basing the main Vermin Lord off of lokkesmadr's Child of Winter idea and the cohort as something like a Marshal 1 / Druid 7 / Vermin Lord 10. |
| Shebnar03-01-05, 09:46 PM | I have a thought brewing in the back of my mind, a terribly evil and delicious thought. Lets say our Vermin Lord has a cohort. This isn't hard to imagine, after all, he has an excellent charisma score, and though Leadership is bit anti-flavor considering the text of the Vermin Lord, it isn’t unimaginable. What if this cohort is also a Vermin Lord? Say this cohort got to Vermin Lord through levels in Druid, so he has wildshape. When the cohort is wildshaped, he counts as an animal, therefore he may be included in the main Vermin Lord's hivemind. However, the cohort would gain the increased int and charisma, just as if he was another individual in the hivemind, as well as the feats and such! Then, hand the staff of Gate to the cohort, and have him gate in swarms on his own right, this time with a charisma score that is somewhere in orbit around the earth (High charisma = high UMD check). Have him bind the astronomical number of summoned swarms into a hivemind. Volia, instant exponential gain of hivemind power. Uhm, he hasn't enough room...A 10' sphere would not contain all those creeps...But what about Swarms of Bacteria? They are animals, after all... :D :D :D You can summon billions of them, and still having room for billions of other swarms...And what do you get? Infinite slots/infinite feats/Infinite skill ranks bonanza! :D Basically you can do the same with Swarms of Fleas, but then the Verminlord should make a Fortitude save in order to prevent himself from scratching his body to death. ;) |
| Vatras03-01-05, 11:33 PM | My players know dreadful things are going to happen, when I look for my copy of the BoVD, ever since I bought it. Here is one more reason to fear it :) |
| PhaedrusXY03-01-05, 11:36 PM | Uhm, he hasn't enough room...A 10' sphere would not contain all those creeps...But what about Swarms of Bacteria? They are animals, after all... No they're not. They're less related to animals than you are to a piece of broccoli. Go back to biology class. :P |
| Qaetar03-01-05, 11:58 PM | A swarm of fleas. And Undead Wildshape into a rotting dog while you're at it. Mua-haha. (Qaetar) |
| Tempest Stormwind03-02-05, 12:09 AM | I actually agree, Shebnar: I don't think the members of the H.I.V.E. can take epic feats. I don't remember the exact wording, but I think that they only cast spells as if an X level sorcerer, not gains X sorcerer levels. Ergo, while the CR shoots through the roof, there is no increase in ECL. I have a thought brewing in the back of my mind, a terribly evil and delicious thought. Lets say our Vermin Lord has a cohort. This isn't hard to imagine, after all, he has an excellent charisma score, and though Leadership is bit anti-flavor considering the text of the Vermin Lord, it isn’t unimaginable. What if this cohort is also a Vermin Lord? Say this cohort got to Vermin Lord through levels in Druid, so he has wildshape. When the cohort is wildshaped, he counts as an animal, therefore he may be included in the main Vermin Lord's hivemind. However, the cohort would gain the increased int and charisma, just as if he was another individual in the hivemind, as well as the feats and such! Then, hand the staff of Gate to the cohort, and have him gate in swarms on his own right, this time with a charisma score that is somewhere in orbit around the earth (High charisma = high UMD check). Have him bind the astronomical number of summoned swarms into a hivemind. Volia, instant exponential gain of hivemind power. Err... I'll do the number crunching in just a bit, probably basing the main Vermin Lord off of lokkesmadr's Child of Winter idea and the cohort as something like a Marshal 1 / Druid 7 / Vermin Lord 10. Or, go one further -- have the cohort include the vermin lord in the second hivemind. Repeat ad infinium, or, given the nature of this, ad nauseum. |
| Ashlan03-02-05, 12:45 AM | First, question about the whole 10' sphere... I believe we are falling the second paragraph for this but if not, let me know as I may have missed the relevant rule. BoVD pg 34 HIVEMIND "If at least 50 vermin or animals of the same species are arranged so that no one individual is more than 10 feet from another individual, the hivemind comes into effect." Does this not mean that the creatures are limited to being within 10' of 1 of the other creatures in the swarm which is within 10' of another, etc.? If so, there is virtually no limit to this. I am SURE this is not what the designers ment but would this ruling be correct as per RAW? As an aside, I would NEVER let this character into a game I ran. This is possibly the most broken thing I have ever seen... and I am trying to make it better. Second, The only real problem I see with it is the obscurity of the text when reports expressions like 'take advantage of hivemind spellcasting' or 'she gains the insight bonus of the Hivemind'. 'take advantage of': IMHO that means that a Verminlord is enabled to use his standard actions to cast spells as a Hivemind (and using the Cha of the Hivemind), instead of spells from his own clerical list. The 'insight bonus' matter totally eludes me. Uh, wait, no: if we exclude the spellcasting ability and the ability bonuses, the only bonus left for the Hivemind is the one which provide it with feats/skill ranks. So yes, logically the H.I.V.E. should gain the feats and the skill ranks from his Hivemind ability. While I don't know one way or the other if the Verminlord should get the feats/skills (it doesn't say he doesn't get them like it does for the ability bonuses and it doesn't say he does, like it does for the insight bonus), what it is referencing when it says Insight bonus is in the 5th paragraph (first new paragraph in the second column). "When creatures in a hivemind attack, they all gain a +1 insight bonus on their attack rolls and a +1 insight bonus to their Armor Class." Ash |
| Ashlan03-02-05, 12:49 AM | Am I the only one reminded of the movie Willard (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0310357/)? Ash |
| Tempest Stormwind03-02-05, 12:52 AM | First, question about the whole 10' sphere... I believe we are falling the second paragraph for this but if not, let me know as I may have missed the relevant rule. BoVD pg 34 HIVEMIND "If at least 50 vermin or animals of the same species are arranged so that no one individual is more than 10 feet from another individual, the hivemind comes into effect." Does this not mean that the creatures are limited to being within 10' of 1 of the other creatures in the swarm which is within 10' of another, etc.? If so, there is virtually no limit to this. I am SURE this is not what the designers ment but would this ruling be correct as per RAW? As an aside, I would NEVER let this character into a game I ran. This is possibly the most broken thing I have ever seen... and I am trying to make it better. Second, While I don't know one way or the other if the Verminlord should get the feats/skills (it doesn't say he doesn't get them like it does for the ability bonuses and it doesn't say he does, like it does for the insight bonus), what it is referencing when it says Insight bonus is in the 5th paragraph (first new paragraph in the second column). "When creatures in a hivemind attack, they all gain a +1 insight bonus on their attack rolls and a +1 insight bonus to their Armor Class." Ash First: It's like Magic Missle. The two individuals who are FARTHEST away must be within 10' of each other. So, we have a 10' sphere of fleas with our verminlord in the center, especially if he's polymorphed into a flea himself. Second: I'd say that the Hivemind ability explicitly calls out that he only gets the insight bonuses. Still, carrying a 4000th level sorceror in your pocket is worth not getting that many feats pre-epic. |
| SigmaJargon03-02-05, 12:56 AM | Am I the only one reminded of the movie Willard (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0310357/)? AshIf you want to go the way of the rat, you could try this: Be an evil cleric with the Sun Domain. No, don't laugh, I'm quite serious. Gate in a Plague Spewer from the MM3, and use a Greater Turning to command it (Augment your turning ability with a Rod of Authority DotF and a Scepter of the Netherworld LM). Have it vomit rat swarms in a Bag of Holding for you, at the rate of 4 swarms a day. :D |
| Ashlan03-02-05, 01:09 AM | Have it vomit rat swarms in a Bag of Holding for you, at the rate of 4 swarms a day. :D ROFL I wonder what my DM would say when I tell him I want a bag of holding full of rats. ;) Ash |
| ff6shadow03-02-05, 01:18 AM | (Double Post) |
| ff6shadow03-02-05, 01:19 AM | Don't know why, but the bag of holding full of rats reminds me of the old bag o' rats fighter. And I don't know about your DM, but I would say, "No!" |
| Ashlan03-02-05, 01:24 AM | If any whirlwind-cleaving fighter came near my swarm, he would be Wished right out of existance. :P Ash |
| Tempest Stormwind03-02-05, 01:30 AM | If you want to go the way of the rat, you could try this: Be an evil cleric with the Sun Domain. No, don't laugh, I'm quite serious. Gate in a Plague Spewer from the MM3, and use a Greater Turning to command it (Augment your turning ability with a Rod of Authority DotF and a Scepter of the Netherworld LM). Have it vomit rat swarms in a Bag of Holding for you, at the rate of 4 swarms a day. :D So not only does he have a Bag o' Rats, he also has a form of sunshine in a bag? Seriously, though, I don't think the Sun domain does this. It says "turned" -- and "rebuked" is a different status than "Turned". There should be an evil equivalent somewhere, though. |
| NineInchNall03-02-05, 01:59 AM | Correct me if I'm wrong ... Wait, did i even need to say that here? ;) Oh, wait... I'm wrong. Oh, well, I really want to spring this one on my DM/ group sometime. They'll be like, "What are you doing with that staff, Tom?" "Oh, I'm off to create a deity." "Wha-wha-what!?" Anyway, I'm going to use a modified version of it, since I like taking 10 and hate racial paragons. Warlock 4/Marshal 1/Ur-Priest 4/Vermin Lord 10/Fang of Lloth 1. Upside? Yay for taking 10 on UMD and having full Ur-priest casting! Downside, missing an extra +2 to Charisma from Magic-blooded and +2 from Paragon. This is gonna be sweet. |
| Tempest Stormwind03-02-05, 02:30 AM | ... They'll be like, "What are you doing with that staff, Tom?" "Oh, I'm off to create a deity." "Wha-wha-what!?" Anyway, I'm going to use a modified version of it, since I like taking 10 and hate racial paragons. Warlock 4/Marshal 1/Ur-Priest 4/Vermin Lord 10/Fang of Lloth 1. ... Am I the only one finding that irony somewhat amusing? |
| NineInchNall03-02-05, 02:40 AM | I know. Ain't it great? "I don't like these damn gods that are going around telling people (read me) what to do. I'm going to make one that'll kill 'em all off! Then no one will tell me, I mean anyone, what to do." |
| Ashlan03-02-05, 03:15 AM | Too many books to look thru. Which one is Fang of Lloth in? And would she let an Ur-Priest in? Ash If we are talking about the Fang of Lolth from Song & Silence, what's the point? |
| NineInchNall03-02-05, 03:52 AM | Actually, you don't really need it ... Use the Hivemind to cast Gate. What's its caster level? 4000 or something? So you burn 1000 XP, it's worth it to be able to cast spells with a crazy caster level like that. Now, if we were to use the reasoning that allowed The Word ... We would add half that caster level to our ur-priest level, and we'd be able to blasphemy something like crazy. :evillaugh Wow. The more I think about this, the sillier it gets. And just think what a gestalted Warlock/Vermin Lord could do! He'd turn himself into a swarm (dark discorporation) and turn himself into a hivemind for the duration. :invasion: |
| PhaedrusXY03-02-05, 04:02 AM | Now, if we were to use the reasoning that allowed The Word ... We would add half that caster level to our ur-priest level, and we'd be able to blasphemy something like crazy. :evillaugh Hmm... you know, according to some interpretations (including mine), the Extra Spell feat lets you learn spells not on your normal class list of spells. The Hivemind gets a buttload of feats. So you could have it casting Blasphemy (and Miracle, and.... ) :weep: |
| gabrion03-02-05, 04:26 AM | Wow this is a great idea. I was just wondering if we have already covered the point that most of this stuff from the very beginning is not allowed in 3.5? The build itself must only be for 3.0, which is fine in context, but we have to remember that it's outdated now. It also depends on the DM allowing rules from UA, which is never something to take for granted. Like I said, it's an amazing build if we are playing 3.0 and the UA rules are allowed, but this may be the very reason that it's so broke in the first place... |
| Shebnar03-02-05, 05:09 AM | No they're not. They're less related to animals than you are to a piece of broccoli. Go back to biology class. :P In D&D biology they are animals :tongue: : they are not vermin, aberrations, undead (undead bacteria...uhm), constructs...not to talk about them being humanoids, feys, monstruous humanoids, plants, elementals or outsiders. Uh no, wait, PhaedrusXY: THEY ARE GIANTS!!!!!!!!!!!! :rolleyes: :D Seriously: there's no 'bacterium type' in D&D, so the only types which can regiment them are 'animal' and 'vermin', though they are both far from what bacteria really are. Both of them are also good for the Hivemind to function ;) I was just wondering if we have already covered the point that most of this stuff from the very beginning is not allowed in 3.5? The build itself must only be for 3.0, which is fine in context, but we have to remember that it's outdated now. Well, there has been a debate about mixing 3.0 and 3.5 rules. Generally the golden rule is: if they didn't update it, then use the 3.0 version. After all, they are meant to be compatible. As for UA rules, since we are at the min/max board ;) I'd be lenient with builds which uses flaws, paragon races etc. After all, Gabrion, a DM is not going to allow or disallow UA material with this build: he's going to throw the Verminlord out of the window and laugh straight in the face of the player who's asking to play one. |
| SigmaJargon03-02-05, 08:16 AM | So not only does he have a Bag o' Rats, he also has a form of sunshine in a bag? Seriously, though, I don't think the Sun domain does this. It says "turned" -- and "rebuked" is a different status than "Turned". There should be an evil equivalent somewhere, though.*shrug* I considered that myself, but I think it works. From the turning section of the SRD: Good clerics and paladins and some neutral clerics can channel positive energy, which can halt, drive off (rout), or destroy undead. Evil clerics and some neutral clerics can channel negative energy, which can halt, awe (rebuke), control (command), or bolster undead. Regardless of the effect, the general term for the activity is “turning.” When attempting to exercise their divine control over these creatures, characters make turning checks. *snip* Evil clerics channel negative energy to rebuke (awe) or command (control) undead rather than channeling positive energy to turn or destroy them. An evil cleric makes the equivalent of a turning check. Undead that would be turned are rebuked instead, and those that would be destroyed are commanded. Greater Turning says that it is like a normal turning (turning being a general term for both turning and rebuking) except it destroys the undead. According to the section on rebuking, if the undead would be destroyed by a turning check, they are controlled instead. Of course, this doesn't really have that much to do with the build proper, so it isn't that important if it turns out to be rules dysfunctional. Just an interesting alternative for people who umm, happen to like rats. |
| Squirrelloid03-02-05, 02:54 PM | Wow this is a great idea. I was just wondering if we have already covered the point that most of this stuff from the very beginning is not allowed in 3.5? The build itself must only be for 3.0, which is fine in context, but we have to remember that it's outdated now. It also depends on the DM allowing rules from UA, which is never something to take for granted. Like I said, it's an amazing build if we are playing 3.0 and the UA rules are allowed, but this may be the very reason that it's so broke in the first place... The really important 3.0 bit you need is from BoVD. We know BoVD is 3.5 legal, because WotC keeps referencing it in 3.5 books. (Libris Mortis, for instance, refers you to BoVD when it mentions vile damage). Since parts of BoVD are necessary for assembling the rules and interpretations of abilities in 3.5 material, BoVD must be considered legal material for 3.5 by WotC. While some of the other sources (FF) help, they are hardly necessary for the build to do some really disgusting things. Such as the Warlock 1-lvl dip discussed earlier. |
| ancalimohtar03-02-05, 03:51 PM | I don't know if you guys are assuming this or not, but as I read it, the hive must staywithin a sphere of 5ft radius in order to keep its goodies: If at least 50 vermin or animals of the same species are arranged so that no one individual is more than 10 feet from another individual, the hivemind comes into effect.It's debatable, but from the explanation (read: cheap attempt at logical reasoning) of how a hivemind works seems to imply that it only does so when the individuals satisfy the proximity condition, and lose their abilities when they are no longer adjacent. Also, as I read it, it is crystal clear the Vermin Lord gains the feats, skill ranks, and spellcasting ability. It says: The hivemind must include the Vermin Lord, although he counts as only a single individual and his Intelligence and Charisma scores are unaffectedMeaning he is definitely part of the hivemind, an exception to the "all of one species" rule, and acquires all the benefits of an individual of the hivemind, except for the INT and CHA bonuses. Any single creature can cast one of the hivemind's spells, but those spell slots [what the hell? they don't even follow grammar rules] are then lost to other creatures in the hivemind.And since we've established the VL is one of the individuals, he can cast any of the spells, presumably once a round, as is standard, as long as he remains within the swarm radius. As for the "individual" and "swarm" and "one creature" debate, I think it's more likely than not it was written with the intention of counting each specimen as one individual--but not with the foresight of it being abused with swarm type creatures. The example they keep coming back to, that of a hivemind of rats, doesn't actually exist as a "swam" creature (and I don't think it is literally possible to put 500 rats in a 5ft radius circle on the ground). The reality, I think, is that the fact that it's 3.0 really affects this PrC. The swarm type simply did not exist, and they didn't anticipate the stuffing of millions of critters into a 5ft radius sphere, because it didn't exist in 3.0. Thus, I would assume that were the hivemind to be updated to 3.5, the numbers would change. In addition, might I add that "hivemind" is in the chapter "Variant Rules"? |
| Shebnar03-02-05, 06:23 PM | As for the "individual" and "swarm" and "one creature" debate, I think it's more likely than not it was written with the intention of counting each specimen as one individual--but not with the foresight of it being abused with swarm type creatures. The example they keep coming back to, that of a hivemind of rats, doesn't actually exist as a "swam" creature (and I don't think it is literally possible to put 500 rats in a 5ft radius circle on the ground). The reality, I think, is that the fact that it's 3.0 really affects this PrC. The swarm type simply did not exist, and they didn't anticipate the stuffing of millions of critters into a 5ft radius sphere, because it didn't exist in 3.0. Thus, I would assume that were the hivemind to be updated to 3.5, the numbers would change. You are totally right, ancalimohtar. That is not enough to make the Verminlord illegal, though. Player's Guide to Faerun, for instance, refers to Vile Damage though being a 3.5 supplement, and the Faerun setting seems prone to include all of the PrC and feats/spells from both BoVD and BoED (check on page 175). The most broken builds are born from the negligence and disregard of Game Developers. After all, they cannot check out every single rule they are publishing and its possible interactions with the bunch of the already published rules. And it will be getting worse and worse. In addition, might I add that "hivemind" is in the chapter "Variant Rules"? :confused: :confused: :confused: |
| Jeremymc03-02-05, 07:05 PM | Wow this is a great idea. I was just wondering if we have already covered the point that most of this stuff from the very beginning is not allowed in 3.5? The build itself must only be for 3.0, which is fine in context, but we have to remember that it's outdated now. It also depends on the DM allowing rules from UA, which is never something to take for granted. Like I said, it's an amazing build if we are playing 3.0 and the UA rules are allowed, but this may be the very reason that it's so broke in the first place... Gwa ha ha!!! :rolleyes: :D The reason this build is "so broke" is because people are deliberately misinterpreting definitions in the game in order to MAKE the build "so broke". Each swarm is a single individual creature, regardless of how many units comprise it. Read the entry for swarm... It's all right there. A swarm of 50 rats is a SINGLE creature. 50 individual rats are 50 individual creatures. And you can only create a hivemind out of "individual" creatures. When you purposefully break the game with your semantics, it's kind of dull to turn around and say "wow, I sure did break the game with my semantics... hyuk!" (the "hyuk" is the ritual noise optimizers make when they break the game). |
| Ashlan03-02-05, 07:05 PM | The reality, I think, is that the fact that it's 3.0 really affects this PrC. The swarm type simply did not exist, and they didn't anticipate the stuffing of millions of critters into a 5ft radius sphere, because it didn't exist in 3.0. Thus, I would assume that were the hivemind to be updated to 3.5, the numbers would change. In addition, might I add that "hivemind" is in the chapter "Variant Rules"? Yes, BoVD is 3.0, but so is BoED and Voe of Poverty is listed in the Variant Rules chapter there as well, yet it shows up in lots of builds without much question about it's validity. All of these (the 'variant rules' or the books in general) would require DM approval and I know that few if any DMs would approve them, but if the rules are there, they are ment to be used by someone, and sometimes we need to break the rules to teach a lesson about poorly thought-out/implimented ideas. Ash |
| ancalimohtar03-02-05, 07:13 PM | Shebar: A new, 3.5 sourcebook referencing an old, 3.0 one's material doesn't make the 3.0 sourcebook any closer to acceptable. Think of it this way: Wizards prints a truckload of books because they're a company and they need revenue. Then they come out with a new edition and reprint almost all of the books, some under new names and by different organizations. Fans get quite irate that they've spent possibly hundreds of dollars on useless material--what does Wizards do? The only sensible and business savvy thing to do: Declare the old books "still legal," publish a half-assed "conversion guide," and appease the irate fans, letting them know those books aren't all of a sudden worthless. Except then the smarter ones like us realize that the old ones truly are almost worthless in terms of game rule information. The real problem lies in the fact that D&D can't really be sold except through printing new material in books. So the only official rules have to be in those books. So errata are few and far between, rules are complicated, convoluted, and often contradictory, and reprints happen (apparently) once every four or five years. The solution Wizards (and most of us) have come up with is 1) Wizards tries their damndest to word everything precisely, though obviously things slip every once in a while, 2) realize that the nature of D&D means it must inherently have house-rules and DM judgment calls, so acheiving logical perfection is not important, and 3) for optimizers, laying down a pyramid of legality. For us on this board, most people follow some form of the following: most legal are the core books and campaign settings, slightly less legal are the Completes/Races/Monster Manuals/Monster Types/FR Regions/EB Regions books, less legal than that are things like Web Enhancements and BoVD, which was caught in the middle of the transition to 3.5 (and which has a 3.5 sister in BoED), slightly less legal than that are 3.0 books never updated to 3.5 but which most DMs would manually update and allow in (e.g., Faiths and Pantheons), going down the line, eventually you'll hit Unearthed Arcana, and then probably Dragon magazine, and then after that you really start having fun with prestige classes you found in strangely colored books from some company called "AEG," feats you found scrawled on a crumpled newspaper pulled out of a Dutch prostitute's skirt, etc., etc. So yeah, I guess my point is, "No, I don't consider hiveminds and this build in particular 3.5-legal just because Wizards is forced to say it is." P.S. I mentioned where "Hiveminds" were in the BoVD because it is in the chapter entitled "Variant Rules," i.e., on the level of rolling auto-kills in the DMG, the level of generic classes in UA, and other things. |
| ancalimohtar03-02-05, 07:22 PM | but if the rules are there, they are ment to be used by someone, and sometimes we need to break the rules to teach a lesson about poorly thought-out/implimented ideas.Which less are we being taught? And which poorly thought-out idea are we talking about? The truth is, breaking the game doesn't teach us anything except how to break it better in the future. Also, don't use that "its RAW, so we should go for it" cow doodoo. SS has so many absolutely insane things in it, I generally rule out anything coming from that book automatically. Apostle of Peace, also, I consider badly worded, since every other prestige class that offers something similar words the caster level formula with "levels in another spellcasting class" rather than "caster levels." I don't consider builds taking advantage of these obviously stupidly written (or stupidly un-updated/un-errataed) books legal anymore. To me, they're just taking advantage of the fact that Wizards can't update the rules all the time by reprinting all the books every week. |
| Tempest Stormwind03-02-05, 07:25 PM | Too many books to look thru. Which one is Fang of Lloth in? And would she let an Ur-Priest in? Ash If we are talking about the Fang of Lolth from Song & Silence, what's the point? +4 UMD. Plus the whole Vermin thing, you know? ^_^ |
| NineInchNall03-02-05, 07:55 PM | Jeremymc: Yo, dude. Chill out. Read the hivemind section in the BoVD; it is completely consistent with the swarm subtype rules. Here's the SRD entry: Swarm Subtype A swarm is a collection of Fine, Diminutive, or Tiny creatures that acts as a single creature. A swarm has the characteristics of its type, except as noted here. A swarm has a single pool of Hit Dice and hit points, a single initiative modifier, a single speed, and a single Armor Class. A swarm makes saving throws as a single creature. A single swarm occupies a square (if it is made up of nonflying creatures) or a cube (of flying creatures) 10 feet on a side, but its reach is 0 feet, like its component creatures. In order to attack, it moves into an opponent?s space, which provokes an attack of opportunity. It can occupy the same space as a creature of any size, since it crawls all over its prey. A swarm can move through squares occupied by enemies and vice versa without impediment, although the swarm provokes an attack of opportunity if it does so. A swarm can move through cracks or holes large enough for its component creatures. A swarm of Tiny creatures consists of 300 nonflying creatures or 1,000 flying creatures. A swarm of Diminutive creatures consists of 1,500 nonflying creatures or 5,000 flying creatures. A swarm of Fine creatures consists of 10,000 creatures, whether they are flying or not. Swarms of nonflying creatures include many more creatures than could normally fit in a 10-foot square based on their normal space, because creatures in a swarm are packed tightly together and generally crawl over each other and their prey when moving or attacking. Larger swarms are represented by multiples of single swarms. The area occupied by a large swarm is completely shapeable, though the swarm usually remains in contiguous squares. It seems pretty cut and dried to me. It (the swarm) acts as a single creature, despite the fact that it is composed of many. This does not negate the fact that it is many creatures. A group such as a swarm is made up of individual creatures not worth mentioning on their own, but when brought together in large enough numbers to warrant a swarm subtype, they are treated as a single creature for opponent purposes. This is so that players do not have to keep track of 10,000 opponents; it also allows the creation of enemies from components that would normally be nonthreatening. This is precisely how the BoVD interprets a Hivemind, so I don't know where your difficulty with this is. By holding fast to the "single creature" phrase you're ignoring the very first sentence in the description. ancalimohtar: I really don't want to sound like an jerk here, but when all is said and done it doesn't matter whether you think a book is legal or not. Legality is first and foremost what WotC defines and second what the DM of a given game defines. To say otherwise is spurious. So, yes, the fact that a 3.5 supplement references a 3.0 supplement is sufficient for the latter to be considered "legal." As always, a gaming group is free to house rule whatever it wants, but that's a discussion for the Unearthed Arcana and House Rules board, don't you think? So, in conclusion, until the BoVD is updated to 3.5 (doubtful) we can take advantage of some true cheesy goodness from the H.I.V.E. :D P.S.: All supplements are variant rules. Straw man ... :rolleyes: |
| SigmaJargon03-02-05, 08:02 PM | Which less are we being taught? And which poorly thought-out idea are we talking about? The truth is, breaking the game doesn't teach us anything except how to break it better in the future. Also, don't use that "its RAW, so we should go for it" cow doodoo. SS has so many absolutely insane things in it, I generally rule out anything coming from that book automatically. Apostle of Peace, also, I consider badly worded, since every other prestige class that offers something similar words the caster level formula with "levels in another spellcasting class" rather than "caster levels." I don't consider builds taking advantage of these obviously stupidly written (or stupidly un-updated/un-errataed) books legal anymore. To me, they're just taking advantage of the fact that Wizards can't update the rules all the time by reprinting all the books every week.Such is your right and power, as DM. Every DM is free to include/exclude any material he sees fit, and to edit the material however he sees fit. We are not making the argument that the H.I.V.E. should be legal always, everywhere. If I were to DM an adventure, I most certainly would adhere to the wise suggestion near the beginning of BoVD: Hide This Book. However, what is being pointed out is that such a thing is possible. The whole underlying purpose of the CO board is to find and exploit rules, combinations of rules, or holes therein to achieve greatness. In this case, as in the Hulking Hurler's case, as in the Cheater of Mystra's case, as in the Wish's and the Word's case, the rules are there, without a doubt. You can choose to forbid them in your game, but this does not decrease their legitimacy on the global scale. |
| ancalimohtar03-02-05, 08:26 PM | Legitimacy on a global scale? Did you not read my post? I mean, you said it yourself; different DMs draw the line at different places. I assume by "global" you mean the official, WoTC call? In that case, let's throw in all possible UA variants (don't forget gestalt!) and all Dragon magazine material. Then we'll all have a blast, since its all an academic exercise anyway and nobody cares! Yay! Really, I spent a good amount of time typing that post, I had hoped someone would read it and not give me the same tired lines again. |
| Tempest Stormwind03-02-05, 08:40 PM | Legitimacy on a global scale? Did you not read my post? I mean, you said it yourself; different DMs draw the line at different places. I assume by "global" you mean the official, WoTC call? In that case, let's throw in all possible UA variants (don't forget gestalt!) and all Dragon magazine material. Then we'll all have a blast, since its all an academic exercise anyway and nobody cares! Yay! Really, I spent a good amount of time typing that post, I had hoped someone would read it and not give me the same tired lines again. This is exactly what the CO boards do, actually. Most of the builds here avoid using Unearthed Arcana, or assume only one or two of their rules are in use (often LA buyback). Many other builds avoid BoED and BoVD for similar reasons. Dragon is also often avoided, by and large, except by a few adherents who assume everyone has access to every issue and that they're impeccably playtested. Still others avoid setting material for obvious reasons (though FR is, admittedly, more common than others). I know some that even avoid the XPH, despite it being as core as the SRD. The point is, if this build was doable without the BoVD, it'd probably have been done without the BoVD. Since it relies on the BoVD to work, it uses the BoVD. We try to stick to as core as we can, and often only use Core+Complete (and frequently +XPH). That's really more than enough for most builds. The nice thing about forums is that you can avoid reading topics that don't apply to you. If you don't use the BoVD, then don't assume that this build can be used in your games. |
| The Thing in the Night03-02-05, 08:51 PM | For us on this board, most people follow some form of the following: most legal are the core books and campaign settings, slightly less legal are the Completes/Races/Monster Manuals/Monster Types/FR Regions/EB Regions books, less legal than that are things like Web Enhancements and BoVD, which was caught in the middle of the transition to 3.5 (and which has a 3.5 sister in BoED), slightly less legal than that are 3.0 books never updated to 3.5 but which most DMs would manually update and allow in (e.g., Faiths and Pantheons), going down the line, eventually you'll hit Unearthed Arcana, and then probably Dragon magazine, and then after that you really start having fun with prestige classes you found in strangely colored books from some company called "AEG," feats you found scrawled on a crumpled newspaper pulled out of a Dutch prostitute's skirt, etc., etc. Ah, but Dragon is "100% official content"...it says so on the cover (or at least inside somewhere). It has brought us the Arcane Strike feat (310), the Invisible Blade, Reaping Mauler, and Occult Slayer, the UA monk martial art style variants, etc. In my opinion, it's more legal than 3.0 books with DM revisions. There's nothing in it that's really been abused (except perhaps the faerie mysteries/kung fu genius combo, and even that's not as insane as the H.I.V.E, not by a long shot.) |
| Shebnar03-02-05, 09:05 PM | Shebar: A new, 3.5 sourcebook referencing an old, 3.0 one's material doesn't make the 3.0 sourcebook any closer to acceptable. Think of it this way: Wizards prints a truckload of books because they're a company and they need revenue. Then they come out with a new edition and reprint almost all of the books, some under new names and by different organizations. Fans get quite irate that they've spent possibly hundreds of dollars on useless material--what does Wizards do? The only sensible and business savvy thing to do: Declare the old books "still legal," publish a half-assed "conversion guide," and appease the irate fans, letting them know those books aren't all of a sudden worthless. So it's only the guess of the players which is 'legal'. "I suspect they are only doing it for the money, the 3.5 is only a big fraud => ergo => the conversion guide is crap, and everything the Game Developers say is 'illegal' ". Nonsense. The real problem lies in the fact that D&D can't really be sold except through printing new material in books. So the only official rules have to be in those books. So errata are few and far between, rules are complicated, convoluted, and often contradictory, and reprints happen (apparently) once every four or five years. Frankly, I can't see how the commercial policy of WoTC invalidates or endorses the 'legality' of a build. If they told us that 3.0 and 3.5 are compatible, why have you to argue and dissent? The solution Wizards (and most of us) have come up with is 1) Wizards tries their damndest to word everything precisely, though obviously things slip every once in a while, 2) realize that the nature of D&D means it must inherently have house-rules and DM judgment calls, so acheiving logical perfection is not important If D&D is inherently made up of house rules, then why are we talking about 'legality'? House rules are the epithome of non-legality. And there is nothing legal, according to your statement - which is false, because RAW exist. They are not perfectly consistent, OK, and they can be exploited (which is the main purpose of this board), but they exist nonetheless. Are they "complicated, convoluted, and often contradictory"? Of course they are. And the H.I.V.E. is good at exploiting them without any DM's call. That's all. It's just an academical exercise: no one will play a campaign with this monster (unless that the DM is insane). Except then the smarter ones like us realize that the old ones truly are almost worthless in terms of game rule information. I'm still expecting the "Smarter-Ones-like-You's Core Book of Guesses". All legal stuff, of course. :P Are we talking about AD&D or D&D 3.0 ? Old books are worthless when replaced by new updates. Otherwise they can be integrated in the 3.5 system without much effort. Saying that old books 'are almost worthless in terms of game rule information' is a blatant overstatement, Ancalimohtar. 3) [...] for optimizers, laying down a pyramid of legality. For us on this board, most people follow some form of the following: most legal are the core books and campaign settings, slightly less legal are the Completes/Races/Monster Manuals/Monster Types/FR Regions/EB Regions books, less legal than that are things like Web Enhancements and BoVD, which was caught in the middle of the transition to 3.5 (and which has a 3.5 sister in BoED), slightly less legal than that are 3.0 books never updated to 3.5 but which most DMs would manually update and allow in (e.g., Faiths and Pantheons), going down the line, eventually you'll hit Unearthed Arcana, and then probably Dragon magazine, and then after that you really start having fun with prestige classes you found in strangely colored books from some company called "AEG," feats you found scrawled on a crumpled newspaper pulled out of a Dutch prostitute's skirt, etc., etc. I'm afraid that with conversion rules Wiz of the Coast wanted to avoid just this situation (and they apparently failed). It's just my guess, of course. Apart from the fact that some of (not all of) the published material from third parts is balanced (much more than "legal" stuff) or even underpowered, I think that there is nothing worse than a bunch of players who start screaming each other: "My core Cleric is more legal than your non-core Warshaper!". It is completely nonsense. If this were right, if the legality of a build should be based upon the 'pyramid', 3/4 of the builds currently played throughout the world would be 'half-legal', or 'not legal' at all. A legal build is something that doesn't contradict the RAW, and when RAW don't properly cover the circumstances, the answer is up to the DM's call. Third part material is generally not used in CO builds simply because it appears (and often it is) blatantly broken (but try and read again the Book of Epic Level and you will find something much more broken), and because in the WoTC Character Optimization board it seems more proper to use WoTC stuff. :D P.S.: uhm...next time I have to check for that feat better in her skirt... However, what is being pointed out is that such a thing is possible. The whole underlying purpose of the CO board is to find and exploit rules, combinations of rules, or holes therein to achieve greatness. In this case, as in the Hulking Hurler's case, as in the Cheater of Mystra's case, as in the Wish's and the Word's case, the rules are there, without a doubt. You can choose to forbid them in your game, but this does not decrease their legitimacy on the global scale. I totally agree. |
| TerrickTerran03-02-05, 09:22 PM | Just a little note as it seems people don't quite get this. Book of Exalted Deeds is not a 3.0 book, it's a 3.5 book. |
| ancalimohtar03-02-05, 09:59 PM | This is exactly what the CO boards do, actually. Which part of quoting me did you mean? The part where I said we should all just build gestalt since they're the most powerful legal builds? The point is, if this build was doable without the BoVD, it'd probably have been done without the BoVD. Since it relies on the BoVD to work, it uses the BoVD. We try to stick to as core as we can, and often only use Core+Complete (and frequently +XPH). That's really more than enough for most builds.Right. Except I had said previously, (which nobody has since seemed to pick up) the following: So yeah, I guess my point is, "No, I don't consider hiveminds and this build in particular 3.5-legal just because Wizards is forced to say it is."Meaning, it is my opinion, according to my personal pyramid of legality, that this build is not legal. Entiendes? Ah, but Dragon is "100% official content"...it says so on the cover (or at least inside somewhere).You really think I'm going to respond to that? Haha. So it's only the guess of the players which is 'legal'. Exactly, except it's not a guess. It's a decision agreed-upon by a group of players. Nonsense.No, it makes excellent sense. I obviously can't mathematically prove it, but ask anybody who has had experience in the gaming industry and he'll tell you the exact same thing. Frankly, I can't see how the commercial policy of WoTC invalidates or endorses the 'legality' of a build. If they told us that 3.0 and 3.5 are compatible, why have you to argue and dissent? BECAUSE WE DM AND PLAY THE GAME. If I were your DM and ruled 3.0 and 3.5 incompatible, are you going to tell me I'm wrong? If D&D is inherently made up of house rules, then why are we talking about 'legality'? House rules are the epithome of non-legality.I cannot believe you are actually asking me this question. House-rules are, by definition, RULES, correct? So anything that follows those RULES are then by definition LEGAL, are they not? Where is the problem? House rules are NOT the epitome of illegality. They are the epitome of LEGALITY within that group of players. there is nothing legal, according to your statement - which is false, because RAW exist. They are not perfectly consistent, OK, and they can be exploited (which is the main purpose of this board), but they exist nonetheless.Do you not see the contradiction in your own statement? If something is not perfectly consistent, and you require DM judgment calls, then how can you say you will never need house rules? Look, this is my assertion: We all need judgment calls and house-rulings and pyramids of legality. Mine happens to dictate that this build falls somewhere past the line of legality (exploiting a 3.0 game mechanic that has been significantly altered in 3.5). You then refute my statement (I'm not quite sure how you can refute "ancalimohtar believes X," but continuing...) and say "you don't need house-rules. there is the RAW and it's there, even if it contradicts itself a lot." If it contradicts itself a lot, then it is not a consistent system of rules. Thus, for something to work, a DM has to step in. Thus, house rules MAKE SOMETHING LEGAL, whereas before, there is just arguing amongst the players as to which definition is legal. Old books are worthless when replaced by new updates. Otherwise they can be integrated in the 3.5 system without much effort. Saying that old books 'are almost worthless in terms of game rule information' is a blatant overstatement, Ancalimohtar.Uh, no. I'm sure a lot of people still take Sword and Fist out when they play. Most of the prestige classes and rules are irrelevant and outdated now, but a few are useful, like the new uses for skills section, or entries on how fighters interact with the rest of the party. How is S+F completely worthless? If this were right, if the legality of a build should be based upon the 'pyramid', 3/4 of the builds currently played throughout the world would be 'half-legal', or 'not legal' at all.According to me, yes. According to you, maybe not. I never claimed to be speaking for you. A legal build is something that doesn't contradict the RAW, and when RAW don't properly cover the circumstances, the answer is up to the DM's call.Right, so when the RAW contradicts itself or is muddy, you need the DM, right? You need judgment calls and house-rulings and pyramids of legality, right? I rest my case. |
| SigmaJargon03-02-05, 10:33 PM | ancalimohtar, in respect in the content of this thread, while you may personally believe the H.I.V.E. to be illegal, unless you have a substantive agrument based in the RAW, please do not draw arguments out. You are free to state your opinions, and we appreciate them. However, this is rapidly going down the path to flames, and I'd perfer not to get the topic locked, if I can help it. So, we acknowledge that you do not personally believe the build is legal. If you can find a argument from the RAW that has not been mentioned yet, please, feel free to share it with us. |
| DM Denubis03-02-05, 10:56 PM | My own attempt to be helpful. Staff Price = 375 * Caster Level * Spell Level Staff Price = 375 * 17 * 9 Staff Price = 107375 gold (This is without making it cost more than one charge to activate.) Staff Price (If the staff were to use two charges.) = 78687.5 gold. (Or 53687.5, depnding on if you divide or add first. order of operations tells me to divide first, then add.) Obviously, there's always the idea of making it have restrictions, which lowers the cost, or making it use even more charges. |
| ancalimohtar03-02-05, 11:22 PM | I don't know if you guys are assuming this or not, but as I read it, the hive must stay within a sphere of 5ft radius in order to keep its goodies: If at least 50 vermin or animals of the same species are arranged so that no one individual is more than 10 feet from another individual, the hivemind comes into effect. And then I said: Also, as I read it, it is crystal clear the Vermin Lord gains the feats, skill ranks, and spellcasting ability. I even supported this build in the single-creature-counting vs. swam-counting debate: I think it's more likely than not it was written with the intention of counting each specimen as one individual So I feel I had made it MORE than clear in my FIRST post that the only legality objection I ever had to this build was a personal dislike of using non-updated books. Stop bothering me about it. Here's something I hadn't seen until now, though:ancalimohtar: I really don't want to sound like an jerk here, but when all is said and done it doesn't matter whether you think a book is legal or not. Legality is first and foremost what WotC defines and second what the DM of a given game defines. To say otherwise is spurious.Sorry, but you're dead wrong. Legality is FIRST AND FOREMOST what the DM decides is legal, based on default RAW from WotC. Thus, it DOES matter whether I think a book is legal or not. Read my long response two posts above this one, at 6:59, where I proved (mathematically, might I add) that the existence of contradictions within the RAW necessitates the superiority of DM judgment calls. In other words, everybody has his own definition of legality, and I could have sworn I was allowed to post mine. Let me say one last thing that I feel really needs to be said, because people here really have a problem with it: Why is it any time someone criticizes, points out flaws in, or otherwise tries to weaken an overpowered build (regardless of whether he has or does not have good reason to do so), all the munchkins come out pumping their fists and screaming bloody murder? It's as if by voicing a personal opinion of build illegality, someone could undermine the munchkins' belief in the legality of the build, which they so desperately cling to. How many people fought for the Wish and the Word, grasping at straws, hoping against hope that an "uber build" that could decimate everything was legal? Or for the ridiculously stupid interpretation of Divine Metamagic (Persistent) as not requiring Persistent Spell? Even when people criticize incorrectly, there is always an overabundance of people defending the build for no reason than because they hate to see such a perfect gem of optimization fall apart to a single rule. I like seeing working broken builds as much as anyone else. I was thrilled when reading the threads for the iconic gamebreakers--the 3.0 True Necro, the Cheater, the HH, the King of Smack, and others--I followed along every thread. But if a negative statement was made, I never jumped on the bandwagon to slap it down. So grow up. |
| Squirrelloid03-03-05, 12:10 AM | When we refer to a legal system, we are talking about a shared set of rules for behavior. In this case, behavior of builds. Now, something can be illegal in a particular gaming group but legal according to the RAW and vice versa. On these forums, the only thing we have to go by is the RAW, we don't play in the same gaming groups, and so we don't have agreements with each other about how we would play the game. Thus, it behooves us to use legality in the global sense rather than the gaming group sense. You can say 'i would never personally allow it', which means that in any game i run, it would be illegal (as this build would be), but you can't say 'i believe its illegal' because people will (justifiably) interpret that as a global legality claim. Your personal beliefs about the rules only matter in games where you get input into what's legal. This is the biggest problem i have with people who think that only a 'dead monkey GM' would allow something (LJ community response to me linking this thread), sure, in a given game it would be illegal 99% of the time. I recognize that. But according to the RAW you can do it. And if you ever played a game that strictly followed the RAW (with DM discretion only when the rules contradict each other, and i'm not convinced they actually do, but haven't been looking specifically), you could play this build. |
| NineInchNall03-03-05, 12:45 AM | Amen, Squirrelloid! :clap: :teach:On these boards the word of RAW is law. It supersedes all else. Hence (:P) what I posted earlier holds: WotC legal is first order, top tier here. So when someone says, "this build is illegal," everyone here understands that (by default) in the RAW sense. The proper format would be, "I would rule this illegal in my game(s)." At your gaming table you do what you want, when you want. Here we hold ourselves to RAW so that we have a fixed standard upon which to base optimizations and discussions of legality. The standard may include several variables, such as what books are available, what (official) variant rules are to be used, but any modifications lead to a fixed result from which we can operate. The point of the CO board is to use an agreed upon set of rules to optimize character concepts for maximal efficiency; the fact that someone may house rule something illegal is irrelevant to the purpose of most posters here. Furthermore, if everyone who thought a build was abusive and too horribly overpowered for his game posted such in that build's thread, there would be nothing but flame wars all around. I've said my piece, and now I hope that we can get back to breaking this class even more. Wait; just one more thing. Grow up. Please refrain from using ad hominems. Okay, I've been thinking. Since there's precedent for swarms merging with one another ... Couldn't you just cast gate again and stand in front of the opening, constantly adding the new creatures to the H.I.V.E. as they pour through the gate? Also, nowhere does it say that a hivemind cannot grow to be larger than the initial 10' diameter sphere that I can see, just that there need to be that many creatures in that space to reach the critical mass of independent minds necessary to achieve sentience. I guess this guy could grow to be a real problem. Yup yup. Can you imagine what a hivemind that took up an acre of space would be like? We're talking smarter than overdeities of Divine Rank n here. You could ask it what the answer to the most important question is, and it would answer in under a second, "42, master." It'd probably even know the question, too. :plotting: :evillaugh :mage: :invasion: |
| ancalimohtar03-03-05, 05:10 AM | Thus, it behooves us to use legality in the global sense rather than the gaming group sense[...] But according to the RAW you can do it. And if you ever played a game that strictly followed the RAW (with DM discretion only when the rules contradict each other, and i'm not convinced they actually do, but haven't been looking specifically), you could play this build.Not if Jeremymc was the DM. He believes the RAW do not allow for this to happen. And I can easily see where he's coming from. My point, once again, is that because the RAW is not logically infallible, it cannot actually, logically, be the the exact standard to which everybody makes builds. In addition, because the RAW allows UA variants, Drg material, even 3.0 classes most people consider outdated (remember, Wizards still has to call it legal), which standard do you use? All of a sudden your "RAW" isn't so perfect anymore, is it? On these boards the word of RAW is law. It supersedes all else. Hence () what I posted earlier holds: WotC legal is first order, top tier here. So when someone says, "this build is illegal," everyone here understands that (by default) in the RAW sense.Again, none of you are understanding my point. I'm through typing it over and over. Now I'm just going to cut and paste: You say "you don't need house-rules. there is the RAW and it's there, even if it contradicts itself a lot." If it contradicts itself a lot, then it is not a consistent system of rules. Thus, for something to work, a DM has to step in. Thus, house rules MAKE SOMETHING LEGAL, whereas before, there is just arguing amongst the players as to which definition is legal. (For example, Jeremymc and the rest of you in this thread.) The proper format would be, "I would rule this illegal in my game(s)."My exact words were:"I don't consider hiveminds and this build in particular 3.5-legal ...which I think is pretty darn close. Please refrain from using ad hominems.Please refrain from fanning what could turn into a flame war. How about you take it in stride as a criticism of mine I feel is relevant to this thread? |
| ancalimohtar03-03-05, 05:15 AM | A concern pertaining to the original build that so far nobody has addressed: I don't know if you guys are assuming this or not, but as I read it, the hive must stay within a sphere of 5ft radius in order to keep its goodies: If at least 50 vermin or animals of the same species are arranged so that no one individual is more than 10 feet from another individual, the hivemind comes into effect.This depends on an interpretive reading of "comes into effect." Most people here seemed to have assumed it is the only time the vermin need to be close together, and you could argue it grammatically. But even that interpretation necessitates at least fitting all the creatures into the 5ft sphere to begin with, and any new creatures cannot join the hivemind without first doing a 5ft sphere "bonding" session with the rest of the hivemind, and if it can't fit in that sphere, it can never join, thus, can never add to the hivemind's INT and other powers. |
| PhaedrusXY03-03-05, 05:20 AM | which I think is pretty darn close.No, it is very different. You are starting with a false set of assumptions about how this board works with respect to the actual game of D&D. In the actual game of D&D, the DM has the final say, decides what is legal and what isn't, etc. The C.O. board is not the actual game of D&D. We don't play D&D here. At all. That is not the purpose of this board. because the RAW is not logically infallible, it cannot actually, logically, be the the exact standard to which everybody makes builds.Yes, it can. On the C.O. board, we make characters according to rules. What rules we use depend on a few things. Namely if it is a requested build or contest of some kind, we should try to go by the rules listed by the original poster of the thread. Barring that, we use the RAW. There is no other standard by which we could all possibly agree on, since gaming styles differ. Saying something is "not 3.5 legal" is saying the RAW forbid it. That is entirely different than saying "I would not allow this in a game I DMed." The rules are a concrete, black and white thing. They can be debated. Your personal feelings on a particular rule are not really suitable topics for debate here. We understand. I really doubt there is a single person that posts on this board that would allow this build as a PC in their game. But that has absolutely nothing to do with whether this build is legal per the RAW. And since this was just a hypothetical build, and the original author didn't restrict what is allowed, then that's all the criteria that is meaningful to judge it by. I don't care what houserules you play under. If you want to discuss your houserules, go post in the forum about houserules. |
| Expanded Psion03-03-05, 05:21 AM | Wow...just wow. The marvels of surfing the optimization boards never cease to amaze me :D (didn't this sound redundant? marvels that amaze... :D :D :D) Two points: Wouldn't swarmshifter template from Libris Mortis work well with this build? Or maybe Worm that Walks?(lol that would be funny "Please o please kill me so i can discorporate and become a better spellcaster :D ") And the second one is about the bacteria argument a while before: actually they are closer to plants than **** Sapiens to a horse (that is quite close if you consider the vast variety of lifeforms).That's why they are reffered to as Microflora. Or maybe they are dragons :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Oh and something else: "My name is Legion,for we are many..." |
| ancalimohtar03-03-05, 05:40 AM | Saying something is "not 3.5 legal" is saying the RAW forbid it. That is entirely different than saying "I would not allow this in a game I DMed."Wrong. I wouldn't allow this in a game I DM because my ruling of the RAW prohibits mixing 3.0 and 3.5, not because it's unbalanced.The rules are a concrete, black and white thing. They can be debated.I love irony. How can it be black and white and still be debated? This is exactly my point. The RAW are NOT black and white, and thus need to be debated, and thus are not infallible, and thus there is no absolute holy "RAW"--there only exist interpretations of it. Once again, I use the example of Jeremymc in this thread--he believes the RAW forbid this build. You can argue until you're blue in the face; this does not change that fact. Your personal feelings on a particular rule are not really suitable topics for debate here.That's what I've been saying. I gave my opinion, purely to give an opinion and provide feedback, and then everybody started jumping at me, arguing with me, using my personal feelings on a particular rule as a topic for debate. I'm glad you agree with me. We understand. I really doubt there is a single person that posts on this board that would allow this build as a PC in their game. But that has absolutely nothing to do with whether this build is legal per the RAW.Clearly you don't understand. This has nothing to do with game balance. (WHY DO PEOPLE ALWAYS ASSUME IT DOES?) This has to do with MY understanding of the RAW. Here, before anyone replies to anything else I've said, how about answering this question: If the RAW is so "black and white" and agreed-upon, why do there exist arguments over RAW that neither side has relinquished? Both sides claim theirs is the correct reading of the RAW, and thus both sides claim moral high ground. My answer: Because there is no such thing as an infallible RAW. There is an interpretation of the RAW for each person, or each group of players, but not for everybody. |
| Vecna03-03-05, 05:48 AM | Some questions: 1. How many HD the H.I.V.E. has? The highest (caster)? The sum of the various swarms? 2. What about saves, AC and so on? 3. Can the H.I.V.E. cast spells with Range: Personal? 4. About Gate: A controlled creature can be commanded to perform a service for you. Such services fall into two categories: immediate tasks and contractual service. Fighting for you in a single battle or taking any other actions that can be accomplished within 1 round per caster level counts as an immediate task; you need not make any agreement or pay any reward for the creature’s help. The creature departs at the end of the spell. The creature gated departs for his choice or must depart? If he must depart, the hive mind is quite short lived... |
| Tempest Stormwind03-03-05, 09:12 AM | Some questions: 1. How many HD the H.I.V.E. has? The highest (caster)? The sum of the various swarms? 2. What about saves, AC and so on? 3. Can the H.I.V.E. cast spells with Range: Personal? 4. About Gate: The creature gated departs for his choice or must depart? If he must depart, the hive mind is quite short lived... 1) Exactly the same as the various swarms. It only casts spells as an Xth level sorc. (Mind you, that's probably enough to superbuff itself) 2) See 1. 3) Possibly. I really don't know. By the way, JeremyMC's approach is off. It was shown earlier that his interpretation does not match up with the swarm rules. |
| Vecna03-03-05, 09:40 AM | 1) Exactly the same as the various swarms. It only casts spells as an Xth level sorc. (Mind you, that's probably enough to superbuff itself) 2) See 1. 3) Possibly. I really don't know. By the way, JeremyMC's approach is off. It was shown earlier that his interpretation does not match up with the swarm rules. Mmm, so my mistake was that the Hive Mind is a creature, while it's actually a gestalt. So the answer at my question about the Range: Personal should be yes, due to the fact that any individual in the Hive Mind can cast spells, and the Hive Mind itself isn't a swarm (immune to spells with a fixed number of targets). |
| Zemyla03-03-05, 11:24 AM | Question. When the hivemind forms, what sorcerer spells does it get as known spells? Does the Vermin Lord get to choose them or are they pretty much random? Because if he got to choose, he would have more versatility than a wizard. |
| SigmaJargon03-03-05, 05:21 PM | The assumption would be the hivemind would choose them as any sorcerer would as he levels up, and since the Vermin Lord controls the hivemind, that it is then his decision as to what spells it learns. As to the Gate question, look at the paragraph immediatly after the one you quote. It says:If you choose to exact a longer or more involved form of service from a called creature, you must offer some fair trade in return for that service. The service exacted must be reasonable with respect to the promised favor or rewardAgain, recall that once the hivemind is formed, the swarms are under your control. As they are virtually your slaves already, I don't think you need to offer much, but for sake of appearances you could offer them their lives (order them to commit suicide otherwise) or perhap their eventual freedom from your iron grip when you choose to disband them. As to the personal range spells, I'd say the H.I.V.E. can cast them, but it only affects the particular creature/swarm that casts it. For example, say you bind swarms A, B, C, D, and yourself into a hivemind. Swarm B could cast a spell with the range of personal, which would then affect swarm B and only swarm B. The rest of the hivemind could cast the personal range spells individualy. |
| Tempest Stormwind03-03-05, 05:31 PM | Again, recall that once the hivemind is formed, the swarms are under your control. As they are virtually your slaves already, I don't think you need to offer much, but for sake of appearances you could offer them their lives (order them to commit suicide otherwise) or perhap their eventual freedom from your iron grip when you choose to disband them. As to the personal range spells, I'd say the H.I.V.E. can cast them, but it only affects the particular creature/swarm that casts it. For example, say you bind swarms A, B, C, D, and yourself into a hivemind. Swarm B could cast a spell with the range of personal, which would then affect swarm B and only swarm B. The rest of the hivemind could cast the personal range spells individualy. 1) Of course, your extended service is simply "hold still for a few minutes." You could offer them a dead cow to feast on or something, and that would be in line for their "favor." The fact that you've later dominated them has nothing to do with the Gate effect. 2) I'd agree with you all the way on personal spells -- except that they don't affect Swarms, which by nature are immune to targeted spells. If you'll pardon the outdated Magic: The Gathering analogy, it's like attacking with a band and assigning all the damage from the red blocker to a creature with Protection from Red. Yes, you can target them -- but there'll be no effect whatsoever. However, I'm not certain if YOU gain the spellcasting of the hive. I'd say you don't, for the sake of simplicity, but if I'm wrong... hoo boy. |
| Squirrelloid03-03-05, 05:36 PM | Wrong. I wouldn't allow this in a game I DM because my ruling of the RAW prohibits mixing 3.0 and 3.5, not because it's unbalanced.I love irony. How can it be black and white and still be debated? This is exactly my point. The RAW are NOT black and white, and thus need to be debated, and thus are not infallible, and thus there is no absolute holy "RAW"--there only exist interpretations of it. Once again, I use the example of Jeremymc in this thread--he believes the RAW forbid this build. You can argue until you're blue in the face; this does not change that fact. That's what I've been saying. I gave my opinion, purely to give an opinion and provide feedback, and then everybody started jumping at me, arguing with me, using my personal feelings on a particular rule as a topic for debate. I'm glad you agree with me. Clearly you don't understand. This has nothing to do with game balance. (WHY DO PEOPLE ALWAYS ASSUME IT DOES?) This has to do with MY understanding of the RAW. Here, before anyone replies to anything else I've said, how about answering this question: If the RAW is so "black and white" and agreed-upon, why do there exist arguments over RAW that neither side has relinquished? Both sides claim theirs is the correct reading of the RAW, and thus both sides claim moral high ground. My answer: Because there is no such thing as an infallible RAW. There is an interpretation of the RAW for each person, or each group of players, but not for everybody. Ok, let me make this really simple: (1) When discussing on this board, the RAW is the only and final arbiter of what is legal or not. (2) The RAW may contradict itself. Guess what, the law of a given country often contradicts itself. So what do you do when that happens? You quote text to support your position. You establish precedent for that kind of mechanic. You do a variety of things that refer specifically to the RAW itself as the source for wisdom in interpreting the RAW. But if you have no text based interpretation of legality, you have no argument. (The optimal way to go about doing this is to highlight areas where the RAW is contradictory or unclear, and lay out the various possible interpretations with some discussion on what seems reasonable and what seems to be best supported or most consistently supported in the RAW). (3) What is allowed by the RAW may change depending on what subset of the RAW we are considering. For instance, if we forbid 3.0 material which has no 3.5 equivalent, then you can say that a given build isn't legal. Thats a source constraint. **THE INITIAL POSTER DECIDES WHAT THE SOURCE CONSTRAINTS ARE**. Clearly, as this build depends on BoVD, then we are allowing at least some 3.0 sources, so saying you can't use 3.0 is basically saying you don't actually want to discuss this build in a context that makes sense. Either discuss the build in the context the poster described, or DONT POST. I mean, thats like telling someone a particular build isn't legal because it uses FR/Eberron/whatever specific PrCs, when they wanted an optimal build for FR/Eberron/etc.... (4) No one has addressed the issue that WotC has to consider BoVD 3.5 legal. They specifically reference it in at least 2 3.5 publications in such a way that you have to go back and refer to it. (Its on mentions of Vile Damage, i know Libris Mortis directs you specifically to BoVD, and i think one of the Completes (probably CA) does as well.) Since they chose to reference BoVD rather than reprint the relevant rules, they must consider BoVD legal material. Further, BoVD was published just as 3.5 was about to come out, so they knew about all the important 3.5 changes over 3.0. That its a 3.0 book is only a technicality of time of release. |
| Jeremymc03-03-05, 06:52 PM | By the way, JeremyMC's approach is off. It was shown earlier that his interpretation does not match up with the swarm rules. No. Actually, it hasn't. You're making an elementary debating mistake: which is to confuse "an argument" with "an argument that is right". Don't worry. It's an easy mistake to make. I do it all the time! I'll admit that I WAS thinking about this problem last night. If you do allow the Vermin lord to incorporate swarms into his hivemind, it breaks the game. But if you do not, it really is impossible to summon anywhere close to 500 rats, even if you burn all of your spells for an entire day. There IS a solution in 3.5, but you'll have to read further to find it. I'll post all the relevant texts, with my own emphasis, and then you'll see what I'm talking about. Between these two entries, some sense might be made: HIVEMIND - pg. 34 BOVD (a 3.0 publication). "If at least 50 vermin or animals of the same species are arranged so that no one individual is more than 10 feet from another individual, the hivemind may come into effect... [skip a bit] Thus a swarm of 500 rats would have a hivemind Intelligence of 17." So it looks like the hivemind may only be constituted as a single swarm. Which is fair. Because that's what it is. A single swarm with intelligence. Now let's look at swarms. SWARM - entry in the Monster Manual 3.5 pg. 237 "While a single cloud of locusts might actually be hundreds of feet across, for game purposes a swarm is defined as a single creature with a space of 10 feet - gigantic hordes of bats or locusts are actually composed of dozens of swarms in close proximity... A swarm of Tiny creatures consists of 300 nonflying creatures or 1000 flying creatures. A swarm of Diminutive creatures consists of 1500 nonflying creatures or 5000 flying creatures. A swarm of Fine creatures consists of 10000 creatures, whether they are flying or not.... Large swarms are represented by multiples of single swarms." Now, when you combine these two rules you find that a Hivemind cannot be constituted as more than a single swarm. The swarm has an upper limit to its animal number, and any more animals than that constitute a NEW swarm. So 20 000 insects would actually constitute 2 swarms of 10 000 creatures, one of which would be the hivemind, and the other would just be a regular swarm. Now, I understand that the Hivemind rules contradict the maximum number of animals allowed in a "rat swarm" (it says 500 to 1000, when rats are clearly limited to a single swarm of 300 individual creatures). But as we all know, in a conflict in rules, we refer to the most core-material we can find. And the MM 3.5 is far more core than the BOVD 3.0. So we've arrived at a fair compromise where a Vermin Lord can indeed create a hivemind from summoned swarms, but the rules limit him to creating a hivemind out of only a single swarm of creatures. |
| The Thing in the Night03-03-05, 07:06 PM | A swarm has a cap on maximum membership, but a hivemind does not. Therefore, it could consist of multiple swarms, as long as they all occupy a 10' cube at the time the hivemind is created. |
| Ashlan03-03-05, 07:54 PM | A swarm of Fine creatures consists of 10000 creatures, whether they are flying or not... So we've arrived at a fair compromise where a Vermin Lord can indeed create a hivemind from summoned swarms, but the rules limit him to creating a hivemind out of only a single swarm of creatures. So, this single swarm of 10000 flying creatures, in a single hivemind, with the Verminlord, would you say that this is completely legal as per RAW Jeremymc? And would you allow it in a game you ran? Ash |
| Squirrelloid03-03-05, 09:05 PM | So, this single swarm of 10000 flying creatures, in a single hivemind, with the Verminlord, would you say that this is completely legal as per RAW Jeremymc? And would you allow it in a game you ran? Ash I'll play in that game =) (...yet I'd probably end up playing something not especially broken or even min/maxed that had lots of personality...) |
| Abulafia03-03-05, 09:25 PM | Hey Jeremymc -- give it up already, man. Everybody understands your position. Nobody agrees with it. Stop posting it. There's a reason why courtrooms have judges -- to tell the attorneys when to stop talking. |
| SigmaJargon03-03-05, 10:08 PM | No, I think he's fine. I think he's wrong - the swarm that he cites is only an example, if I recall correctly. It is used to illustrate how much int/cha a hivemind would gain with 500 individuals present to jumpstart dull minds, and nothing more. An example can provide a precedent if it IS something, but it cannot prove that a build cannot do something by virtue of it not being in the example. For instance, the example Sacred Exorcist from CD is a female human cleric 7 / sacred exorcist 3. Does this mean that a Sacred Exorcist always must be a human female cleric 7 in order to become a Sacred Exorist? No, this is merely one possibility, much like the example swarm. A Sacred Exorcist does not have to be female, and a hivemind need not be a single swarm - the qualifying rules are spelled out elsewhere. In the case of the hivemind, any animals/vermin that can fit within a 10ft diameter sphere qualify.. Regardless, Jeremymc is entitled to his opinion. In fact, it is good that he brings up potential failings. A build is best when it has been made bulletproof; when the rules have been dissected and examined thoroughly to confirm legality. Thank you, Jeremymc, for your opinion. Every little bit helps. :) |
| NineInchNall03-03-05, 10:12 PM | I'll post my last bit on this topic, and then I will say, "Meh." Wrong. I wouldn't allow this in a game I DM because my ruling of the RAW prohibits mixing 3.0 and 3.5, not because it's unbalanced.I love irony. How can it be black and white and still be debated? This is exactly my point. The RAW are NOT black and white, and thus need to be debated, and thus are not infallible, and thus there is no absolute holy "RAW"--there only exist interpretations of it. <snip> Clearly you don't understand. This has nothing to do with game balance. (WHY DO PEOPLE ALWAYS ASSUME IT DOES?) This has to do with MY understanding of the RAW. Here, before anyone replies to anything else I've said, how about answering this question: If the RAW is so "black and white" and agreed-upon, why do there exist arguments over RAW that neither side has relinquished? Both sides claim theirs is the correct reading of the RAW, and thus both sides claim moral high ground. My answer: Because there is no such thing as an infallible RAW. There is an interpretation of the RAW for each person, or each group of players, but not for everybody. Black & White, huh? Why don't we see what that means? In this case I am using it in the sense that there is a definite answer (or set of answers) to a given question. I am not using it in the sense that everyone immediately sees and perfectly comprehends that answer. Since you're so fond of mathematical answers to problems, here's a real world example from Logic/Mathematics. For centuries mathematicians and logicians pondered and debated the relationship between consistency and completeness as the terms are applied to systems. The most difficult question pertaining to this topic was whether a system could be simultaneously both consistent and complete. This is a rather important issue, as it has bearing on the strength of inductive proofs used within that system. There is only one true answer to the question, but for many years no one knew which that was, despite having all the source material before them. It took a German by the name of Godel [Dern it, where's the umlaut when I need it?] to finally prove how the two qualities interacted. He proved that, "System A is Complete NAND System A is Consistent." That is to say, a system can either, neither, but not both at the same time. Then everyone knew what was up. They knew what the answer was, and it was not a question of interpretation, etc. I guess what I'm saying is that "Black & White" doesn't imply "clear." Finally, that the standard is flawed, self-contradictory, or filled with pink bunnies made of molasses and melted copies of Devil May Cry 2 is irrelevant to whether that standard is a standard. It may (and probably does) make it a bad, craptastic standard, but it is a standard nonetheless. And now, as promised: meh. :bored: |
| NineInchNall03-03-05, 10:16 PM | <snip> Regardless, Jeremymc is entitled to his opinion. In fact, it is good that he brings up potential failings. A build is best when it has been made bulletproof; when the rules have been dissected and examined thoroughly to confirm legality. Thank you, Jeremymc, for your opinion. Every little bit helps. :) :tiphat: Dern straight! We tend to get bent out of shape a bit too much on bulletin boards, eh? |
| Jeremymc03-03-05, 10:44 PM | Hey Jeremymc -- give it up already, man. Everybody understands your position. Nobody agrees with it. Stop posting it. There's a reason why courtrooms have judges -- to tell the attorneys when to stop talking. I'm sorry. Who are you again? What's your name? How come nobody has heard of you? I'm SURE that you've been here this whole time, trying hard to find a solution to this problem, trying hard to give other readers something valuable to read... But why can't I remember your name.... I'm a jerk, but I'm a jerk who delivers with some effort. What do you do? Well, it's pretty obvious what you do. Nothing. And if you actually READ my posts, you'd know that I changed my position SIGNIFICANTLY. But then again. That's assuming a lot. All of that time you spent proposing solutions to this problem probably sapped your strength, and left you exhausted and unable to read OTHER people's solutions. I'm still unsure about this whole 10 000 creature swarm thing. The problem is that if I go with my original thinking, that each individual creature has to be summoned and THEN turned into a swarm, then it makes it almost impossible for a Vermin Lord to summon any sort of force of creatures without burning a LOT of spells. And it's totally against the game to hobble a character class like that. But a 10 000 creature hivemind is still HUGELY powerful, and it also seems wierd that the game would allow SUCH an advantage. I'd be happy if there were some happy medium, but there really isn't. It's either 10 000, or nothing. Though on the other hand, it IS the Vermin Lord's 10th level ability, and it is relatively on par with some other high-level mage abilities (i.e. Shapechange into a Pit Fiend).... And besides which, the swarm only lasts as long as the Summon Swarm spell lasts, and then the summoned animals disperse in... hmmm.. "Concentration + 2 rounds". So... doesn't that mean that the Vermin Lord can't do anything but concentrate on his swarm while he's in the Hivemind??? What??? The more I try to puzzle through this, the less sense it makes. The Vermin Lord's cone of vermin acts as a summon swarm spell, which still requires concentration to maintain the swarm. Maybe the Vermin Lord doesn't have to direct the Hivemind himself? But then again, it says that he "controls" the hivemind??? How can he "control" it for more than 2 rounds? Geez, Wizards.... Why you gotta be so hard on me, baby? Why you gotta make me so mad? I don't mean to get mad at you like that baby... But when you edit yo' books so badly, I gets mad... |
| SigmaJargon03-03-05, 10:55 PM | Yeah. I personally wouldn't use the Summon Swarm class ability of the Vermin Lord. It really doesn't work all that well. Gate is a much better solution, as are spells like Summon Nature's Ally (Using Child of Winter feat from ECS to add Locust swarms to the list of summonable creatures). Gate is especially great, because you can keep the creatures for pretty much as long as you feel like it, the downside being that you have to use a staff to get 'em in the first place 'cause Vermin Lord loses 4 caster levels. Extended Summon Nature's Ally seems to be a pretty good solution, in my opinion. Simply take druid instead of cleric to get into the class, and you're set to go. |
| NineInchNall03-03-05, 11:06 PM | Ain't there a feat to allow concentration as a move action? That'd free up a lot for, I don't know, casting a fireball through the hive that's been twinned 100 times. *shudder* 1000d6. :uh-huh: And maximized. 6000. :nonono: |
| Ashlan03-03-05, 11:06 PM | I'd be happy if there were some happy medium, but there really isn't. It's either 10 000, or nothing. Well, there is a happy medium. 10,000 creatures is the limit of a swarm of Fine size. Going thru the MM (3.5), there are no swarms composed of Fine creatures (that I can find). In the MM3 (3.5), there is only Cinderswarm (elemental), Shimmerling Swarm (fey) and Shredstorm (construct). The rules for the hivemind in BoVD specifically state its for vermin and animals (but it says nothing about not using the swarm subtype). This means that without including other books (that I don't have to reference), you are actually limited to diminuative size, which means 5000 creatures, though that is still a lot. Ash |
| Jeremymc03-03-05, 11:47 PM | No, that's not what I mean. What I mean to say is that there's no medium between summoning a single creature called a "swarm" composed of 10 000 creatures, or 5000 creatures, and summoning hundreds of individual creatures. Nothing that's legal, anyhow. The game is still written so that a swarm counts as a single creature. That's still the RAW. The only reason I can't accept that is that it makes the Vermin Lord's 10th level ability almost useless. Which is probably NOT what the game designers had in mind. Frankly, they probably DID intend for the Hivemind to work with "Summon Swarm"... Maybe the Summon Swarm spell used to have a set duration in 3.0? I don't recall. But the problem is there's no way to HAVE a bunch of tiny, individual creatures. Summon monster caps out at 1d4+1 of a lower-level creature. Even if you use Summon Monster IX to summon 1HD rats, you can still only summon a couple of them. Though it's true... All of the vermin swarms in the MM 3.5 ARE only diminutive. I hadn't noticed that. So you're limited to a total of 5000 creatures in your Hivemind. Unless you create your own swarm of mosquitos, or something. Ugh.. man... mosquitos. Creepy little things. When you're out in the bush at night, they just make a LAYER on the outside of your tent, and all you can hear is "GGGGGNNNNNNNGGGGGGGNNGNGNNGGGNGNGNG!!!". It makes me feel better knowing that bats are eating billions of them every night all over North America. Guuhhh... |
| Jeremymc03-03-05, 11:48 PM | Ain't there a feat to allow concentration as a move action? That'd free up a lot for, I don't know, casting a fireball through the hive that's been twinned 100 times. *shudder* 1000d6. :uh-huh: And maximized. 6000. :nonono: How are you twinning a spell more than once? That's impossible. |
| Antendren03-03-05, 11:50 PM | And now to veer wildly off topic.For centuries mathematicians and logicians pondered and debated the relationship between consistency and completeness as the terms are applied to systems. The most difficult question pertaining to this topic was whether a system could be simultaneously both consistent and complete. This is a rather important issue, as it has bearing on the strength of inductive proofs used within that system. There is only one true answer to the question, but for many years no one knew which that was, despite having all the source material before them. It took a German by the name of Godel [Dern it, where's the umlaut when I need it?] to finally prove how the two qualities interacted. He proved that, "System A is Complete NAND System A is Consistent." That is to say, a system can either, neither, but not both at the same time.Not quite. There are plenty of theories which are both consistent and complete - the theory of any model, for example (in fact, Godel's Completeness Theorem says that these are the only such theories). Godel's Incompleteness Theorem says that any consistent axiomatizable theory is incomplete. It even goes one step further and gives you something the theory can't prove: its own consistency. |
| Jeremymc03-03-05, 11:56 PM | And now to veer wildly off topic.Not quite. There are plenty of theories which are both consistent and complete - the theory of any model, for example (in fact, Godel's Completeness Theorem says that these are the only such theories). Godel's Incompleteness Theorem says that any consistent axiomatizable theory is incomplete. It even goes one step further and gives you something the theory can't prove: its own consistency. I'm only a Literature student, but doesn't Godel's theorem only apply to systems of logic? I didn't think it applied to systems of pure mathematics. That's why he was under the assumption that mathematics was a definite and existent object, superior to logic. |
| Jeremymc03-03-05, 11:57 PM | A swarm has a cap on maximum membership, but a hivemind does not. Therefore, it could consist of multiple swarms, as long as they all occupy a 10' cube at the time the hivemind is created. Yes, but as I posted, the texts suggests that the Hivemind IS a swarm. The one IS the other. And swarms have a cap on their size. |
| Antendren03-04-05, 12:14 AM | I'm only a Literature student, but doesn't Godel's theorem only apply to systems of logic? I didn't think it applied to systems of pure mathematics. That's why he was under the assumption that mathematics was a definite and existent object, superior to logic.Godel's theorem describes sets of logical sentences. I don't really understand the distinction you're making between mathematics and systems of logic. All the various branches of mathematics are logical systems. We have a specific set of axioms that we work from (ZFC), and that are taken to be "real" (whatever that means), but Godel's theorem applies perfectly well to that set. |
| SigmaJargon03-04-05, 12:28 AM | Well, there is a happy medium. 10,000 creatures is the limit of a swarm of Fine size. Going thru the MM (3.5), there are no swarms composed of Fine creatures (that I can find). In the MM3 (3.5), there is only Cinderswarm (elemental), Shimmerling Swarm (fey) and Shredstorm (construct). The rules for the hivemind in BoVD specifically state its for vermin and animals (but it says nothing about not using the swarm subtype). This means that without including other books (that I don't have to reference), you are actually limited to diminuative size, which means 5000 creatures, though that is still a lot. Ash Try the Fiend Folio. Wasp swarm is a swarm of fine creatures with 4 HD. There are four or five other swarms of fine vermin in there, so you have some choice. Plague ants, rapture locusts, scarab bettles, etc. and I still see no problem with including more than one swarm. So the example hivemind only has one swarm in it - as i stated earlier, what is lacking from an example does not mean it cannot be included in another instance of whatever is being, uh, example'd. The example hivemind is a swarm, but not all hiveminds need be a swarm. It may be a pack of 50 rats, or a hive of bees, or multiple swarms, assuming they fit all the reqs to form a hivemind, which they do. They are of animal or vermin type and all fit within a 10ft diameter circle. Oh, and NineInchNall, nice idea, but you only apply any given metamagic feat to a spell once now. Besides, I'm afraid that the swarms don't fufill the reqs to gain Improved Spell Capacity, or whatever spell it was that lets you get higher than 9th level spells, so you can't cast insane metamgaick'd stuff out of it anyways. |
| NineInchNall03-04-05, 02:00 AM | As far as Godel's stuff goes, I was trying to keep it simple. :blink: I mean, I could have gone into the whole proof generating Turing machine thing, too, but ... I didn't want this to devolve into a discussion of logic. :twitch: My groups and I are just recently switching more over to 3.5, so these subtle changes creep up on me now and again. No more multiple empowerings? I feel so deflated somehow. :raincloud And why don't swarms qualify? They have enough HD, they cast as umpity-ump level sorcerers ... What am I missing here? By the RAW, shouldn't the HIVE himself be able to take the feats (once he hits level 21, of course)? He does meet the prereq, albeit in a very odd way. |
| SigmaJargon03-04-05, 02:21 AM | As far as Godel's stuff goes, I was trying to keep it simple. :blink: I mean, I could have gone into the whole proof generating Turing machine thing, too, but ... I didn't want this to devolve into a discussion of logic. :twitch: My groups and I are just recently switching more over to 3.5, so these subtle changes creep up on me now and again. No more multiple empowerings? I feel so deflated somehow. :raincloud And why don't swarms qualify? They have enough HD, they cast as umpity-ump level sorcerers ... What am I missing here? By the RAW, shouldn't the HIVE himself be able to take the feats (once he hits level 21, of course)? He does meet the prereq, albeit in a very odd way.Because, if I remember the text right, it says that the hivemind casts spells as an X level sorcerer, NOT that it becomes an X level sorcerer. So it gains no HD, and thus never ends up qualifying for epic feats. I don't think you can advance swarms either, so unless you know of a swarm of diminuitive or fine creatures with 21 HD or more pre-epic, we don't have much basis for qualifying for epic feats. |
| NineInchNall03-04-05, 02:32 AM | Whatever happened to the ability of swarms to merge, thereby increasing HD? Remember what your original minimum was: 18 swarms, all occupying the same square. Even if each individual swarm only had 2 HD, then there would be 36 HD worth of entities in that square. 36 HD sounds pretty good to me, as far as qualifying for epic feats is concerned. |
| pentagonal_penguin03-04-05, 04:42 AM | For taking epic feats, do you have to have 21+ HD or 21+ ECL? If ECL, then given your hive mind has an effective sorcerer casting level in the thousands, surely this pushes your LA through the stratosphere, resulting in a 21+ LA? |
| Vecna03-04-05, 04:44 AM | Whatever happened to the ability of swarms to merge, thereby increasing HD? Remember what your original minimum was: 18 swarms, all occupying the same square. Even if each individual swarm only had 2 HD, then there would be 36 HD worth of entities in that square. 36 HD sounds pretty good to me, as far as qualifying for epic feats is concerned. Yes, but nowhere is written (I believe) that you can merge two swarms to have a single swarm with the sum of HD. From the SRD Larger swarms are represented by multiples of single swarms. The area occupied by a large swarm is completely shapeable, though the swarm usually remains in contiguous squares. |
| Shebnar03-04-05, 07:12 AM | For taking epic feats, do you have to have 21+ HD or 21+ ECL? If ECL, then given your hive mind has an effective sorcerer casting level in the thousands, surely this pushes your LA through the stratosphere, resulting in a 21+ LA? Taken from the 3.5 Main F.A.Q.: When is a monster character considered epic level? Do you “go epic” when your total class levels equal 20 or when your total Hit Dice equal 20? Is a monster character eligible for epic-level feats (such as Epic Toughness) when its character level is 21+ or when its ECL is 21+? A monster becomes an epic-level character when its character level hits 21, just like any other character. A monster’s character level is equal to its racial Hit Dice + class levels. (See the second sidebar on page 25 of the Epic Level Handbook.) A creature’s ECL has no effect on when it becomes an epic character, although once it becomes an epic character, its ECL continues to affect how much experience it earns and when it can add a new level. Anyway, the DMG states that Epic saves and Epic BaB are calculated using ECL(read the DGM page 209). ECL is LA+Racial HD and Class levels. Since the core book says the completely opposite thing (and there is no Errata about it) the FAQ is wrong. Besides, the ELH also states that a creature is considered "epic" for purposes of epic feat access, etc. when its ECL hits 21. See the "Monsters as Epic Characters" side bar on page 25 of the Epic Level Handbook: "Regardless of its ECL, a monster with class levels uses the base attack bonus and base save bonus progressions of its class (rather than the progression shown on Table 1-1) until it has 20 character levels" "In any other place in this book where "character level" is mentioned, you can use effective character level instead. For example, a creature with a elvel adjustment of +5 who is also a 13th level Fighter/3rd level Blackguard has an ECL of 21 and is elidgible to select an epic feat provided he can meet the prerequisites" (emphasis mine) So go for 21 ECL (which is the most logical option, IMHO). Anyway, remember that is the hivemind (i.e. the 'swarm') who is casting spells, not the actual character. You get no +X LA for gating in swarms, and swarms don't merge together in bigger swarms. I know this may appear unlogical (and it is indeed), but there are no RAW about 'swarms merging', so if you state that more swarms can merge together and stack their HD, you are going for the most logical assumption, but you are also houseruling the RAW. So there is no 21HD big swarm => no epic levels => no epic feats/spells etc. Besides, the hivemind is based upon the number of creeps which forms it, not upon the HD of the swarm/s. So it cannot logically attain epic levels because it cannot get to 21 HD. It will have a stellar caster level, but that has nothing to do with epic levels. Isn't it odd, huh? ;) And there is no hivemind LA: hivemind it is a class ability which doesn't bestow any Level Adjustement to the Verminlord nor to the summoned swarms. It would have been too cheesy reaching epic levels, after all :) :D |
| NineInchNall03-04-05, 08:59 AM | Seriously, though, if a larger swarm is represented by multiple swarms, and multiple swarms = multiple hit dice ... Larger swarms are represented by multiples of single swarms. The area occupied by a large swarm is completely shapeable, though the swarm usually remains in contiguous squares. So when you have two swarms that are in the same square, acting as one entity, you represent them as one swarm. This should entail using increased _something_ even without the BoVD hivemind rules, otherwise that double swarm is killed by the same number of sword swipes as the smaller one, which makes no sense whatsoever. Multiples of single swarms seems pretty clear to me: multiple HD, baby! I also could have sworn that there was a swarm that merged ... Cranium rats, or something? |
| Jeremymc03-04-05, 09:53 AM | Seriously, though, if a larger swarm is represented by multiple swarms, and multiple swarms = multiple hit dice ... So when you have two swarms that are in the same square, acting as one entity, you represent them as one swarm. This should entail using increased _something_ even without the BoVD hivemind rules, otherwise that double swarm is killed by the same number of sword swipes as the smaller one, which makes no sense whatsoever. Multiples of single swarms seems pretty clear to me: multiple HD, baby! No no, that violates the rules about swarms. Go to the 3.5 MM, and READ THE ENTRY ABOUT SWARMS. It will say clearly that there are only SO many creatures that can fit in the 10ft space, and that ONLY THESE creatures are part of a swarm. It gives you the maximum size of a swarm, and tells you that anything bigger than that is represented by multiple swarms. It even says that swarms thousands of feet long are simply big groups of smaller swarms... And as for Godel stuff. Meh. I only read him in passing in a book about Wittgenstein, so I haven't made a detailed study. But the jist of what was said about him was that Wittgenstein and the other Vienna thinkers believed that mathematics was simply an expansive set of human-derived logical principles ("axioms"), an extension of the human ability to form logical propositions and solve them. But Godel believed mathematics to be every bit as real and independent of the human faculties as the real world itself. He desired that people realize that mathematics and logic are NOT the same, and that mathematics emerges from a different intuition than logic does. His solution was to divorce the idea of mathematics from the idea of logic by showing that a mathematical system cannot simply be reduced to logical principles. Thus the incompleteness theorem. |
| Vecna03-04-05, 10:15 AM | No no, that violates the rules about swarms. Go to the 3.5 MM, and READ THE ENTRY ABOUT SWARMS. It will say clearly that there are only SO many creatures that can fit in the 10ft space, and that ONLY THESE creatures are part of a swarm. It gives you the maximum size of a swarm, and tells you that anything bigger than that is represented by multiple swarms. It even says that swarms thousands of feet long are simply big groups of smaller swarms... I almost agree, but obviously there must be enough space left to engulf a victim... |
| NineInchNall03-04-05, 10:52 AM | Meh, I'm reading thorugh Godel's proof as a part of an analytical philosophy class (philosophy of mathematics) right now. I only brought it up 'cause it seemed a good way to make my point. :blush: Swarms: As far as I can tell from reading the entry on the swarm subtype, there is explicit hard limit on the number of creatures that can occupy a given 10' square. Let's see, it gives the number of creatures in a swarm of each type, then it says that "[swarms] of nonflying creatures include many more creatures than could normally fit in a 10-foot square based on their normal space, because creatures in a swarm are packed tightly together and generally crawl over each other and their prey when moving or attacking. Larger swarms are represented by multiples of single swarms. The area occupied by a large swarm is completely shapeable, though the swarm usually remains in contiguous squares. " However, I now look in the back of my MMIII and ... "Larger swarms are represented by multiples of single swarms. (A swarm of 15,000 centipedes is ten centipede swarms, each swarm occupying a 10-foot square.) The area occupied by a large swarm is completely shapeable, though the swarm usually remains in contiguous squares." Hmmm... Right before that it says, "[A swarm] can occupy the same space as a creature of any size, since it crawls all over its prey." Let's see what we have here. We know that we represent large swarms by multiple swarms, each occupying a different 10' square that is adjacent to some other square occupied by a member of the swarm. For example, if we made a double swarm of 6 HD swarms, say cranium rats, they'd then constitute a 12 HD swarm. If we merged two of those swarms we'd have a 24 HD swarm. Right? In fact, this is exactly what happens in the Fiend Folio's Cranium Rat Swarm. Yay! We have a precedent for the creation of larger swarms! And it's arithmetic! Yowza! The interesting thing here is that they diverge from the normal number of creatures in a swarm ... In fact, the 24HD one has around 300 rats in it. Hmm. Since that swarm has a higher Intelligence than the example in the BoVD of 500 rats, it must be due to the fact that cranium rats ROCK. :rimshot: |
| Vecna03-04-05, 11:02 AM | Let's see what we have here. We know that we represent large swarms by multiple swarms, each occupying a different 10' square that is adjacent to some other square occupied by a member of the swarm. For example, if we made a double swarm of 6 HD swarms, say cranium rats, they'd then constitute a 12 HD swarm. If we merged two of those swarms we'd have a 24 HD swarm. Right? In fact, this is exactly what happens in the Fiend Folio's Cranium Rat Swarm. Yay! We have a precedent for the creation of larger swarms! And it's arithmetic! Yowza! Actually, Merge Swarms (Ex) is an ability exclusive of the Cranium Rat Swarm. Abyssal Ant, Plague Ant, Locust Bloodfiend/Rapture and all the others Swarms in FF don't have it, so it's hardly a precedent. Moreover, Swarms in FF are smaller than "ordinary" Swarms (Face 5 instead than 10)... |
| NineInchNall03-04-05, 12:59 PM | Well, how else would you represent a larger swarm? Yes, I realize that the "merge swarms" thing is a Cranium Rat Swarm special ability, but I was looking at it not for the merging, but for the relevance to the creation of larger swarms that are, as jeremymc quoted, represented by multiple normal swarms. Ignoring the merging capability for the moment, we have an example of how to treat a swarm that is composed of multiple swarms. I think. :twitch: |
| Ashlan03-04-05, 01:33 PM | Yes, I realize that the "merge swarms" thing is a Cranium Rat Swarm special ability, but I was looking at it not for the merging, but for the relevance to the creation of larger swarms that are, as jeremymc quoted, represented by multiple normal swarms. Ignoring the merging capability for the moment, we have an example of how to treat a swarm that is composed of multiple swarms. How is 'the creation of larger swarms that are, as Jeremymc quoted. represented by multiple normal swarms' not the Merge Swarm (EX) ability? Seems like that is exactly what it would be, but I don't have the Fiend Folio to check. For all the other swarms, I read it as multiple swarms that stay in connecting squares to cover a large area. If you destroy one of those swarms the rest will move to tighten up the group but they are still individual swarms with their HP/HD calculated seperately. Secondly, there is nothing listed under the hivemind stating that these creatures all need to be part of the same swarm anyway. They just have to be 'atleast 50 vermin or animals of the same species arranged so that no one individual is more then 10 feet from another individual'. Ash |
| Shebnar03-04-05, 03:04 PM | No no, that violates the rules about swarms. Go to the 3.5 MM, and READ THE ENTRY ABOUT SWARMS. It will say clearly that there are only SO many creatures that can fit in the 10ft space, and that ONLY THESE creatures are part of a swarm. It gives you the maximum size of a swarm, and tells you that anything bigger than that is represented by multiple swarms. It even says that swarms thousands of feet long are simply big groups of smaller swarms... Yes, you are totally right. Multiple swarms don't mean multiple HD. There isn't anything written in the RAW about merging mechanics for swarms, such as 'take two swarms, add their HD together, increase the swarm by one size etc.'. Nothing, except for the Merge Swarms ability of the Cranium Rats (which is crap, because it can't generate anything bigger than 'greater packs', Medium-sized swarms made up by 300 rats. A single locust swarm is Medium-sized and is made up by 10,000 locusts... :rolleyes: ). So adding the swarms' HD together is houseruling, although it's a logical assumption. Edited: uhm, I was checking for the HD of a Cranium Rat Greater Swarm: 24 HD!!!! :shocked: This Swarm is Epic. Anyway, 300 rats are too few. Besides, there are too many issues with them: the hivemind ability, as presented in the BoVD, works only with animals and vermin. Cranium Rats are Magical Beasts. They indeed have their 'Hive Mind' ability, but it is not expressely written that it is the same hivemind reported in the BoVD. And what happens when a Verminlord links his own mind with a pack of creatures which already have a hivemind on their own? :confused: No, too many things are left to the DM's call. I wouldn't go that way. |
| Tealgorthian03-04-05, 03:42 PM | My books are packed, or I'd look myself (moving). But what is the int on some of these swarms you are using? And do the swarms get the massive int boost when you form the hivemind, or just you? |
| Hranitel03-04-05, 04:30 PM | I've been reading over this thread and I have a couple questions... The MM contains the information about the number of Tiny/Diminutive/Fine creatures that can fit into a 10x10 square (or cube for flying creatures), and therefore (IMHO) the maximum number of creatures that could make up the Vermin Lord’s Hivemind. I know there have been some questions regarding whether or not a swarm is one creature or many, but that isn’t my question for this post. The question I had was concerning the type of creatures to fit into the Vermin Lord’s 10x10 cube for purposes of his Hivemind ability. While the D&D books contain entries for “Swarms”, these entries do not give any information about the hit die of the creatures that make up this swarm. On the lists of animals and vermin in the MM (3.5, II & III), the tiny creatures have a maximum of 1HD, diminutive and fine creatures usually have ¼ or ½. Using the rules for creating a “Hivemind” from the BoVD, we see that each creature gains one skill point and one feat for each point of intelligence bonus per creature HD. As most of these creatures wouldn’t even have 1HD would a ¼ HD creature then get one skill-point/feat for every four points of intelligence bonus? Are there any examples of diminutive or fine sized creatures with more then a partial HD? |
| NineInchNall03-04-05, 04:59 PM | Actually, the Swarm subtype description doesn't give a limit to the number of creatures that can occupy a 10 ft square; it gives a definition of swarms based on the size of their constituents. This is immediately obvious when one reads that a swarm, any swarm, attacks by moving into a square occupied by an enemy of any size category. |
| Shebnar03-04-05, 05:11 PM | I've been reading over this thread and I have a couple questions... The MM contains the information about the number of Tiny/Diminutive/Fine creatures that can fit into a 10x10 square (or cube for flying creatures), and therefore (IMHO) the maximum number of creatures that could make up the Vermin Lord’s Hivemind. I know there have been some questions regarding whether or not a swarm is one creature or many, but that isn’t my question for this post. A rapture locust swarm is a medium size being that is made up of 10,000 individual creatures, for instance. Swarms don't follow normal space fitting rules. The question I had was concerning the type of creatures to fit into the Vermin Lord’s 10x10 cube for purposes of his Hivemind ability. While the D&D books contain entries for “Swarms”, these entries do not give any information about the hit die of the creatures that make up this swarm. On the lists of animals and vermin in the MM (3.5, II & III), the tiny creatures have a maximum of 1HD, diminutive and fine creatures usually have ¼ or ½. Using the rules for creating a “Hivemind” from the BoVD, we see that each creature gains one skill point and one feat for each point of intelligence bonus per creature HD. As most of these creatures wouldn’t even have 1HD would a ¼ HD creature then get one skill-point/feat for every four points of intelligence bonus? Are there any examples of diminutive or fine sized creatures with more then a partial HD? The hivemind text (BoVD, pag. 34) supplies the example of a rat hivemind. A rat has 1/4 HD (MM, pag. 278), but in the text is stated that "the 500 rats in the swarm (Int 17, +3 bonus) would each have 3 extra skill points and three feats. In this case, they gain a +3 bonus on Hide checks and the feats Alertness, Skill Focus (Move Silently) and Weapon Focus (bite)". So in the statement "...each creature gains one skill point and one feat for each point of intelligence bonus per creature HD" is an error (concerning the underlined part), or a bad editing. Bad News: Every creature which forms the hivemind gains the feats/skills (including the Verminlord), BUT the hivemind itself is no part of the creatures which make up the hivemind!!!!! So the hivemind can cast spells as a sorcerer, but doesn't benefit of any bonus feat/skill provided by itself to each creature which is part of itself, so no metamagic feats etc. (and it cannot attain epic spellcasting, as I already said). The Verminlord can select and use metamagic feats for his divine spellcasting only. It is still broken as hell, though :D The 'insight bonuses' mentioned in the hivemind class ability description are referred to the humungously broken +1 to hit (insight bonus) and +1 to AC (insight bonus), shared by all of the creatures which are part of the hivemind :rolleyes: Anyway, since in the RAW is not mentioned that a verminlord loses the bonus feats/skills, he's likely to gain them as normal. |
| Squirrelloid03-04-05, 05:15 PM | Ignore summoning swarms. Consider a bee hive, or an ant nest. Anyone know what the range of individuals in such a conglomerate is? Without excessive searching, i turned up the following on Honey Bees: http://www.ivyhall.district96.k12.il.us/4th/kkhp/1insects/honbeefax.html 20000-80000 in one hive, which easily fits in the 10' diameter sphere. In fact, you could probably fit many in a 5'x5' square, though i can't find documentation on the volume through google (too many false positives). So, take ranks in profession bee farmer, and get a whole bunch of hives near each other - then presto, instant uber-sorc with no questionable FF monsters. Ok, technically this isn't strictly RAW, but the RAW doesnt cover animals outside of non-combat situations. And you really want to count more than just the bees who would 'attack' you if you disturbed the hive, all the larva and other drones should count too. The real world literature is a legitimate place to go for real population dynamics. And i'm sure you could come up with a stat-block for bees... Further, no staff of gate needed, no fancy spells, nothing but a willingness to stand near a large number of beehives. Further, since bees are diurnal, do it at night when they're all *sleeping* and in the hive (gotta catch 'em all!). So, assuming reality when not covered by the RAW, you can beat the 10000 cap per 5' square, and not have to worry about Gate duration. |
| Hranitel03-04-05, 05:37 PM | OK. Maybe I got some answers... I agree that per the RAW there would be no limit to the number of swarms that could stack into a 10 by 10 space during an attack. (I also think that per the RAW, it is possible for a water bragaide to break the speed of light with enough held actions). My main question remains unanswered: What are the smallest animals or vermin with more than one HD? Thanks for all helpful replies! |
| Squirrelloid03-04-05, 06:05 PM | The hivemind text (BoVD, pag. 34) supplies the example of a rat hivemind. A rat has 1/4 HD (MM, pag. 278), but in the text is stated that "the 500 rats in the swarm (Int 17, +3 bonus) would each have 3 extra skill points and three feats. In this case, they gain a +3 bonus on Hide checks and the feats Alertness, Skill Focus (Move Silently) and Weapon Focus (bite)". So in the statement "...each creature gains one skill point and one feat for each point of intelligence bonus per creature HD" is an error (concerning the underlined part), or a bad editing. Hopefully this will answer Hranitel's question. Ok, ignore the swarm for a moment. You are considered part of the hive-mind. Now, you don't actually get the bonus to int or cha, but you do get the feats and skills as per the bonus to int and cha. So, since you have 20HD, you should gain 20 skill points and 20 feats for each point of intelligence bonus of the hivemind. Sure, the creatures in the swarm get fewer, but irrelevant. [Edit: wow, this makes even small hiveminds look appealing...]. Note that as a spellcaster you qualify for metamagic feats. Note that in 1 level you qualify for epic feats. (Or 1ECL according to the previous post). ie, the intelligence bonus is a property of the hivemind, but HD are properties of each individual organism. This means that no two individuals strictly need to take the same feats. Now, each member-type probably should take the same feats, but different types are free to take whatever they desire. Note that since you can use the spellcasting of the hivemind (as per earlier discussion), you can apply metamagic feats you have to that spellcasting. In a mixed hivemind (some rats and lots of tiny things), you'd have to keep track of bonus feats and skills separately for each member type of the hivemind. The optimal hivemind probably includes some members with 1+HD that gain full benefits of the increase in skills and feats. |
| SigmaJargon03-04-05, 06:05 PM | OK. Maybe I got some answers... I agree that per the RAW there would be no limit to the number of swarms that could stack into a 10 by 10 space during an attack. (I also think that per the RAW, it is possible for a water bragaide to break the speed of light with enough held actions).The logic in this thread (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=382704) I started over a week and a half ago could provide a springboard for specific RAW language to stack swarms, if anybody is that interested. You have to provide an enemy for the swarms, though. Another summon spell could manage this easily enough, though. And the swarms in the FF only are 5' face?? This is interesting news, certainly. They are more compact than the standard swarms, by a factor of 4. Even if stacking swarms turns out not to work, you could still fit quite a munber of those swarms in a 10ft diameter circle, since DnD is cubically organized. 26 swarms? Yes please. Hawks, monkeys, and owls are tiny creatures with 1 HD each. Those are those smallest animals or vermin of 1 HD or more I could find in the SRD. I'm afraid my access to books is rather limited, though. |
| Hranitel03-04-05, 06:30 PM | [QUOTE=SigmaJargon]Even if stacking swarms turns out not to work, you could still fit quite a munber of those swarms in a 10ft diameter circle, since DnD is cubically organized. 26 swarms? Yes please.QUOTE] This would be nice if the BoVD (the source of this interesting build) gave the range of the Hivemind ability as 5' radius instead of "within 10'". A 5' radius in the D&D 5' cubic setup is 27 - 5' cubes (9 above, 9 below, 8 surrounding, plus your own space) , but "within 10' feet of all others" is only four 5' cubes :weep: Sorry if I can't quote the BoVD text verbatum, as I don't have the books in front of me. Let me know if my logic has failed me. |
| Tempest Stormwind03-04-05, 06:47 PM | [QUOTE=SigmaJargon]Even if stacking swarms turns out not to work, you could still fit quite a munber of those swarms in a 10ft diameter circle, since DnD is cubically organized. 26 swarms? Yes please.QUOTE] This would be nice if the BoVD (the source of this interesting build) gave the range of the Hivemind ability as 5' radius instead of "within 10'". A 5' radius in the D&D 5' cubic setup is 27 - 5' cubes (9 above, 9 below, 8 surrounding, plus your own space) , but "within 10' feet of all others" is only four 5' cubes :weep: Sorry if I can't quote the BoVD text verbatum, as I don't have the books in front of me. Let me know if my logic has failed me. To my knowledge you calculate radii from CORNERS of squares -- so "within 10'" == 4 5' squares, or possibly 8 if you target the UPPER corner of one (or the lower corner if you have a burrowing swarm). |
| Shebnar03-04-05, 07:06 PM | Hopefully this will answer Hranitel's question. Ok, ignore the swarm for a moment. You are considered part of the hive-mind. Now, you don't actually get the bonus to int or cha, but you do get the feats and skills as per the bonus to int and cha. So, since you have 20HD, you should gain 20 skill points and 20 feats for each point of intelligence bonus of the hivemind. Sure, the creatures in the swarm get fewer, but irrelevant. [Edit: wow, this makes even small hiveminds look appealing...]. Yes, they are indeed ;) Note that as a spellcaster you qualify for metamagic feats. Note that in 1 level you qualify for epic feats. (Or 1ECL according to the previous post). ie, the intelligence bonus is a property of the hivemind, but HD are properties of each individual organism. This means that no two individuals strictly need to take the same feats. Now, each member-type probably should take the same feats, but different types are free to take whatever they desire. Note that since you can use the spellcasting of the hivemind (as per earlier discussion), you can apply metamagic feats you have to that spellcasting. In a mixed hivemind (some rats and lots of tiny things), you'd have to keep track of bonus feats and skills separately for each member type of the hivemind. The optimal hivemind probably includes some members with 1+HD that gain full benefits of the increase in skills and feats. You hit epic levels at 21th level (or 21th HD). The Hivemind, according to the BoVD text, is created 'if at least 50 vermin or animals of the same species are arranged etc. etc. etc.' (emphasis mine). So there cannot be more types in a single hivemind (i.e. no mixed hiveminds). None of the component of a Swarm will hit 21 HD, so none of them are epic. A single swarm can be epic (as the greater pack of cranium rats), reaching 24 HD. Besides, the Verminlord is not the hivemind. As is stated in the prestige class description, he creates a hivemind, than takes advantage of the spellcasting abilities of the hivemind he has created. Nothing has been written about feats/skills sharing between the hivemind and the single individuals, so we can't guess about it. In the meaning of 'takes advantage of' lies the truth :) ;) :D |
| Hranitel03-04-05, 07:17 PM | It does say the the Verminlord is part of the Hivemind... If he uses this ability once he's "gone epic", that should give him the ability to gain epic feats when he is near enough creatures. The way I read it is that he would loose said spellcasting, feats, and skill-points if he is away from the hivemind or if the hivemind is scattered (gust of wind etc.), but would regain them as soon as enough creatures were nearby. |
| Ashlan03-04-05, 07:57 PM | So, since you have 20HD, you should gain 20 skill points and 20 feats for each point of intelligence bonus of the hivemind. Sure, the creatures in the swarm get fewer, but irrelevant. [Edit: wow, this makes even small hiveminds look appealing...]. The way I read this was that you gain 1 Feat per point of Intelligence bonus and 1 Skill point per point of Intelligence bonus x HD. Meaning that a hivemind with Int 18 would give you 4 Bonus feats total and 4 skill points / hit die total. I could be wrong on this as it is just my interpretation. Ash |
| Mommy was an Orc03-04-05, 08:02 PM | I think there's actually a more practical limit on the H.I.V.E. - namely that the writer seems to be implying that each creature has a minimum of 1 hp - i.e. they are D&D creatures in the sense the individuals of the hive mind have a stat block, not creatures in the sense that they are living. Because otherwise it is just so unbelievably broken. A termite hill can have 15K termites per square meter. In a 5' radius termite hill, you could have 300K termites for say an Int/Cha of 6007. Only a 5990th level Sorc using a real world situation. |
| Tempest Stormwind03-04-05, 08:19 PM | Even if that's the case, then you can STILL layer swarm on swarm in the same square. By the way, from the Update Booklet: Swarms For all the swarms presented in the Fiend Folio, use the basic swarms information presented in the revised Monster Manual glossary. Use the following revised information for the Fiend Folio swarms: Abyssal Ant Swarm: Diminutive Aberration (Extraplanar, Swarm); Space/Reach 10 ft./0 ft.; Special Qualities Acid immunity, cold resistance 10, darkvision 60 ft., electricity resistance 10, fire resistance 10, hive mind, poison immunity, SR 22, swarm traits. Producing a shower of acidic spittle is a standard action for the swarm, but it can still take a move action in the same round and inflict damage on creatures within its area at the end of its move. Plague Ant Swarm: Fine Vermin (Swarm); Space/Reach 10 ft./0 ft. Cranium Rat Swarm, Lesser Pack: Diminutive Magical Beast (Extraplanar, Swarm); Space/Reach 10 ft./0 ft.; Organization Solitary, pack (2–4 swarms), or infestation (7–12 swarms). Cranium Rat Swarm, Average Pack: Diminutive Magical Beast (Extraplanar, Swarm); Space/Reach 10 ft./0 ft.; Organization Solitary, pack (2–4 swarms), or infestation (7–12 swarms). Cranium Rat Swarm, Greater Pack: Diminutive Magical Beast (Extraplanar, Swarm); Space/Reach 10 ft./0 ft.; Organization Solitary, pack (2–4 swarms), or infestation (7–12 swarms). Locust Swarm, Bloodfiend: Fine Vermin (Extraplanar, Swarm); Space/Reach 10 ft./0 ft. Locust Swarm, Rapture: Fine Vermin (Extraplanar, Swarm); Space/Reach 10 ft./0 ft. Scarab Beetle Swarm: Fine Vermin (Swarm); Space/Reach 10 ft./0 ft. Viper Swarm: Diminutive Animal (Swarm); Space/Reach 10 ft./0 ft. Wasp Swarm: Fine Vermin (Swarm); Space/Reach 10 ft./0 ft. So they conform to MM swarm rules, including the space. The way I read it is that he would loose said spellcasting, feats, and skill-points if he is away from the hivemind or if the hivemind is scattered (gust of wind etc.), but would regain them as soon as enough creatures were nearby. Am I the only one picturing the Boogyman from The Nightmare Before Christmas here? (the same thing also holds true, in a sense, for the Hooded One in Bone (http://www.boneville.com), which was the mortal proxy of the Lord of the Locusts I keep mentioning that seems to fit with this concept greatly.) |
| Jeremymc03-04-05, 08:31 PM | Sigh. Look. The number of creatures in a swarm isn't defined BY the number of creatures that can fit in a 10x10 space. That's just a game definition. The way that a 7' tall human being still occupies one 5' square vertically. The swarm definition is clear: "A swarm of tiny creatures consists of 300 nonflying or 1000 flying creatures. A swarm of tiny creatures consists of 1000 nonflying or 5000 flying creatures... etc. etc." No ifs ands or buts. A swarm of THIS type consists of THIS number. It's as clear as that Crystal Pepsi crap they used to try to sell us. I understand that it's confusing, but EVERY QUESTION ASKED about the swarm so far is answered in the swarm entry in the MM 3.5. It gives specific numbers of creatures, specific direction that swarms cannot be "massed", specific rules that a swarm can still crawl on top of a creature in its square even though it's not supposed to occupy the same square. It even mentions that more creatures can fit in the 10x10 space than can normally happen because of the special swarm exception. Swarms still cannot be "layered" because a swarm can only fit in the same square as a victim it engulfs. If you have one swarm attack ANOTHER swarm, then sure, they can be in the same square. But they are still 2 separate swarms and don't mass together by some magical means (barring them being cranium rats...). Everything that has been asked so far is answered in the text of the Monstrous Manual 3.5. I simply cannot believe that people haven't read the entry already. One day I can understand. Two. Sure. But after about 3 days, people should really start reading carefully. |
| Shebnar03-04-05, 08:40 PM | I think there's actually a more practical limit on the H.I.V.E. - namely that the writer seems to be implying that each creature has a minimum of 1 hp - i.e. they are D&D creatures in the sense the individuals of the hive mind have a stat block, not creatures in the sense that they are living. Except for the fact that Monte Cook has set an example about rats (1/4 d8 each). :P ;) |
| Mommy was an Orc03-04-05, 10:35 PM | Yes - and that still gets them 1 hp each...as scary as this sounds, I think I'm leaning in Jeremy's direction here with Swarm rules. The thing about Swarm 3.5 is that it makes creatures available for Vermin Lord that could not have been available in 3.0 when BoVD was written. A termite wasn't a 'creature' then - you could play bag o' rats, but not bags o' termites. And a Termite still isn't a stat blocked creature unless it is a swarm or an enlarged version. As the termite hill is so hideously broken - a single cubic meter is enough to kick the hive mind up to 300th or so level, the H.I.V.E. is either an obvious editing mistake or he meant creatures that can be stat-blocked out when he said creatures. Except for the fact that Monte Cook has set an example about rats (1/4 d8 each). :P ;) |
| Squirrelloid03-05-05, 03:12 AM | The way I read this was that you gain 1 Feat per point of Intelligence bonus and 1 Skill point per point of Intelligence bonus x HD. Meaning that a hivemind with Int 18 would give you 4 Bonus feats total and 4 skill points / hit die total. I could be wrong on this as it is just my interpretation. Ash Consider the text as written: "...each creature gains one skill point and one feat for each point of intelligence bonus per creature HD". Note that its not (Skill points per HD) and feats per point of int bonus, its (skill points and feats) per HD per point of int bonus. So, each creature individually gains the skill points and feats per their HD. Now, as a part of the Hivemind, our friend gains these skill points and feats. He has 20HD. He gains 1 skill point and 1 feat per point of intelligent bonus of the Hivemind per HD. Or 20xInt Bonus of the hivemind. I agree your interpretation is more sane. I agree it makes more sense in any real game mechanic sort of way. But thats not what the rules say. Additionally, because he personally ("each creature gains...") gains the feats, he can choose anything he qualifies for, in addition to epic feats if he o/w qualifies (he's 21st level, for instance). Besides, the Verminlord is not the hivemind. As is stated in the prestige class description, he creates a hivemind, than takes advantage of the spellcasting abilities of the hivemind he has created. Nothing has been written about feats/skills sharing between the hivemind and the single individuals, so we can't guess about it. In the meaning of 'takes advantage of' lies the truth. Which deals with this objection. He is most certainly part of the hivemind (that has been made explicit). He also gains all benefits except the int and cha improvement. Casting: Ok, it depends on what you think it means by 'take advantage of', as far as applying metamagic to hivemind sorceror spells. If the Vermin Lord is actually doing the casting (acting as an intermediate), then he could apply metamagic he had feats for. If the hivemind does the casting itself, thats even better for him really, he can do something else. Feats: But its clear from the wording that he personally chooses feats (see quoted text above), and also clear that he can choose different feats than the other organisms in the hivemind, because he gets the skill points and feat options, not the choices the hivemind makes. Therefore he can choose any feats he qualifies for, and if he qualifies for epic feats, he can take them. Again, your interpretation is more sane, but not what it says. Ok, i made a mistake on different types, but meh. Oh well. Ignore that. On area: and a DnD sphere of radius 5' should be at least 7 cubes (including the one you are on), one in each direction in 3-D. Its clear from the spell effect diagrams that a cube/square counts as within the area if the center of that cube/square is included in a circle/sphere/semicircle/whatever superimposed over the grid. So, go 5' in all directions from the center of your cube and you find that you include the centers of all cubes the 6 directly adjacent cubes (up/down - left/right - forward/back) and none of the corners. |
| Jeremymc03-05-05, 11:11 AM | Yes - and that still gets them 1 hp each...as scary as this sounds, I think I'm leaning in Jeremy's direction here with Swarm rules. The thing about Swarm 3.5 is that it makes creatures available for Vermin Lord that could not have been available in 3.0 when BoVD was written. A termite wasn't a 'creature' then - you could play bag o' rats, but not bags o' termites. And a Termite still isn't a stat blocked creature unless it is a swarm or an enlarged version. As the termite hill is so hideously broken - a single cubic meter is enough to kick the hive mind up to 300th or so level, the H.I.V.E. is either an obvious editing mistake or he meant creatures that can be stat-blocked out when he said creatures. Yeppers. THat's the reason why the "Swarm" monster entry has a clear-cut example of how many creatures of WHAT size can constitute a swarm. It's not that the swarm's numerical limit is dictated by their 10'ft size, because the creatures per square is unique to the swarm. It's that there is an upper level number to the swarm beyond which any more creatures are represented as another swarm. Hmmm... I did the calculations for a 10 000 creature hivemind, and the power is pretty revolting. It far outstrips anything any spellcaster of an equivalent level can muster. The only balance is that 10 000 creatures of fine size are pretty ***** creatures, and can be pretty easily destroyed. Larger creatures are tougher, with more staying power... but you don't get the 10 000 creature bonus. I'll see what custserv has to say about this situation, maybe they have a way to make the Vermin Lord balanced. |
| Vecna03-05-05, 11:28 AM | Hmmm... I did the calculations for a 10 000 creature hivemind, and the power is pretty revolting. It far outstrips anything any spellcaster of an equivalent level can muster. The only balance is that 10 000 creatures of fine size are pretty ***** creatures, and can be pretty easily destroyed. You could gate a swarm with a template added that grants Regeneration and/or some kind of DR/SR... |
| Vecna03-05-05, 01:34 PM | About the possibility of gaining Epic feats, I believe you can get them but don't gain their benefits if you aren't Epic (you don't meet the feat requirement). For every point of intelligence bonus possessed by the hivemind, award each individual creature one feat and one skill point per Hit Die. You can get feats you don't have requirements, you just cannot use them. |
| Tempest Stormwind03-05-05, 03:12 PM | About the possibility of gaining Epic feats, I believe you can get them but don't gain their benefits if you aren't Epic (you don't meet the feat requirement). For every point of intelligence bonus possessed by the hivemind, award each individual creature one feat and one skill point per Hit Die.[/quote] You can get feats you don't have requirements, you just cannot use them.[/QUOTE] No. You must have the prerequisites for ANY feat to take it. You must maintain them to use it. Regardless of epic/nonepic status. |
| Vecna03-05-05, 03:47 PM | For every point of intelligence bonus possessed by the hivemind, award each individual creature one feat and one skill point per Hit Die. You can get feats you don't have requirements, you just cannot use them. No. You must have the prerequisites for ANY feat to take it. You must maintain them to use it. Regardless of epic/nonepic status. So, what's the BAB of the Hive Mind for purpose of requirements? It's saves? It's abilities? An Hive Mind it isn't a creature, so it lacks almost all of a creature statistics. It has an Int, a Cha and a spellcaster level. Nothing more. You could have statistics if Hive Mind == swarm, but the H.I.V.E == swarm + Vermin Lord. However Some feats have prerequisites. Your character must have the indicated ability score, class feature, feat, skill, base attack bonus, or other quality designated in order to select or use that feat. A character can gain a feat at the same level at which he or she gains the prerequisite. A character can’t use a feat if he or she has lost a prerequisite. Hive Mind feats aren't selected, are awarded... ;) |
| Need_A_Life03-05-05, 05:03 PM | Who cares about feats here? I mean toughness would be insane here, having about 3k(?) feats to spend, so why bother optimizing this? You only need to have a cohort who adds you to the H.I.VE. and then 2 levels of paladin/blackguard and x levels in Mystic Wanderer (saw it somewhere, cha to AC), and then only greater deities dare to tell you what to do (Life and Death sucks! (actually it doesn't, but it sucks that you don't have it)). Now, you can only get hit on critical hits and at this level you should be able to get some Heavy Fortified armor (critical hits are converted into normal for determining damage) and some regeneration, fast healing and DR and suddenly you're taking on entire armies (you cast like a super-epic sorcerer, saves without needing to roll, has an AC not even gods can match, and the few hits that make contact are healed quickly (some by regeneration, but if that doesn't work against that energy form use fast healing) or absorbed by DR). P.S. How many levels of sorcerer would it require to cast level 10 spells (if you have 4k of levels it seems easy to cast like a deity) |
| Tempest Stormwind03-05-05, 05:34 PM | P.S. How many levels of sorcerer would it require to cast level 10 spells (if you have 4k of levels it seems easy to cast like a deity) No such thing as 10th level spells, but you can get a 10th level slot with Improved Spellcasting as soon as you go epic. I don't think the swarm technically IS epic, though -- it casts as a sorceror, while not actually BEING a sorceror. |
| Alratan03-05-05, 05:56 PM | No such thing as 10th level spells, but you can get a 10th level slot with Improved Spellcasting as soon as you go epic. I don't think the swarm technically IS epic, though -- it casts as a sorceror, while not actually BEING a sorceror. If I heighten a Magic Missile to use a 10th level slot, it is a 10th level spell. |
| pentagonal_penguin03-05-05, 06:27 PM | Who cares about feats here? I mean toughness would be insane here, having about 3k(?) feats to spend, so why bother optimizing this? You only need to have a cohort who adds you to the H.I.VE. and then 2 levels of paladin/blackguard and x levels in Mystic Wanderer (saw it somewhere, cha to AC), and then only greater deities dare to tell you what to do (Life and Death sucks! (actually it doesn't, but it sucks that you don't have it)). Now, you can only get hit on critical hits and at this level you should be able to get some Heavy Fortified armor (critical hits are converted into normal for determining damage) and some regeneration, fast healing and DR and suddenly you're taking on entire armies (you cast like a super-epic sorcerer, saves without needing to roll, has an AC not even gods can match, and the few hits that make contact are healed quickly (some by regeneration, but if that doesn't work against that energy form use fast healing) or absorbed by DR). P.S. How many levels of sorcerer would it require to cast level 10 spells (if you have 4k of levels it seems easy to cast like a deity) Don't forget that rolling a 1 is an auto-fail on a save. Levels in sorcerer, no matter how many, will not give you level 10 spellcasting. You need to have at least 18, be epic, and take improved spellcasting capacity. |
| Jeremymc03-05-05, 09:30 PM | You could gate a swarm with a template added that grants Regeneration and/or some kind of DR/SR... I'm not sure Gate allows you to specify the template of hte creature you're gating in. And regeneration doesn't help terribly much in these cases. Remember, you're a 20th level caster, and fighting very large things. |
| SigmaJargon03-05-05, 09:38 PM | So, what's the BAB of the Hive Mind for purpose of requirements? It's saves? It's abilities? An Hive Mind it isn't a creature, so it lacks almost all of a creature statistics. It has an Int, a Cha and a spellcaster level. Nothing more. You could have statistics if Hive Mind == swarm, but the H.I.V.E == swarm + Vermin Lord.You musat remeber, that the it is NOT the Hivemind that gains feat, it is each and every creature. For purposes of simplifying insanity, and actually having concrete stats to work with, it seems reasonable to give each swarm the feats/skills. NOW you have BAB, str, dex, etc to work for feat prereqs. |
| Vecna03-06-05, 06:31 AM | You musat remeber, that the it is NOT the Hivemind that gains feat, it is each and every creature. For purposes of simplifying insanity, and actually having concrete stats to work with, it seems reasonable to give each swarm the feats/skills. NOW you have BAB, str, dex, etc to work for feat prereqs. Yes, but I'm mostly interested in feat that the Vermin Lord can use. So, for simplicity, I guess an Epic Vermin Lord can gain Epic Feats, and the rest of the Hive Mind, being a Wasp Swarm, qualifies only for feats allowed by its statistics. |
| Otto the Bugbear03-06-05, 08:56 AM | Wow, neat idea guys. Very creative. Only one question comes to mind here. Can you make a swarm of pixies? I know, scary thought. Cheers Otto :) |
| Caelic03-06-05, 10:18 AM | As a little bit of insurance, make sure you have up a persistent Consumptive Aura. For every one of your component swarm creatures who dies, you'll gain 1d8 temporary hit points and a caster level (up to a maximum of half your normal CL.) Even if they manage to vaporize the swarm, you'll still be hellaciously hard to kill personally. I don't even want to THINK about the ramifications of the SWARM being affected by Persistent Consumptive Aura. On a side note, though, I'd like to suggest that it's still possible to disallow this by the RAW, on the following grounds: 1. A hivemind requires at least 50 "vermin or animals." 2. Vermin and animal are specific creature types assigned to specific creatures. 3. While a Swarm is a creature of the animal or vermin subtype, the individual creatures who make up that swarm are not. I know that sounds crazy, and counter-intuitive...but then again, so is most of this thread. A termite swarm is a defined creature with the defined subtype of vermin; an individual termite is not. |
| Tempest Stormwind03-06-05, 10:39 AM | As a little bit of insurance, make sure you have up a persistent Consumptive Aura. For every one of your component swarm creatures who dies, you'll gain 1d8 temporary hit points and a caster level (up to a maximum of half your normal CL.) Even if they manage to vaporize the swarm, you'll still be hellaciously hard to kill personally. I don't even want to THINK about the ramifications of the SWARM being affected by Persistent Consumptive Aura. On a side note, though, I'd like to suggest that it's still possible to disallow this by the RAW, on the following grounds: 1. A hivemind requires at least 50 "vermin or animals." 2. Vermin and animal are specific creature types assigned to specific creatures. 3. While a Swarm is a creature of the animal or vermin subtype, the individual creatures who make up that swarm are not. I know that sounds crazy, and counter-intuitive...but then again, so is most of this thread. A termite swarm is a defined creature with the defined subtype of vermin; an individual termite is not. Consumptive Field = ACK!. Great call. However, if we stick to swarms of printed critters, then we're fine by your arguments, as the individual critters are defined in the game rules. |
| Interested203-06-05, 11:04 AM | Related - Consumptive Field + Crown of Vermin = GODLY (epic levels). |
| Vecna03-06-05, 11:16 AM | 3. While a Swarm is a creature of the animal or vermin subtype, the individual creatures who make up that swarm are not. I know that sounds crazy, and counter-intuitive...but then again, so is most of this thread. A termite swarm is a defined creature with the defined subtype of vermin; an individual termite is not. From SRD A swarm of Tiny creatures consists of 300 nonflying creatures or 1,000 flying creatures. A swarm of Diminutive creatures consists of 1,500 nonflying creatures or 5,000 flying creatures. A swarm of Fine creatures consists of 10,000 creatures, whether they are flying or not. Swarms of nonflying creatures include many more creatures than could normally fit in a 10-foot square based on their normal space, because creatures in a swarm are packed tightly together and generally crawl over each other and their prey when moving or attacking I don't think that For game purposes a swarm is defined as a single creature with a space of 10 feet—gigantic hordes are actually composed of dozens of swarms in close proximity makes individuals in the swarm non-creatures. |
| SigmaJargon03-06-05, 12:22 PM | Wow, neat idea guys. Very creative. Only one question comes to mind here. Can you make a swarm of pixies? I know, scary thought. Cheers Otto :)Well, one could always design a swarm of pixies, but it would be fey type, and so you couldn't hivemind it. And as for Caelic's excellent argument, I think it is defeated in the description of the swarm subtype. A swarm has the characteristics of its type, except as noted here. A swarm has a single pool of Hit Dice and hit points, a single initiative modifier, a single speed, and a single Armor Class. A swarm makes saving throws as a single creature.So, all the component pieces of a swarm have all the characteristics of their type, except for things such a hp, init, etc. Surely, a type is characteristic of itself? That is, that if we have a pixie, the fact that the pixie is considered to be a fey is characteristic of being the fey type. Likewise, if we had a swarm of pixie's, each of them would have the characteristics of a fey, including the ability to be considered fey for all purposes, except as noted above. |
| Caelic03-06-05, 12:29 PM | The question, Vecna, is not whether they are creatures; it's whether they are creatures with specific defined characteristics: in this case, type. It's a strong argument, Sigma, but I have to point out that the rules you quoted refer to the swarm--not to the individual creatures which make up the swarm. Certainly, it's slicing words ridiculously fine to maintain that the individual creatures are not firmly established as individual creatures of type "animal" or "vermin"--but for a build like this, especially one so outrageously over-the-top, I think you need to be on absolutely rock-solid ground as far as the RAW goes. I think there's just enough ambiguity here to scuttle the argument that the rules as written absolutely, positively allow this. |
| Tempest Stormwind03-06-05, 12:35 PM | The question, Vecna, is not whether they are creatures; it's whether they are creatures with specific defined characteristics: in this case, type. It's a strong argument, Sigma, but I have to point out that the rules you quoted refer to the swarm--not to the individual creatures which make up the swarm. Certainly, it's slicing words ridiculously fine to maintain that the individual creatures are not firmly established as individual creatures of type "animal" or "vermin"--but for a build like this, especially one so outrageously over-the-top, I think you need to be on absolutely rock-solid ground as far as the RAW goes. I think there's just enough ambiguity here to scuttle the argument that the rules as written absolutely, positively allow this. Actually, there is an argument to support things like termites being 'vermin' despite not having a unique stat block. The SRD states that "[the vermin] type includes insects, arachnids, other arthropods, worms, and similar invertebrates." Termites are insects. Therefore, were they to be statted in D&D, they'd have the Vermin type. This follows further from the type section in the Monster Manual's monster creation guidelines. Surely no one's going to say something like "termites don't exist" simply because they haven't been statted. I mean, food requirements haven't been explicitly statted, yet surely they exist. (I'm not talking about amount here; I mean things like needing protein to grow muscle mass, etc.If you eat nothing but trail rations for years, you aren't going to be as healthy as if you'd eaten full-course meals.) And so on, and so forth. |
| Caelic03-06-05, 12:46 PM | Absolutely not, Tempest--you're completely right that it is one hundred percent logical that if they HAD a type, it would be vermin, and would be one hundred percent illogical for them to have any other type. When we're playing semantic games with the rules at the level of a build like this, though, logic and common sense have gone right out the window. I would respectfully suggest that anyone who attempted to use a build like this on the grounds that the letter of the rules allows it, and then turned around and said, "Well, you have to use common sense, you can't just go by the letter of the rules" would be made to do the Walk of a Thousand d4's by his DM. The language in the "Vermin" entry weakens my line of attack further still. I don't believe it quite defeats it completely, as it doesn't establish that all insects are, by definition, vermin--and, indeed, they are not, as numerous examples of insectile humanoids and other types confirm. Thus, the language here must be taken as a general guideline, and not a universally applicable blanket statement. Bear in mind that I'm not saying that the nebulous status of the individual creatures makes this build illegal; I'm saying that it adds just enough question to make the build less than unarguably legal. |
| SigmaJargon03-06-05, 01:11 PM | Many different creatures can mass as swarms; bat swarms, centipede swarms, hellwasp swarms, locust swarms, rat swarms, and spider swarms are described here. The swarm’s type varies with the nature of the component creature (most are animals or vermin), but all swarms have the swarm subtype.Bah, this isn't exactly the wording I was hoping for, but its close enough, methinks. The type of a swarm is representative of the nature [type] of the components. Tis the reason a rat swarm is animal type (because the conponent creatures are animal) and locust swarms are vermin type (component creatures are vermin). If nothing else, this means that the type of the swarm implies the nature of the component creatures - meaning their type, presumably. |
| Shebnar03-06-05, 02:24 PM | Yes, but I'm mostly interested in feat that the Vermin Lord can use. So, for simplicity, I guess an Epic Vermin Lord can gain Epic Feats, and the rest of the Hive Mind, being a Wasp Swarm, qualifies only for feats allowed by its statistics. I agree. Hivemind members' HD count to select feats, so if the Verminlord hits epic, he can choose epic feats, BUT, since he is a 13th level divine spellcaster, he can't gain Improved Spell Capacity. And Metamagic effects are applied only to his own divine spellcasting. A Hivemind as a real character doesn't exist: but it does exist a hivemind Int and Cha score, according to the BoVD terminology. All of the Hivemind parts are considered a a single creature (as per swarm rules: "[...] play the Hivemind as a single creature as much as possible [...]"), so the swarm (or better the hivemind members) as a single character has a specially augmented 'hivemind Int' and 'hivemind Cha'. His Wis score and ST are the same of every single critter, unaugmented. This whole is a creature for some spell effects: it can dominate, for instance, and be dominated as a single creature (having a Int score which affects them as they were a single creature). It can be the target of physical attacks too (aimed at the physical critters). Practically the hivemind rules are a first draft of 3.5 swarm rules, where all the critters act as a single being. Though being part of the hivemind (and creating and controlling it), we can suppose that the Verminlord can be targeted as an individual creature (being a separate specie in the swarm), while the hivemind members share the same TS as a single creature, for instance (and the hivemind itself can be separately targeted). After all, the hivemind itself is said to be controlled (as a separate being) by the VL, who can 'take advantage of' its spellcasting powers but cannot share and use those powers. |
| Need_A_Life03-06-05, 04:07 PM | I don't think you'll be able to persuade each others... Walk of a Thousand d4's Could I steal this :D ? If it's a vermin swarm, then why isn't the individual a vermin? Just wondering how you came to that conclusion.... |
| Mommy was an Orc03-06-05, 04:37 PM | Because a humanoid swarm (of cells) does not make an individual cell a humanoid. A black widow spider might be dangerous from surprise, but the combat is going to go really quick against a 1st level commoner who sees it and is wearing shoes. That's not so true against a 1 hp rat or a swarm of black widow spiders. By an absolute view of the RAW, it might be legal. But it is taking advantage of a change in definitions from 3.0 to 3.5. That's pretty shaky. Mind you, this is the context that it is a really good find.. If it's a vermin swarm, then why isn't the individual a vermin? Just wondering how you came to that conclusion.... |
| Vecna03-06-05, 07:30 PM | If a Swarm isn't a group of creatures but just a single creature, where can I find stats for the creatures the various Swarms are composed of? Such ants, wasps, vipers, beetles...? It seems that you cannot build any Hive Mind because no creature is statted as a single being, but only as a Swarm... You could use 3.0 stats, but not many animals/vermins have stats... |
| Shebnar03-06-05, 09:31 PM | Absolutely not, Tempest--you're completely right that it is one hundred percent logical that if they HAD a type, it would be vermin, and would be one hundred percent illogical for them to have any other type. When we're playing semantic games with the rules at the level of a build like this, though, logic and common sense have gone right out the window. I would respectfully suggest that anyone who attempted to use a build like this on the grounds that the letter of the rules allows it, and then turned around and said, "Well, you have to use common sense, you can't just go by the letter of the rules" would be made to do the Walk of a Thousand d4's by his DM. The language in the "Vermin" entry weakens my line of attack further still. I don't believe it quite defeats it completely, as it doesn't establish that all insects are, by definition, vermin--and, indeed, they are not, as numerous examples of insectile humanoids and other types confirm. Thus, the language here must be taken as a general guideline, and not a universally applicable blanket statement. Bear in mind that I'm not saying that the nebulous status of the individual creatures makes this build illegal; I'm saying that it adds just enough question to make the build less than unarguably legal. First of all, we have to agree that every creature in a D&D world must belong to one of the existing types. 'Termits' have not a type, so it is all about deciding what type they belong as D&D-regimented creatures. The problem is not only whether the Vermin type can include termites (as 'insects') or not. The problem is also whether termites belong to the Vermin type or not. MM, pag. 317: "Vermin type: This type includes insects, arachnids, other arthropods, worms and similar invertebrates." As we are regimenting 'termites' in the D&D semantics, we have a reference in the real world and a denotative meaning. We all know it designs an 'insect', shaped in a certain way etc. This denotated meaning has to get a proper translation in D&D semantics. None of the other types in D&D includes 'insects' among the classes of creatures it represents. Appealing to good sense and have termites included in the Vermin type may appear unfitting and unsatisfying, but the opposite involves them not to be insects. "But in D&D semantics not all 'insects' are Vermin!" Wrong. In D&D all of the things that in the real world we denotatively know as 'insects' (as termits) are 'Vermin'. Let's consider a Thri-kreen: it doesn't exist in the real world. All we know about it is that he is a 'Monstruous Humanoid' in the D&D type reference (not an 'insect', not an 'insectoid' nor a 'insect-that-could-go-Vermin-instead-of-being-Monstruous-Humanoid': just a 'Monstruous Humanoid'). The fact that his complexion calls to mind an insect has nothing to deal with real insects, just as lions have nothing to deal with alligators just because they both have fangs and claws. If Thri-kreen had lived in the real world and we had named them 'insects' just like flies and termites (because they appear so similar in shape), then their translation in the D&D taxonomy ('Monstruous Humanoids') could appear odd to us and induce to doubt. But there's no translation at all. The same is with Ankheg, Araneas and all of the D&D setting pertaining creatures and types ('Magical Beasts', for instance), which cannot stand for a proper translation of 'termites'. 'Insects' are included in the Vermin description, and 'Vermin' is the only type in the D&D setting which includes 'insects' as one of its denotative meanings: so, if termites are denotatively 'insects' in the real world, they can be translated in the D&D semantics as Vermin, rule-wise (and not only good sense-wise ;) ). It cannot be different because there's no reason in doing otherwise, unless you are stating that 'termites are not insects' in the real world. Anyway, I don't think this build is playing too much with semantics. Really. ;) Hmmm... I did the calculations for a 10 000 creature hivemind, and the power is pretty revolting. It far outstrips anything any spellcaster of an equivalent level can muster. The only balance is that 10 000 creatures of fine size are pretty ***** creatures, and can be pretty easily destroyed. The Verminlord is godlike strong, but not invincible. 1) A supernaturalized Gust of Wind can take off all those annoying little critters. 2) It takes a very long time for the VL to buff himself: to protect the swarms against area effect/gusts of wind, the VL has to cast a spell resistance upon every single swarm of his 10' influence sphere, one by one. If you catch him by surprise while he's still buffing the swarms, you got some good opportunities. 3) The main weakpoint: the Hivemind ability is a supernatural ability. Have him trapped inside an Antimagic Field: that will 'dispel' the Hivemind. The result is a 13th level cleric with a crappy and useless PrC (let's face it: apart from the final godlike 10th level ability, the Verminlord sucks). The Initiate of Mystra feat won't work, since it affects only spellcasting, not supernatural abilities. ;) And a final question: I thought the Gate spell could only call extraplanar creatures...(see description, PHB pg. 234). And Swarms are not extraplanar... :confused: :confused: :confused: |
| SigmaJargon03-06-05, 10:00 PM | And a final question: I thought the Gate spell could only call extraplanar creatures...(see description, PHB pg. 234). And Swarms are not extraplanar... :confused: :confused: :confused: If you plane-shft to the astral plane or somewhere else first, they are. Plus, wasp swarms are detailed in the Fiend Folio, it is probably reasonable to assume that they can be found living naturally in Hell or the Abyss, or perhaps both. |
| Jeremymc03-07-05, 09:04 AM | 2) It takes a very long time for the VL to buff himself: to protect the swarms against area effect/gusts of wind, the VL has to cast a spell resistance upon every single swarm of his 10' influence sphere, one by one. If you catch him by surprise while he's still buffing the swarms, you got some good opportunities. Well, actually, since the hivemind IS a swarm, it counts as a single creature, and since the Vermin Lord is a part of that Hivemind, then he counts as part of that creature too. So anything he casts on himself will be part of that "swarm". Yah, frankly he's not great. All a spellcaster of similar level has to do is summon Air elementals in whirlwind form, and the VL is fairly toast. A couple of "elemental swarms" should disperse his hive. But that's strategy, and it's neither here nor there. Every class has a weak point. |
| Vecna03-07-05, 10:12 AM | Well, actually, since the hivemind IS a swarm, it counts as a single creature, and since the Vermin Lord is a part of that Hivemind, then he counts as part of that creature too. So anything he casts on himself will be part of that "swarm". Yah, frankly he's not great. All a spellcaster of similar level has to do is summon Air elementals in whirlwind form, and the VL is fairly toast. A couple of "elemental swarms" should disperse his hive. But that's strategy, and it's neither here nor there. Every class has a weak point. The H.I.V.E is a Vermin Lord + a 3.5 Swarm, not a 3.5 Swarm. A 3.5 Swarm has stats, while a Hive Mind hasn't (except for Int, Cha, skills, feats and sorcerer levels) So a Vermin Lord can cast spells with Range: Personal, while any insect in the swarm cannot because A swarm is immune to any spell or effect that targets a specific number of creatures (including single-target spells such as disintegrate) So the swarm part of the H.I.V.E is difficult to protect and buff without area effects... |
| LordKiwi03-07-05, 10:45 AM | I've tried to catch up on reading this thread but got bord about half way through so I apologise if any of this has already been covered. 1: "All individuals much be within 10' of at least one other creature" There is a huge difference between this and "All individuals much be within 10' of all other creatures". Basicaly you can string your swarms out in a long line and you can fit as many as you like. 2: With just one swarm of diminuative flying creatures you qualify for a CL 87 sorcerer and the vermin lord gets a vermin companion o up to 16 HD at level 9 so a Swarm of Locusts (6 HD) is fine and you get a perminent hive mind. If you ever need a bigger swarm you can cast Summon Swarm half a dozen times for Bats. 3: Spellcasting. You have a huge resovour of spells and at least 4 people to cast them: Yourself and all three Vermin Companions. Basicaly what I'm saying is you don't need anything special to make a Vermin Lord uber, except abilities that are included in the class and it's prerequisites. Lord Kiwi, |
| Shebnar03-07-05, 04:54 PM | I've tried to catch up on reading this thread but got bord about half way through so I apologise if any of this has already been covered. 1: "All individuals much be within 10' of at least one other creature" There is a huge difference between this and "All individuals much be within 10' of all other creatures". Basicaly you can string your swarms out in a long line and you can fit as many as you like. LordKiwi, ya rule! ;) 2: With just one swarm of diminuative flying creatures you qualify for a CL 87 sorcerer and the vermin lord gets a vermin companion o up to 16 HD at level 9 so a Swarm of Locusts (6 HD) is fine and you get a perminent hive mind. If you ever need a bigger swarm you can cast Summon Swarm half a dozen times for Bats. Keep in mind that the hivemind works only if the swarms critters belong to the same specie... 3: Spellcasting. You have a huge resovour of spells and at least 4 people to cast them: Yourself and all three Vermin Companions. Basicaly what I'm saying is you don't need anything special to make a Vermin Lord uber, except abilities that are included in the class and it's prerequisites. Lord Kiwi, You don't cast the hivemind's spells: you command it to cast them. The text says that you take advantage of the spellcasting ability of the hivemind, not that you actually gain the spellcasting ability. |
| Vecna03-07-05, 05:43 PM | LordKiwi, ya rule! ;) You don't cast the hivemind's spells: you command it to cast them. The text says that you take advantage of the spellcasting ability of the hivemind, not that you actually gain the spellcasting ability. If you read the description of Hivemind: Any single creature can cast one of the hivemind's spell, but those spell slots are then lost to other creatures in the hivemind. |
| Zubon03-07-05, 07:59 PM | The phrasing seems unclear: "If at least 50 vermin or animals of the same species are arranged so that no one individual is more than 10 feet from another individual, the hivemind may come into effect." (Book of Vile Darkness) "10 feet from another individual" is somewhat ambiguous concerning whether that "another individual" must obtain for every member or can be any single member. That is, 10' diameter or of any size (but anything more than 10' out is out). Based on the example of 1000 rats, I would assume the first interpretation, unless they are picturing something like a 10' cube of rat flesh. This would allow a hivemind of 2,893,417 rats walking in a straight line or a perfect 30' cube made by 64 house flies. Go nuts. |
| Interested203-07-05, 08:42 PM | Well, what's the volume of a flea? |
| SigmaJargon03-07-05, 09:25 PM | Fleas? Try dust mites, itsy bitsy arachnids whose lengths are measured in microns (10^-6 meters). But I think it hardly matters, in light of what LordKiwi pointed out. On rereading, I think the text is pretty clear. Certainly I imagine that the intent was to say all creatures must be within a 10' diameter sphere to be included in the hivemind, but what is actually said is that as long as every member is within 10ft of another member, they can all be bound. This means that the optimization of the hivemind rests almost solely on two things - 1.) How fast you can conjure a swarm up and 2.) How many creatures you can summon in the time given in 1. Now, you can only except so much time to prepare before a battle. Often, you will have no time at all, either when your party is surprised or when the enemy wins initiative on fair notice. The best solution to this that occurs to me is to summon your swarms at the beginning of the day via Gate (Perhaps an artificer cohort?) and only resummon if you need to. Presumably the hivemind can regain spells by resting, like any other sorc, so you might never run out of spells. Alternatively, you could keep a quickened Summon Swarm or, much preferably (if you have Child of Winter) a quickened Summon Nature's Ally spell handy to pop out several swarms on short notice. You certainly are less, uh, obvious this way. And less unwieldy too. Many fewer swarms, but many fewer disadvantages. Oh, and this way, the swarms are more expendable. Use them for kamikaze Holy Word and Blasphemy attacks - staying safely out of range yourself. :D Of course, its not like you can walk into town with Swarm Armor on, anyways... Oh, and about an Anti-magic field, if you ever come across one, use the hivemind to Disjunction it, ASAP. Hopefully, it won't have gotten close enough to seriously damage your caster level before you cast. As long as you maintain a CL of 100 or above, then down the field goes with no save and no SR. |
| Shebnar03-07-05, 09:27 PM | If you read the description of Hivemind: Any single creature can cast one of the hivemind's spell, but those spell slots are then lost to other creatures in the hivemind. Right. It's getting worse and worse. DOES THAT MEAN THAT FOUR 10000 LOCUST SWARM CAN CAST 4 SPELLS PER ROUND (+ 1 FOR THE VERMINLORD + X FOR THE VERMIN SERVANTS)? :OMG! :ghosted: [I simply refuse to think that 40000 locusts could cast 40000 spells per round. Swarms are treated like single creatures for spellcasting, we have the precedent of the Cranium Rats Swarm & other swarms from Fiend Folio, for instance] |
| Tempest Stormwind03-07-05, 09:51 PM | DOES THAT MEAN THAT FOUR 10000 LOCUST SWARM CAN CAST 4 SPELLS PER ROUND (+ 1 FOR THE VERMINLORD + X FOR THE VERMIN SERVANTS)? :OMG! :ghosted: [I simply refuse to think that 40000 locusts could cast 40000 spells per round. Swarms are treated like single creatures for spellcasting, we have the precedent of the Cranium Rats Swarm & other swarms from Fiend Folio, for instance] I'd be inclined to agree with you on this point. And despite all the evidence to the contrary, this is probably the strongest argument for a swarm counting as a single entity for the hivemind's calculation. Anyway... What about pulling a Worm-That-Walks stunt and throwing a large cloak and/or bodysuit over your constantly-active swarm, if that's what you're worried about? Makes it a bit less conspicuous, particularily if you have it vaguely humanoid before having it cast a Disguise Self spell on the swarm making up the head. |
| Shebnar03-07-05, 10:20 PM | I'd be inclined to agree with you on this point. And despite all the evidence to the contrary, this is probably the strongest argument for a swarm counting as a single entity for the hivemind's calculation. About spellcasting we have a precedent...and Cranium Rats are also hiveminded: they benefit from their number ("...the more the rats, the more intelligent the group mind...", Fiend Folio, pag. 168), but anyway they cast spells as a single being. If swarms were to be considered a single creature for the purpose of creating the hivemind, then it should be paradoxical that Cranium Rats are allowed to merge to create more numberous (and more powerful) enclaves, while they are still counted a single creature, no matter their number. So about hiveminds all that matters is the real number of the vermin. What about pulling a Worm-That-Walks stunt and throwing a large cloak and/or bodysuit over your constantly-active swarm, if that's what you're worried about? Makes it a bit less conspicuous, particularily if you have it vaguely humanoid before having it cast a Disguise Self spell on the swarm making up the head. My...head...is...spinning... ;) |
| Mommy was an Orc03-07-05, 11:08 PM | That's a variation of all rectangles are squares, therefore all squares are rectangles argument. That all non-intelligent insects worthy of being statted out are Vermin does not mean that all non-intelligent insects are Vermin. By being statted out, one of the benefits of this is a minimum of 1 hp and a minimum of doing 1 hp of damage with an attack. 20 termites stand a pretty good chance of wiping out a dumb 1st level party - where neither side has surprise and the 1st level party resorts to foot stomps. Actually, there is an argument to support things like termites being 'vermin' despite not having a unique stat block. The SRD states that "[the vermin] type includes insects, arachnids, other arthropods, worms, and similar invertebrates." Termites are insects. Therefore, were they to be statted in D&D, they'd have the Vermin type. This follows further from the type section in the Monster Manual's monster creation guidelines. |
| Tempest Stormwind03-08-05, 12:28 AM | That's a variation of all rectangles are squares, therefore all squares are rectangles argument. That all non-intelligent insects worthy of being statted out are Vermin does not mean that all non-intelligent insects are Vermin. By being statted out, one of the benefits of this is a minimum of 1 hp and a minimum of doing 1 hp of damage with an attack. 20 termites stand a pretty good chance of wiping out a dumb 1st level party - where neither side has surprise and the 1st level party resorts to foot stomps. You have your geometry backward, but I get your intent. I just don't see how it applies to my statement. Vermin include insects. Termites are insects. Ergo, termites are vermin. Or, in your terms: Quadrilaterals include rectangles. Squares are rectangles. Ergo, squares are quadrilaterals. The only types to ever include insectlike beings are vermin, fey, magical beast, outsider, and monstrous humanoid. The definitions of each of these types are: VERMIN: This type includes insects, arachnids, other arthropods, worms, and similar invertebrates. FEY: A fey is a creature with supernatural abilities and connections to nature or to some other force or place. Fey are usually human-shaped. MAGICAL BEAST: Magical beasts are similar to animals but can have Intelligence scores higher than 2. Magical beasts usually have supernatural or extraordinary abilities, but sometimes are merely bizarre in appearance or habits. OUTSIDER: An outsider is at least partially composed of the essence (but not necessarily the material) of some plane other than the Material Plane. Some creatures start out as some other type and become outsiders when they attain a higher (or lower) state of spiritual existence. MONSTROUS HUMANOID: Monstrous humanoids are similar to humanoids, but with monstrous or animalistic features. They often have magical abilities as well. Gee, I wonder which the termites are? The only one besides Vermin that you COULD fit them into by literal RAW is Magical Beast (as illogical as that sounds), but the fact that the rules require everything to have a type, and that vermin explicitly calls for insects, kind of denies them this. There's no crunch room here. Squares are quadrilaterals. By identical reasoning, termites are vermin. Now, as for statting an individual termite, I don't feel we need to. All that's necessary to define for the Swarm is the type of the creature being used -- in this case, vermin. While in reality 20 termites are peanuts pretty much anything, 2000 of them may not be. Here's where the stats come in. D&D doesn't actually have any stats for individual, nonmonstrous centipedes, locusts, or spiders, either... but that doesn't stop centipede swarms, locust swarms, or spider swarms from showing up in the very SRD. And guess what? They're type Vermin. |
| LordKiwi03-08-05, 05:03 AM | LordKiwi, ya rule! ;) Why thank you :D 2: With just one swarm of diminuative flying creatures you qualify for a CL 87 sorcerer and the vermin lord gets a vermin companion o up to 16 HD at level 9 so a Swarm of Locusts (6 HD) is fine and you get a perminent hive mind. If you ever need a bigger swarm you can cast Summon Swarm half a dozen times for Bats. Keep in mind that the hivemind works only if the swarms critters belong to the same specie... Hivemind works on swarms of the same kind but you can also include your vermin companions in the hivemind. The hivemind you make in this case consists of Bats as the single creature type but also includes your vermin companion (Locust swarm). On another note, I don't think we really need to start making up new vermin swarms based on fleas or termites or tick. The existing swarms are RAW and can easly provide godlike powers within a couple of minutes of sumoning each other..... Twin Summon Swarm spells, over and over again, each round by each swarm then reform the hive mind to include the new swarms and gain dozens of new spell slots. The HIVE can even start sacrificing itself to the dark gods for unbelieveable amounts of darkcraft XP/GP and polymorph itself into midgard dwarves (I think they're the right ones) to craft you hundreds of magical items for free. Soon your hive can cover the world and you can have thousands of powerful magical items at your disposal. Once your CL is about a Billion cast Power Leech on a member of the swarm twice and your Int/Cha will increase +1 per round for the next billion rounds. Luckly for me I've just had an opening to play an evil character in an epic campaign. I'll probably take Vermin lord for part of my build but I also need to sqeeze in come fighting/stealth. I'm going to get some rules queries clarified with by GM and then I'll bring a question back here about what to do with him. I'm not planning on having more than one or two swarms in my hive mind at a time but this GM occassionaly requires characters to go all out to win, so this should fit in nicely. Lord Kiwi, |
| lostone03-08-05, 08:36 AM | Wow...this is an interesting find, I haven't read the BoVD that closely, it just offends me on some basic level. I have not read this entire thread, I got burned out with all the debating on swarms, I can't stand those rules debates when it goes for 3 pages. :D Here are some comments I have from earlier pages: As far as the summoning goes, how does it deal with antimagic field? Would that instantly cancel the summoned swarms returning them to where they were gated? Or does it cancel the control the Vermin Lord has over them but they stay where they are now? If so it would be rather amusing to see the vermin lord suddenly surrounded by millions of insects half of which will go for him the other half away (realistically they'll scatter in all directions, half of which is towards him and half away). Picturing this build is making me think of a diabolical Pigpen from the Peanuts cartoons...the kid with a cloud of dirt around him, only in this case it's insects. |
| SigmaJargon03-08-05, 08:42 AM | Actually, if you use the gate for summoning with indefinite duration longer servitude, it has a duration of instantanious, and thus cannot be dispelled / Anti-magik'd. However, the Vermin Lord's 10th level ability is supernatural, and is thus subject to anti-magic. So, he'll lose the hivemind if he gets surrounded by an AMF, but the swarms will be still be under the effect of the Gate spells. Summoned swarms, on the other hand, will be suppressed while in an AMF until it moves away. Makes for a kind of Moses effect, parting the Vermin sea. |
| Mommy was an Orc03-08-05, 08:55 AM | The rules do not require everything to have a type, they require all statted out creatures to have a type. Any creature with the type Vermin also does a minimum of 1 hp of damage with their main attack. Most insects can't do 1 hp of damage - and therefore they don't qualify(as individuals) for the Vermin type. Gee, I wonder which the termites are? The only one besides Vermin that you COULD fit them into by literal RAW is Magical Beast (as illogical as that sounds), but the fact that the rules require everything to have a type, and that vermin explicitly calls for insects, kind of denies them this. |
| Tempest Stormwind03-08-05, 09:00 AM | The rules do not require everything to have a type, they require all statted out creatures to have a type. Any creature with the type Vermin also does a minimum of 1 hp of damage with their main attack. Most insects can't do 1 hp of damage - and therefore they don't qualify(as individuals) for the Vermin type. Right, and the statted creature I'm interested in here is a Termite Swarm, not an individual termite -- and the most critical stat that those two share is their type. |
| Chaos_Descending03-08-05, 09:01 AM | I only got to page 3, but an Idea here. Not usable for a PC, but... What would happen if you... say build an elf or warforged (Immortal) and summoned elemental swarms. Then... oh crap... use or get someone to make a demi plane for you, speed time up there, and just hang out till the creatures in the swarm mature to small than to large... *Weeps* "I have an army of elementals!" |
| Mommy was an Orc03-08-05, 09:05 AM | And the individual termites don't share that type. Meaning as far as the Vermin Lord power is concerned, it has 1 single Vermin because the individuals are not. Right, and the statted creature I'm interested in here is a Termite Swarm, not an individual termite -- and the most critical stat that those two share is their type. |
| michael_noah03-08-05, 09:08 AM | 1: "All individuals much be within 10' of at least one other creature" There's a big difference between that and this: "If at least 50 vermin or animals of the same species are arranged so that no one individual is more than 10 feet from another individual, the hivemind may come into effect." The first says that, obviously, you can have as many creatures as you want as long as they don't wander from their buddies. The second actually does say that they must all be within 10' of every other creature. e.g. If you are asked, "Are your keys in another pair of pants?", you can't just check one pair and then say, "Nope." You need to check every pair to make sure that they are not. You need to check that every individual is not more than 10 feet from any other individual. So, the question is, which one is actually printed in the book? (please tell me it's not both) |
| LordKiwi03-08-05, 11:30 AM | The first says that, obviously, you can have as many creatures as you want as long as they don't wander from their buddies. The second actually does say that they must all be within 10' of every other creature. e.g. If you are asked, "Are your keys in another pair of pants?", you can't just check one pair and then say, "Nope." You need to check every pair to make sure that they are not. You need to check that every individual is not more than 10 feet from any other individual. So, the question is, which one is actually printed in the book? (please tell me it's not both) It's the second, I misquoted, sorry. However the second (and correct one) states that "If at least 50 vermin or animals of the same species are arranged so that no one individual is more than 10 feet from another individual, the hivemind may come into effect." So each individual must be no more than 10' from another indivivual, not every other individual. So you can have a string of vermin in the swarm. For instance. 11OOOOOO 1122OOOO OO22OOOO OOOOOOOO OO33OO44 OO33OO44 If a O is an empty 5' space and 1-4 are 10'x10' swarms. 1 is within 10' of another individual (2) 2 is within 10' of another individual (1) 3 is within 10' of another individual (2) 4 is not within 10' of another individual so 1, 2 and 3 can form a swarm together. 11OOOOOO 1122OOOO OO22OOOO OOOOOOOO OO33VO44 OO33OO44 If V is a vermin lord then he brides the gap between 3 and 4 so 1-4 and V are in the swarm. It makes more sense this way from a flavour point of view, otherwise if you have a 100,000 strong swarm of rats why are they all huddled together? I would have invisioned a large hive mind 'flowing down a street, filling it from side to side like a river of vermin' or similar. Lord Kiwi, |
| Jeremymc03-08-05, 11:40 AM | Any summoned creature can be dispelled. Just like Planar Ally, you can dispell a creature contracted with the Gate spell. You just have to dispell the 9th level spell. And the Hivemind acts as a SINGLE creature. It has a SINGLE mind. It gets ONE ACTION PER ROUND. The Vermin Lord is "PART" of the hivemind, and "CONTROLS" the hivemind. Giving this monstrosity more than one action/spell per round is CLEARLY against the rules. |
| Shebnar03-08-05, 11:42 AM | Ack!!!! Too late. LordKiwi has already posted the answer. ;) |
| Jeremymc03-08-05, 11:45 AM | It makes more sense this way from a flavour point of view, otherwise if you have a 100,000 strong swarm of rats why are they all huddled together? I would have invisioned a large hive mind 'flowing down a street, filling it from side to side like a river of vermin' or similar. No posting inaccuracies. It makes people who aren't familiar with the thread say dumb things and force us all to relive arguments from a week ago. Swarms larger than allowed in the MM. 3.5 are represented by multiple swarms. Multiple swarms cannot be part of a Hivemind. The Hivemind is ONE swarm. |
| lostone03-08-05, 11:52 AM | "If at least 50 vermin or animals of the same species are arranged so that no one individual is more than 10 feet from another individual, the hivemind may come into effect."While I don't know for sure what was intended, I think this is a clear case where you need to interpret the RAW as how did the game designer really intend it? If you interpret it the way you want, and are in the middle of summer after a heavy rainy season and choose mosquitoes, you're going to have a swarm of billions spread over multiple kingdoms and I don't think that is how the game designer intended it. Whereas if you adjust it a bit to "If at least 50 vermin or animals of the same species are arranged so that no one individual si more than 10 feet from each other individual, the hivemind may come into effect." It is a much more contained area this way, easier to use on the combat grids. And remember combat in 3.0+ was designed/reorganized to use with the combat grids and miniatures, you can't map kingdoms for combat that easilly. |
| michael_noah03-08-05, 12:06 PM | "If at least 50 vermin or animals of the same species are arranged so that no one individual is more than 10 feet from another individual, the hivemind may come into effect." So each individual must be no more than 10' from another indivivual, not every other individual. So you can have a string of vermin in the swarm. Not quite. If it said that "each individual must be within 10 feet of another individual", you could check like this, "Is bug A within 10 feet of me, nope, is it within ten feet of bug B, yes. Good, we're set." However, it says "no one individual is more than 10 feet from another individual", so you check like this, "Is bug A more than 10 feet from bug B, no. Good. Is bug A more than 10 feet from me, yes. Shucks, it doesn't work." Like my not-so-wonderful pants example, you need to check all the distances. As soon as one distance is greater than 10 feet, the clause "one individual is more than 10 feet from another individual" obtains, and the requirement is not met. You can't get around it by only checking against some bug that you like. It's because the ability hinges on a negative condition - to prove that it obtains, you need to check every possibility. |
| LordKiwi03-08-05, 12:47 PM | Like my not-so-wonderful pants example, you need to check all the distances. As soon as one distance is greater than 10 feet, the clause "one individual is more than 10 feet from another individual" obtains, and the requirement is not met. You can't get around it by only checking against some bug that you like. It's because the ability hinges on a negative condition - to prove that it obtains, you need to check every possibility. It doesn't say all individualy, just another individual. Unfortunatly this sort of argument is going round in circles, so it probably means the sentence can be interpreted in two ways. There is no single RAW in thise case and it's up to individual GMs to decide, since the rulebook can't. Lord Kiwi, |
| michael_noah03-08-05, 02:01 PM | It doesn't say all individualy, just another individual. Unfortunatly this sort of argument is going round in circles, so it probably means the sentence can be interpreted in two ways. There is no single RAW in thise case and it's up to individual GMs to decide, since the rulebook can't. Lord Kiwi, Arg! There is no other interpretation. In order to "prove" that the ability works, you need to "prove" that "no one individual is more than 10 feet from another individual". Agreed? It's very hard to prove this, since it's a negative statement. You need to check every single individual. (I think you're disagreeing on this point, and if so, you're mistaken. Check the example below.) On the other hand, it's very easy to disprove. All you need to do is find an individual that is more than 10' from another individual. It doesn't matter which two you pick, as long as you can find two, it's the exception that makes satisfying the condition impossible. Take this example: I have auburn hair. I want to show that there is not another individual that has auburn hair. In order to show this, I have to go look at every single individual and see what color hair they have. It's a lot of work, and I have to check every person. I can't just choose one person and say, "since this other individual does not have auburn hair, there is not another individual that has auburn hair." It's very easy to show that I am wrong, though. You just need to find another individual that has auburn hair, and you're done. |
| NineInchNall03-08-05, 02:32 PM | The problem arises in whether you think that the lack of the word "any" in ",no one individual is more than 10 feet from another individual," changes the meaning. To wit, should it matter that the restriction does not say, "from any other individual?" This is a valid objection. As it is, the sentence can be interpreted in the manner that you suggest, michael_noah, in that no member can be more than 10' away from any other member. This, of course, would limit the initial hivemind to a 5' radius sphere. This interpretation is best expressed by adding the word "any" to the restriction as above. However, it is also a valid interpretation that to be in the hivemind, a member need only be within 10' of another member of the hivemind. Why does this work? Because that isolated individual, who is 5' away from the main sphere, is within 10' of another member of the hivemind. And hence there are no individuals more than 10' from another individual in the hivemind. The whole thing hinges on the escalation from specific to general, through the word "any," which just happens not to be there, so we have to say that both, for now, are valid interpretations. |
| michael_noah03-08-05, 03:16 PM | However, it is also a valid interpretation that to be in the hivemind, a member need only be within 10' of another member of the hivemind. Why does this work? Because that isolated individual, who is 5' away from the main sphere, is within 10' of another member of the hivemind. And hence there are no individuals more than 10' from another individual in the hivemind. This is incorrect. You are making the following mistake: 1. Individual B is within 5' of individual A. 2. Therefore individual B is not more than 10' away from another individual in the hivemind. #2 does not follow from #1. I can easily disprove your "conclusion" by pointing out an individual on the other side of the circle. 1a. Individual B is 15' away from individual C. 2a. Therefore individual B is more than 10' away from another individual in the hivemind. #2a does follow from #1a. The distinction comes in that you are attempting to prove a negative condition, which, as my hair example illustrates, is difficult to do. You are in doing the equivalent of stating: 1. michael_noah's brother does not have auburn hair. 2. therefore, there is not another individual (besides michael_noah) that has auburn hair. Do you think that that is a valid conclusion? |
| LordKiwi03-08-05, 03:24 PM | Just as a note, I'm dropping from this argument/discussion now. As a parting shot, look how the wording in the targeting section of Haste (and similar spells) differs from Hivemind. As with all RAW arguments we put more effort divining the exact meaning of each word than the game developers put into writing them. Lord Kiwi, |
| michael_noah03-08-05, 03:24 PM | from here (http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn?stage=1&word=another): 3. another(prenominal), some other -- (any of various alternatives; some other; "put it off to another (or some other) day") |
| michael_noah03-08-05, 03:29 PM | Just as a note, I'm dropping from this argument/discussion now. As a parting shot, look how the wording in the targeting section of Haste (and similar spells) differs from Hivemind. As with all RAW arguments we put more effort divining the exact meaning of each word than the game developers put into writing them. Lord Kiwi, I agree that that is normally the case. I really wish you'd stick around though, because this is one time that the wording is actually explicitly clear. Granted, it would be nice if they had been a little more clear and used "any other" instead of "another". It's not necessary for the meaning of the clause, though. |
| NineInchNall03-08-05, 04:42 PM | This is incorrect. You are making the following mistake: 1. Individual B is within 5' of individual A. 2. Therefore individual B is not more than 10' away from another individual in the hivemind. #2 does not follow from #1. I can easily disprove your "conclusion" by pointing out an individual on the other side of the circle. 1a. Individual B is 15' away from individual C. 2a. Therefore individual B is more than 10' away from another individual in the hivemind. #2a does follow from #1a. The distinction comes in that you are attempting to prove a negative condition, which, as my hair example illustrates, is difficult to do. You are in doing the equivalent of stating: 1. michael_noah's brother does not have auburn hair. 2. therefore, there is not another individual (besides michael_noah) that has auburn hair. Do you think that that is a valid conclusion? Look, I understand what you are saying. I stated as much in my last post. I just don't think that, as written, the rules for hiveminds are necessarily interpreted as such. If we were using purely formal language, then this would not be a problem. For example, if it said, "For every member A, B of the hivemind, A is within 10' of B," then I wouldn't have any problem with saying unequivocally that all members have to be within a 5' radius sphere. However, as I have said, the language used is unclear. I'm going to be Frege here and say that natural language is crappy for specificity. Specifically, the word "another" is insufficient for mapping directly to the formal restriction I supplied above. You provided one definition of "another" and here is another: Main Entry: 1an·oth·er Pronunciation: &-'n&-[th]&r also a- or A- Function: adjective 1 : different or distinct from the one first considered <the same scene viewed from another angle> 2 : some other <do it another time> 3 : being one more in addition to one or more of the same kind <have another piece of pie> This definition supports the ambiguity about which I have been writing. Natural language is unclear because it is difficult to be certain of what definition is being used for any given word. As the rules for the hivemind are, as I have surely shown, unclear, we should just drop it. Seriously. |
| NineInchNall03-08-05, 04:48 PM | I agree that that is normally the case. I really wish you'd stick around though, because this is one time that the wording is actually explicitly clear. Granted, it would be nice if they had been a little more clear and used "any other" instead of "another". It's not necessary for the meaning of the clause, though. No, it is not necessary. It is absolutely necessary. When the word "another" is used on its own, it has multiple extensions. It's one of the reasons we have formal language in logic & mathematics. "Any other" would have laid this all to rest, but since we're left with "another," we're up feces creek without a paddle. It's one of those ambiguous wordings. Leave it at that. |
| michael_noah03-08-05, 05:03 PM | So, you're saying that even though I can point out that bug B is 15' from bug C, you can show that there is no bug that is more than 10' from another bug? I find this really suprising from someone that seems to know a bit about logic and language. |
| Jeremymc03-08-05, 05:19 PM | If you interpret it the way you want, and are in the middle of summer after a heavy rainy season and choose mosquitoes, you're going to have a swarm of billions spread over multiple kingdoms and I don't think that is how the game designer intended it. Whereas if you adjust it a bit to "If at least 50 vermin or animals of the same species are arranged so that no one individual si more than 10 feet from each other individual, the hivemind may come into effect." This is what I was talking about. We now have new debaters coming in who haven't read the entries we're talking about, who haven't read the earlier posts. The "SWARM" entry in the Monster Manual 3.5 has a NUMERICAL LIMIT based on the size of the creature that comprises the swarm. Please take note of it. If you make a swarm of mosquitoes (of which there's no such creature in the Monster Manual, BTW.), you are limited to a 10 000 creature swarm, as per the rules for swarms. Now, within that 10 000 creature Hivemind, you then apply the "10 ft. rule". Which seems to mean that you can stretch a line of 10 000 mosquitoes for miles behind you, and still gain the benefits of the Hivemind. But no abilty allows you to make a single swarm that's bigger than that numerical cap. And about buffing spells. The swarm is "defined" as a single creature "for game purposes". And since a spell is a game purpose, and the swarm counts as a single creature with a single HD, a single attack, etc... then why shouldn't haste affect it as it would affect a single creature? Can someone point to an entry that specifically states that swarms are immune to buffing spells? |
| michael_noah03-08-05, 05:28 PM | This is what I was talking about. We now have new debaters coming in who haven't read the entries we're talking about, who haven't read the earlier posts. The "SWARM" entry in the Monster Manual 3.5 has a NUMERICAL LIMIT based on the size of the creature that comprises the swarm. Please take note of it. I hope that you're not referring to me, since I have read the thread in its entirety. I would like to make another observation. It may be that by "another individual" they meant that there is some particular magic bug from which no individual may be more than 10'. This meaning is possible, as NIN suggests by noting that the word "another" is ambiguous. I would grant that it would be possible to interpret the clause as: "no individual may be more than 10' from some specific other individual. this individual is necessary for determining the limits of the spell, but we're not going to tell you which one it is, or how you can find out." This would give us a swarm with radius 10' - around the magic bug. However, I think that this interpretation is, pardon me, silly. If, however, "another" is taken to mean just some other bug (as suggested by our friend Webster), not one in particular, we are again limited to a 5' radius. |
| Tempest Stormwind03-08-05, 05:36 PM | This is what I was talking about. We now have new debaters coming in who haven't read the entries we're talking about, who haven't read the earlier posts. The "SWARM" entry in the Monster Manual 3.5 has a NUMERICAL LIMIT based on the size of the creature that comprises the swarm. Please take note of it. If you make a swarm of mosquitoes (of which there's no such creature in the Monster Manual, BTW.), you are limited to a 10 000 creature swarm, as per the rules for swarms. Now, within that 10 000 creature Hivemind, you then apply the "10 ft. rule". Which seems to mean that you can stretch a line of 10 000 mosquitoes for miles behind you, and still gain the benefits of the Hivemind. But no abilty allows you to make a single swarm that's bigger than that numerical cap. I agree that you probably can't have any spread of hiveminds over kingdoms. However, there are two minor problems with your statements. 1) 2 swarms can occupy the same space. 2) Larger swarms are comprised of multiple instances of the 10x10 "swarm units" that are statted out. My only question on that, though -- In the case of 2, do you still treat the whole swarm as one entity, or rather just numerous entities that are in contact with each other? Alternately, do we use the Ectoplasmic Shambler as an example here of a shapable-on-the-fly creature? |
| LordKiwi03-08-05, 05:40 PM | And about buffing spells. The swarm is "defined" as a single creature "for game purposes". And since a spell is a game purpose, and the swarm counts as a single creature with a single HD, a single attack, etc... then why shouldn't haste affect it as it would affect a single creature? Can someone point to an entry that specifically states that swarms are immune to buffing spells? Now this I will answer/debate as it's an easy and clear one. From the SRD (Types, Subtypes, and Special Abilities: Swarm)... A swarm is immune to any spell or effect that targets a specific number of creatures (including single-target spells such as disintegrate), with the exception of mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects) if the swarm has an Intelligence score and a hive mind. This means you cannot buff swarms with spells like Haste or Mage armour. Their are two types of buff spell you can use... 1. Area of effect e.g. Prayer 2. Mind Affecting e.g. Heroism It may be useful to compile a list of buffs that work on swarms. Hope this answers that satisfactoraly. One question I do still have about this is, a swarm accesses the hive mind to cast 'Tenser's Transformation'. It has an effect of 'Personal' meaning the catser. Does this affect the swarm as the entire swarm cast the spell OR does it fail as the spell still needs one target? Lord Kiwi, |
| NineInchNall03-08-05, 07:52 PM | So, you're saying that even though I can point out that bug B is 15' from bug C, you can show that there is no bug that is more than 10' from another bug? I find this really suprising from someone that seems to know a bit about logic and language. Yes, I am saying that. Let's formalize it (sort of). You advocate the position that there is only one valid interpretation (formalization) of the rule. That would be, as I said before, For every member A, B of the hivemind, A is within 10' of B." I am saying that the words used could be interpreted (formalized) as follows. "For any member A of the hivemind, there must exist within 10' of A a member B of the hivemind distinct from A." This can work because of the ambiguity of the word "another." Look at it this way. Let ZZ = "is within 10' of another member of the hivemind" be a quality which we can ascribe to a creature. Now place two rats in a line, with 8' separating them. Rat A has the quality ZZ by virtue of its proximity to rat B, and rat B has ZZ because of its proximity to A. Now we add a third rat along the same line as the other two, so we get A->B->C. A is ZZ, B is ZZ, and C is ZZ. I agree that this is a nitpicky, lawyerly way of reading the text, but ... The problem with the latter interpretation is that it allows for hiveminds of unlimited size. Of course, this may not be a problem if you are using the whole hivemind thing as an NPC, enemy, plot device, or what have you. Natural language blows. |
| NineInchNall03-08-05, 07:55 PM | One question I do still have about this is, a swarm accesses the hive mind to cast 'Tenser's Transformation'. It has an effect of 'Personal' meaning the catser. Does this affect the swarm as the entire swarm cast the spell OR does it fail as the spell still needs one target? Lord Kiwi, The description of hiveminds says that any member may cast a one of the hivemind's spells, so I would imagine that the effect would be limited to the member that cast the spell. |
| Jeremymc03-08-05, 11:06 PM | I agree that you probably can't have any spread of hiveminds over kingdoms. However, there are two minor problems with your statements. 1) 2 swarms can occupy the same space. 2) Larger swarms are comprised of multiple instances of the 10x10 "swarm units" that are statted out. My only question on that, though -- In the case of 2, do you still treat the whole swarm as one entity, or rather just numerous entities that are in contact with each other? Alternately, do we use the Ectoplasmic Shambler as an example here of a shapable-on-the-fly creature? No swarm can occupy the same space as another swarm. I have no idea where you got this idea from, but a swarm is treated as a single creature with a 10ft. space. With the exception of a victim the swarm is ENGULFING, a swarm has to be alone in his space. The only other exception to this is that the Vermin Lord counts as part of the Hivemind/Swarm and can therefore be in the same square as his swarm. And as for Lord Kiwi's question - I would assume that the VL's buffing spell then affects him, his specific companions and no other creatures. He's still part of the swarm, but he's also an individual spellcaster. |
| Endarire03-09-05, 12:23 AM | We only need Divine Grace, death ward, and the Arcane Duelist (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/re/20030224a)'s CHA to AC to make this guy virtually unhurtable. -EE |
| war child of the mourn03-09-05, 01:00 AM | wow, i was just browsing through this thread and ya some people have no lives, now don't get me wrong those who have made the build and those who had attempted and succeeded in improving it have lives for they are doing something productive, it is those who spend probably every waking hour to argue and complain against a concrete rule that almost all previous 3.0 and 3.5 material is 100% legal (including Dragons Magazine) now those people have no lives and i will not mention names *cough*ancalimohtar*cough* these people have probably wasted about oh a day of their lives typing there little whiny complaints. now i know this has almost no relavency to this forum but i had to waste about an half an hour of my life to complain becuase i had a burning desire to show some individuals they are wasting time that they could go spend playing frisbee, wash a dog, fly a kite, solve world hunger, or even better yet find a woman, and that is all i have to say about that. |
| Squirrelloid03-09-05, 03:38 AM | Michael Noah: You've seriously misconstrued how logic works in this case. Another just means one other creature. If it had been intended to mean all other, it would have said all other. Note the following: (1) if i want another beer from the fridge, i don't want all the beer in the fridge. (2) If you work as a coat check person and your instructions are 'make sure no coat is more than 10' from another coat', they want you to keep the coats near each other, but not in a 10' diameter sphere. (3) if i build a fence such that no post is more than 10' from another post', is this any different from saying 'no post is more than 10' from an adjacent post'? Lets break this down, word by word, phrase by phrase. I will use == as defined as. "If at least 50 vermin or animals of the same species are arranged so that no one individual is more than 10 feet from another individual, the hivemind may come into effect." Another == being one more in addition to one or more of the same kind (from the definition provided earlier, eg, Websters = one other individual = one creature, a single entity (one wasp, one rat, etc...). no one individual = there is not one such individual. This phrase implies we check every individual for compliance. ...is more than 10 feet from = there exists something which no individual is more than 10' from. another individual = some one other single entity or creature. So, for every individual, we check to make sure 'there exists something' [another individual == one single entity] which that individual is not 'more than 10' from'. If, for all individuals, there exists an individual not more than 10' from it, then they may form a hivemind. Now, if it had said 'If at least 50 vermin or animals of the same species are arranged so that no one individual is more than 10 feet from all other individuals, the hivemind may come into effect.' Note both that i need to insert the word all into the sentence, and pluralize individual in its second occurence to achieve the meaning you want. If nothing else, the lack of a plural should be sufficient to demonstrate you only need to check one other individual. Further, nowhere in the sentence does it instruct you to check all individuals against all others. It just instructs you to check all individuals against some one other. To the Frege fans: language may not always be the most precise, but plurals and singulars certainly are specific about whether its one or more than one. And logical negations can be done with natural language, they just sound awful. (The logical negation of the above sentence is 'there is an individual more than 10' from all other individuals', not 'there is an individual more than 10' from another individual'. You need to reverse the all-some language as well as the negative to get a true negation of the sentence. This, btw, also proves that strings of vermin are possible. There is no ambiguity in that sentence.) If you don't believe me, go ask a logician. (S)He'll tell you the same thing. edit: grammar |
| LordKiwi03-09-05, 04:27 AM | The description of hiveminds says that any member may cast a one of the hivemind's spells, so I would imagine that the effect would be limited to the member that cast the spell. And as for Lord Kiwi's question - I would assume that the VL's buffing spell then affects him, his specific companions and no other creatures. He's still part of the swarm, but he's also an individual spellcaster. That's not quite what I wished to ask. I'll be more specific with an example. A 'Hivemind' is made up of 'Swarm A', 'Swarm B' and 'Vermin Lord'. 'Swarm A' accesses the hiveminds sorcerous abilities and casts Tenser's Transformation. Does this affect Swarm A, as Swarm A is the caster of the personal effect spell, or does it fail, because swarms are unaffected by spells that specify a single target? I think we need to clear up our use of terminology as it can be confusing with hiveminds and swarms being different things. HIVEMIND- Collection of creatures described in the BoVD chapter 2. SWARM- Collection of creatures described in the MM glossary. One HIVEMIND can contain many SWARMS. Lord Kiwi, |
| Boondoggle03-09-05, 08:36 AM | Frankly, BoVD needs an update. This PrC was clearly not written with swarms in mind. By the RAW, this set up is disgustingly broken and would be great fun for an uber optimization one shot. For use in an actual game, the PrC needs a rewrite. While me stating these obvious facts should bring an end to this rather pointless discussion, I know it won't, and I don't care. That you can get hundreds of skill ranks, feats & bonus spell slots for free is all that is needed to know about this build. The minutia of just how big this loophole is, at this point, isn't relevant. Just like no one knows or cares just how much damage we can make the hulking hurler do, no one will ever know or care just how broken the hivemind ability is simply because it's not nessessary. The level of cheese has passed a threshold into the realm of game breaking and that is what matters. |
| michael_noah03-09-05, 08:54 AM | Yes, I am saying that. Let's formalize it (sort of). You advocate the position that there is only one valid interpretation (formalization) of the rule. That would be, as I said before, For every member A, B of the hivemind, A is within 10' of B." I am saying that the words used could be interpreted (formalized) as follows. "For any member A of the hivemind, there must exist within 10' of A a member B of the hivemind distinct from A." This can work because of the ambiguity of the word "another." This is incorrect. If we're looking at individual A, it doesn't matter how many bugs are within 10' of it. Showing that B is not more than 10' from A does nothing to show that it is not more than 10' away from another bug. B is within 10' of another bug, but it can also be more than 10' away from another bug. In fact we can easily see that it is more than 10' away from bug C (in our running example). In order for you to claim that it is not 10' away from another bug, you have to claim that bug C is not "another" bug. The only way to do this is to claim that by "another" bug, they intend to mean some specific bug (as I stated in my last post), but then you must measure from only that bug, and you're left with a 10' radius sphere. e.g. Look at my hair example. Showing that one other person does not have auburn hair does nothing to help prove that there is not another person that has auburn hair. What you are stating is that the statement: "there is not a bug that is more than 10' from another bug" is equivalent to: "there is a bug that is not more than 10' from another bug" or: "there is not another person that has auburn hair" is equivalent to: "there is another person that does not have auburn hair" or "there does not exist X such that X is A" is equivalent to: "there exists X such that X is not A" Can you see yet that this is not the case? I think we all agree that the designers didn't intend infinite sized hiveminds, so the following is unimportant. Just in case, do you realize that if you "interpret" it as you have been, there is no need to form a line at all? we can include every pair of bugs in the world such that the 2 bugs are not more than 10' apart. They are each within 10' of another bug, but the pairs could be arbitrarily far apart. Go buddy system. |
| Squirrelloid03-09-05, 04:09 PM | This is incorrect. If we're looking at individual A, it doesn't matter how many bugs are within 10' of it. Showing that B is not more than 10' from A does nothing to show that it is not more than 10' away from another bug. B is within 10' of another bug, but it can also be more than 10' away from another bug. In fact we can easily see that it is more than 10' away from bug C (in our running example). In order for you to claim that it is not 10' away from another bug, you have to claim that bug C is not "another" bug. The only way to do this is to claim that by "another" bug, they intend to mean some specific bug (as I stated in my last post), but then you must measure from only that bug, and you're left with a 10' radius sphere. You are misinterpreting because you are assuming another to be equivalent to all other. This is not the case. As long as there exists another bug within 10' of B, it can be more than 10' from all other bugs. It still returns true when you check to make sure that bug B is 'no more than 10' from another' bug. Just because it can also be more than 10' from some other bugs doesnt negate the statement. Go read something about logical negation. e.g. Look at my hair example. Showing that one other person does not have auburn hair does nothing to help prove that there is not another person that has auburn hair. What you are stating is that the statement: "there is not a bug that is more than 10' from another bug" is equivalent to: "there is a bug that is not more than 10' from another bug" or: "there is not another person that has auburn hair" is equivalent to: "there is another person that does not have auburn hair" or "there does not exist X such that X is A" is equivalent to: "there exists X such that X is not A" Ok, lets look at logical negations. In the first two, you propose that (1) 'there is not a bug that is more than 10' from another bug' is equivalent to (2) 'there is a bug that is not more than 10' from another bug'. I also claim these are equivalent. logical negation of 1: There is a bug that is more than 10' from all other bugs. Logical negation of 2: There is bug that is more than 10' from all other bugs This results from the same negation applied in two different areas of the sentence. Now lets look at the next pair: (3) "there is not another person that has auburn hair" versus (4)"there is another person that does not have auburn hair" logical negation of 3: There is another person that has auburn hair logical negation of 4: No other person does not have auburn hair = All other people have auburn hair. These two are not equivalent. In the first case (3), if we have one person that has auburn hair, we have negated the sentence. In the second case (4), we need to show that all the people have auburn hair to negate the sentence. You're making a specific-general conflation error. Finally: you claim (5) there does not exist X such that X is A" is equivalent to (6)"there exists X such that X is not A". These are equivalent, but there are no all or some statements here. Is this, 'for all X, there...' or 'for some X...'? In order to understand the language of the Hivemind ability, you need to use all/some/none type distinctions. Because you fail to do that here, you fail to capture the logical structure of the sentence. Can you see yet that this is not the case? I think we all agree that the designers didn't intend infinite sized hiveminds, so the following is unimportant. Just in case, do you realize that if you "interpret" it as you have been, there is no need to form a line at all? we can include every pair of bugs in the world such that the 2 bugs are not more than 10' apart. They are each within 10' of another bug, but the pairs could be arbitrarily far apart. Go buddy system. Designer's intent means nothing. I am not the designer. I am not in the designer's head. How am i to know what he intended. I could equally claim that he meant to allow Hiveminds which didnt fit in a 10'rad sphere, and just hadn't thought about the logical conclusion of his desire. Or i could claim he was high on menthamphetamines at the time. Or any other ridiculous thing. None of these are provable assertions, so unless you have some mystic connection to the designer, you cannot know what his intent was. For all i know, the designer's are tossing these things in just to see who will catch them. Further, as the designer's intent is specific knowledge, even if you were personally the designer, what you intended has no bearing on how it actually reads, and the wording, not your intent, has the force of RAW. Just because you know what you meant doesn't mean other people reading it without you there can know what you meant. The wording as provided is the only way to understand and interpret the ability. Just because the wording sucks doesnt mean we get to invoke intent - this is why DMs get to houserule things. This is also why WotC should do better playtesting of material. But you're right, the rule as written allows for buddy system style manipulation. Of course, the logical wording necessary to allow chains and prevent buddy systems is really cumbersome - i'm not surprised they didnt use it. To whit: "so long as all individuals entering into the hivemind form a connected network such that no individual is more than 10' from some other individual already connected to the network to count as being connected to the network, then the hivemind may come into effect." Edit: clarity |
| Zemyla03-09-05, 04:21 PM | Question. What kind of extraplanar swarm are you Gating in? Because hellwasps (the only kind I see) are magical beasts. |
| michael_noah03-09-05, 05:30 PM | You are misinterpreting because you are assuming another to be equivalent to all other. This is not the case. As long as there exists another bug within 10' of B, it can be more than 10' from all other bugs. It still returns true when you check to make sure that bug B is 'no more than 10' from another' bug. Just because it can also be more than 10' from some other bugs doesnt negate the statement. Go read something about logical negation. I am not assuming this in any way. Here is my reasoning. 1. Bug B is a bug. 2. Bug C is another bug. 3. Bug B is more than 10' from bug C. 4. Therefore, bug B is more than 10' from another bug. 5. The hive mind requires that no bug be more than 10' from another bug. 6. Since bug B is more than 10' from another bug, even though it is also within 10' of some bugs, namely bug A, the hive mind requirement is not met. Note that there is no assumption that "another" means "any other" or "every other". Do you realize that you just said the equivalent of, "just because bug B is more than 10' from another bug, that doesn't mean that it's more than 10' from another bug." or "X doesn't mean X." Bah! Ok, lets look ... Snip... ions. Because you fail to do that here, you fail to capture the logical structure of the sentence. I'm not claiming that these are correct. I'm saying that they're not. I am claiming that if you accept the first equality, you must accept the following ones as well. But you're right, the rule as written allows for buddy system style manipulation. Of course, the logical wording necessary to allow chains and prevent buddy systems is really cumbersome - i'm not surprised they didnt use it. To whit: "so long as all individuals entering into the hivemind form a connected network such that no individual is more than 10' from some other individual already connected to the network to count as being connected to the network, then the hivemind may come into effect." I know that designer intent doesn't impact the raw, that's why it said it didn't matter. I don't know what this bit of your post is really trying to get at, I was just pointing out an (absurd) consequence of your "interpretation". |
| Isthramir03-09-05, 06:04 PM | The logical negaton of "no bug can be more than 10' from another bug" is not "there exists a bug such that there is another bug that is more then 10' from it" but is instead "there exists a bug such that there is not another bug within 10' of it". It's a simple matter of knowing how to negate "There Exists" and "For all". There is only one way to interpret the logic of the english of this statement. "Every bug must be less than or equal to 10' distant from another bug" is a logical equivilant that can be gotten by distributing the negative. |
| michael_noah03-09-05, 07:04 PM | The logical negaton of "no bug can be more than 10' from another bug" is not "there exists a bug such that there is another bug that is more then 10' from it" but is instead "there exists a bug such that there is not another bug within 10' of it". I apologize, I don't understand what you're getting at. Will you please look at my argument listed above, and point out which part you disagree with? Do you disagree that C is another bug? or do you think that even though B is more than 10' away from another bug, it is somehow not at the same time? |
| Isthramir03-09-05, 07:18 PM | between 5 and 6 is your problem. Although there are a lot of pointless (although logicallt correst statements above). You are improperly negating the statement "no bug more than 10' from another bug" to "a bug more than 10' from another bug" which might seem to make sence, but is not logically correct. |
| michael_noah03-09-05, 07:20 PM | I think what everyone is missing is that there is a very subtle difference between: "no bug is more than 10' from another bug" and "every bug is no more than 10' from another bug" I know that in formal logic this would not be the case. It is precisely because the definition of "another" is in question that there is a difference. I challenge anyone to produce a definition of "another" that produces anything other than a 10' radius sphere or a 5' radius sphere (or something in between). The first, being a negative statement, is disproven as soon as I show a bug that is more than 10' from another bug (which I have done in our example, unless you claim that C is not "another bug"), no matter how many other bugs within 10' of another bug you show. The second is not disproven if I show that, it is only disproven if I can find a bug that is not no more than 10' of another bug. Y:"a bug is more than 10' from another bug" IS the opposite of: X:"no bug is more than 10' from another bug" I have shown that in the example of a chain, Y. This is the opposite of the necessary condition (X) for the hivemind. Therefore, the hivemind does not work. |
| michael_noah03-09-05, 07:21 PM | between 5 and 6 is your problem. Although there are a lot of pointless (although logicallt correst statements above). You are improperly negating the statement "no bug more than 10' from another bug" to "a bug more than 10' from another bug" which might seem to make sence, but is not logically correct. What are you talking about? Are you saying that "not X" is not the negative (opposite) of "X"? The two are definitionally mutually exclusive. There either is a bug "blah", or there is not a bug "blah". You cannot have both. |
| Isthramir03-09-05, 07:28 PM | Y:"a bug is more than 10' from another bug" IS the opposite of: X:"no bug is more than 10' from another bug" No it is not. Note on Negation Let us go back for a moment to the statement "All men are mortal": x[Px Qx]. Question What does its negation, ~x[Px Qx], say? Answer Literally, it says: "It is not true that all men are mortal." More succinctly, "Some men are immortal." Contrast this with "No men are mortal": x[Px ~Qx]. ... so the negation would be some bugs are more than 10 feet from any other bug. |
| Isthramir03-09-05, 07:29 PM | What are you talking about? Are you saying that "not X" is not the negative (opposite) of "X"? The two are definitionally mutually exclusive. There either is a bug "blah", or there is not a bug "blah". You cannot have both. Exactly not hen you distribute the not into X and X contains a there exists or a for all ... to take the socratese example and modify it a bit .. "No man is immortal" is not the opposite of "Man is immortal" |
| michael_noah03-09-05, 07:31 PM | Exactly not hen you distribute the not into X and X contains a there exists or a for all ... to take the socratese example and modify it a bit .. "No man is immortal" is not the opposite of "Man is immortal" But it is the opposite of "A man is immortal". |
| michael_noah03-09-05, 07:36 PM | deleted cause it just says the same thing again... |
| Isthramir03-09-05, 07:42 PM | negate "Everyone has another person who is there solemate." for me. |
| Jeremymc03-09-05, 08:46 PM | Frankly, BoVD needs an update. This PrC was clearly not written with swarms in mind. By the RAW, this set up is disgustingly broken and would be great fun for an uber optimization one shot. For use in an actual game, the PrC needs a rewrite. Actually that's true. There was no such thing as a swarm in 3.0. Therefore, the hivemind formation relied completely on individual creatures to form the hive. So if the rules were written that way when the class was designed, why shouldn't we continue those rules into this new version, and say that swarms won't form a hivemind, but only individual creatures. |
| Squirrelloid03-09-05, 09:37 PM | Y:"a bug is more than 10' from another bug" IS the opposite of: X:"no bug is more than 10' from another bug" I have shown that in the example of a chain, Y. This is the opposite of the necessary condition (X) for the hivemind. Therefore, the hivemind does not work. And you are wrong. The logical negation of Y is "no bug is more than 10' from all other bugs". You must toggle the all/some distinction as well as the pos/neg distinction. Another == some one other. As long as there exists a bug within 10' of a given bug, that bug is legal. It doesnt matter if you can find yet other bugs more than 10' from our first bug, i only need to find one that is within 10' to meet the condition. Its an existence claim, and as long as one such individual exists for every individual under consideration, then you can make the hivemind. Consider: For all positive integers n, there exists an integer within 5 of it. This is obviously true. However, i can find an integer more than 5 from a given integer. Does this make the statement false? No. You are looking to make sure at least one such integer exists, not that all integers fall within 5 of some integer. |
| michael_noah03-09-05, 10:30 PM | negate "Everyone has another person who is there solemate." for me. There exists a person that does not have another person who is there solemate. |
| Squirrelloid03-09-05, 10:31 PM | I shudder to mention this, but there is an epic swarm. Ruin Swarm (ELH) "A ruin swarm is composed of tens of thousands of vermin acting as a single malevolent organism". HD50d10+500+40. Now there's a hivemind that can take epic feats! And has blindsight 200'! |
| michael_noah03-09-05, 10:39 PM | And you are wrong. No. I'm not. The logical negation of Y is "no bug is more than 10' from all other bugs". You must toggle the all/some distinction as well as the pos/neg distinction. You are wrong. you're "toggling" too many existentials. you can toggle the one, from "for every" to "there exists", but not the second (the almost). in fact, you can't assume that the "another" is an existential quantifier without admitting one of my conclusions. Another == some one other. As long as there exists a bug within 10' of a given bug, that bug is legal. It doesnt matter if you can find yet other bugs more than 10' from our first bug, i only need to find one that is within 10' to meet the condition. Its an existence claim, and as long as one such individual exists for every individual under consideration, then you can make the hivemind. ok, you've not understood anything i've written. it is you who must prove a negative claim. you must show that no bug is more than 10' from another bug. you must check every possiblity to show that there is not an exception. that is the entire point of this argument, as i stated in my first post. it does not matter that you can show bugs within 10' of another. you must show that no bug is more than 10' from another. if i show that one is more than 10' from another, you lose. end of story. Consider: For all positive integers n, there exists an integer withing 5 of it. This is obviously true. However, i can find an integer more than 5 from a given integer. Does this make the statement false? No. You are looking to make sure at least one such integer exists, not that all integers fall within 5 of some integer. wrong, wrong, wrong. if you are attempting to make an analogy, the correct one would be: "no integer is more than 5 from another integer" It's really. really. evident that this is not the case. just like it is really. really. evident, that if there are two bugs that are more than 10' apart, then there is a bug that is more than 10' from another bug. |
| SigmaJargon03-09-05, 11:16 PM | This is rapidly spiraling off topic. Please, people, if you are going to make arguments for or against, base your arguments in the text. If at least 50 vermin or animals of the same species are arranged so that no one individual is more than 10 feet from another individual, the hivemind may come into effect.The section in question, I believe? If "at least 50 vermin or animals of the same species " and "no one individual is more than 10 feet from another individual" then "the hivemind may come into effect," agreed? Lets assume that the 50+ vermin/animal same species will be fulfilled. Now we have If "no one individual is more than 10 feet from another individual" then "the hivemind may come into effect." Lets take a closer look at the qualifier. "no one individual is more than 10 feet from another individual." In order to fulfill this, we must look at each individual. If even a single one is "more than 10 feet from another individual." then there will be no hivemind. We must test each vermin/animal to be included to see if it is "more than 10 feet from another individual." If each individual is 10ft or less from another individual, then we are hivemind-enabled, agreed? Very well. Let us agree on terms at this point. Another does not refer to a multiple. If you want another slice of pie, you want ONE other slice of pie, not the whole pastry. If you want another pie, you want ONE other pie, not the whole world supply of pies. Another is a reference to only one other thing. So, testing if each individual is 10ft or less away from another individual. As long as another individual fulfills the property of being 10ft or less away, then both qualify to be contained in the hivemind Here, I'll illustrate with an example. Lets take individuals A, B, and C. A and B are arranged so that they are separated by a distance of 10ft. C is placed so that is it 11ft from both A and B. To test for the requisites to become a hivemind (assuming the 50 is already fulfilled), we examine each individual. A: Is 10ft or less away from another individual? Yes, another individual, B, is 10ft away. A passes the test, and qualifies to be part of the hivemind. B: Is 10ft or less away from another individual? Yes, another individual, A, is 10ft away. A passes the test, and qualifies to be part of the hivemind. C: Is 10ft or less away from another individual? No. Another individual A, is present, but it 11ft away, and so fails the test. B is also 11ft away, and so C does not have another individual which is 10ft or less away. C cannot become part of the hivemind. |
| Squirrelloid03-10-05, 02:38 AM | Please do the world a favor and take a logic class. Why dont you go back to the post where I break the wording down phrase by phrase and show that you only have to check for one individual? Line by line: No. I'm not. Please, explain how i did not properly negate the sentences. Because i hold those are the valid negations unless you can demonstrate and justify otherwise. We can go back to your horribly flawed hair example if you like. You are wrong. you're "toggling" too many existentials. you can toggle the one, from "for every" to "there exists", but not the second (the almost). in fact, you can't assume that the "another" is an existential quantifier without admitting one of my conclusions. Um, what? There are some/all claims and pos/neg claims. I don't know what you mean by existentials. You must toggle both to negate. This is a basic feature of logic. For instance, if i tell you "All the world's a stage", the proper negation is not "None of the world's a stage". Part of the world could still be a stage and the first statement is still wrong. However, "Some of the world is not a stage" is a proper negation. Note that i toggled both the all/some reference (all and none are both 'all' referrers) and changed it from a positive claim to a negative claim. Think of Ven diagrams. If claim: all elements of one set X have property y, then all i have to do is show one x element of X does not have property y to negate it. However, if claim: some x element of X have property y, i have to show all x element X dont have property y to negate. Eg, in ven diagrams terms, i have 2 circles. One of which is X, and one of which is all things with the property SQUARE. If i claim all elements of X are not square, then if SQUARE intersects X (some element of X is square), i know this is false. But if i claim some elements of X are not square, then SQUARE needs to fully encompass X to negate the statement (no element of x is not square). ok, you've not understood anything i've written. it is you who must prove a negative claim. you must show that no bug is more than 10' from another bug. you must check every possiblity to show that there is not an exception. that is the entire point of this argument, as i stated in my first post. it does not matter that you can show bugs within 10' of another. you must show that no bug is more than 10' from another. if i show that one is more than 10' from another, you lose. end of story. The problem is i've understood everything you've written, you're just wrong and don't understand logic. I know i understand logic - i've both taken a philosophy logic class and had more math than i'd guess you've even heard of, plus i do computer programming. Try entering some of these sentences into LISP and ask the program what is true given various statements (it does logical analysis). Ok, dictionary definition of another: "one more, an additional" (from Dictionary.com). Now then, proof: No bug is more than 10' from another bug. Call this A. Negation of A = a bug is more than 10' from all other bugs. If not A is false, A is true. Ok, by construction, arrange a line of bugs s.t. each bug is within 10' of the bug in front and the bug behind. This chain can be arbitrarily long. Is there any bug such that a bug is more than 10' from all other bugs? No, by construction. Thus not A is false => A is true. As the chain is arbitrarily long, we can make a hivemind with organisms stretched over arbitrarily large distances. Of course, you're just going to tell me my negation is false. You'll probably tell me the proper negation is 'a bug is more than 10' from another bug'. now, arrange 3 bugs in a 45-45 right triangle with side < 10 (and hypotenuse greater than 10). Call these bugs B,C,D (assume BC is the hypotenuse). So, check your proposed negation: A and B are more than 10' apart, meaning the negation is true, and A is false. Check A. BD is smaller than 10, so B is within 10' of D. CD is smaller than 10, so D is within 10' of C. None of these three bugs is more than 10' from another one (defined as one more), so this means A is true. =><= (contradiction). This implies your negation is false, and mine is the correct one. wrong, wrong, wrong. if you are attempting to make an analogy, the correct one would be: "no integer is more than 5 from another integer" It's really. really. evident that this is not the case. just like it is really. really. evident, that if there are two bugs that are more than 10' apart, then there is a bug that is more than 10' from another bug. I fail to see how mine and yours differ. Consider mine again: For all intergers n, there exists another integer within 5 of it. These are identical statements, and both are equally obviously true. Consider your version. Take an integer n. n is within 5 of n+1, n+2, n+3, etc... As n is an arbitrary integer, this is true for all integers. Thus, every integer has another integer within 5 of it, and no integer is more than 5 from another integer. If you'd like to debate this further, please provide a definition of another that actually supports your position. And tell me, if 'All men are mortal' why your version of its negation would be 'No men are mortal'. Because thats equivalent to what you've been saying here. I happily maintain that the proper negation to 'All men are mortal' is 'Some men are not mortal'. Actually, you should also go read Russel's _On Denoting_, or anything by Frege; with luck you might even understand it. |
| Squirrelloid03-10-05, 02:42 AM | No. I'm not. You are wrong. you're "toggling" too many existentials. you can toggle the one, from "for every" to "there exists", but not the second (the almost). in fact, you can't assume that the "another" is an existential quantifier without admitting one of my conclusions. Wait, i think i just figured out what you were saying. So, let me get this right. I can change "for every" to "there exists", but not also change a positive to a negative or vice versa? So, you claim that the negation of: For all x element of X, x is a Y is negated by: There exists x element of X, x is a Y? Thats funny. Really really funny. And thats what your claim about the hivemind ability boils down to. (And the proper procedure, toggle both the all/some and the pos/neg aspects of the sentence, is all i did to find the correct logical negation. Eg, of this generic sentence, the proper logical negation is clearly 'There exists x element of X, x is not a Y'). |
| Squirrelloid03-10-05, 02:49 AM | Actually that's true. There was no such thing as a swarm in 3.0. Therefore, the hivemind formation relied completely on individual creatures to form the hive. So if the rules were written that way when the class was designed, why shouldn't we continue those rules into this new version, and say that swarms won't form a hivemind, but only individual creatures. Need i point out Ruin Swarm from ELH (clearly 3.0)? Sure, all swarms (as a group) were type ooze in 3.0, but Ruin Swarm specifically states that its composed of many individual vermin creatures (tens of thousands in fact). Eg, this capacity existed in 3.0, its not just a problem that occurred because of 3.5. You still havent addressed that BoVD is clearly 3.5 legal because its referenced continually by WotC as a source of rules material in 3.5 books. |
| LordKiwi03-10-05, 05:39 AM | This is getting ridiculous so.... Each Diminuative creature (e.g. a rat) occupies a 1'x1' square, correct? You can fit 25 rats into a 5'x5' square. The example from BoVD includes a swarm of 1000 individual rats. This fills 1000/25=40 squares with rats. Each labled 1a-8e below... 1a 2a3a4a 5a6a7a8a1b 2b3b4b5b6b7b8b 1c2c3c4c5c6c7c8c 1d2d3d4d5d6d7d 8d1e2e3e4e 5e6e7e 8e Which is about as tight a formation as I can manage. 1a is clearly more than 10' from 8e so their is no way for their example swarm to exist unde one interpretation of the rules. In fact, there is no way to arrange more than 4 5'x5' squares so all occupans are within 10' of one another, fixing the maximum size of a hive mind at 100 members, clearly not the case. Lord Kiwi, |
| michael_noah03-10-05, 09:11 AM | The problem is i've understood everything you've written, you're just wrong and don't understand logic. I know i understand logic - i've both taken a philosophy logic class and had more math than i'd guess you've even heard of, plus i do computer programming. Try entering some of these sentences into LISP and ask the program what is true given various statements (it does logical analysis). Gee, I was hoping you'd bring up my education, since it's so relevant to the argument. If you have any doubts about it, you can call up St. Olaf College and ask them about my degree. Um, what? There are some/all claims and pos/neg claims. I don't know what you mean by existentials. You must toggle both to negate. This is a basic feature of logic. For instance, if i tell you "All the world's a stage", the proper negation is not "None of the world's a stage". Part of the world could still be a stage and the first statement is still wrong. However, "Some of the world is not a stage" is a proper negation. Note that i toggled both the all/some reference (all and none are both 'all' referrers) and changed it from a positive claim to a negative claim. Wow, you're getting it right finally. Note that in your example, if I were to find one part of the world that is not a stage, the statement "All the world's a stage" would be disproven. Just like if I find one bug that is more than 10' from another bug, the statement "no bug is more than 10' from another bug" is disproven. So, you claim that the negation of: For all x element of X, x is a Y is negated by: There exists x element of X, x is a Y? Thats funny. Really really funny. And thats what your claim about the hivemind ability boils down to. (And the proper procedure, toggle both the all/some and the pos/neg aspects of the sentence, is all i did to find the correct logical negation. Eg, of this generic sentence, the proper logical negation is clearly 'There exists x element of X, x is not a Y'). No, you must "toggle" the existential quantifier (maybe this is the wrong terminology? I'm referring to the quantifiers "there exists" and "for every"). You know that. However, what you did in the bug question is also "toggle" the word "another" to "all other". See: The logical negation of Y is "no bug is more than 10' from all other bugs". Essentially, you changed 2 quantifiers from "there exists" to "for every". Not exactly, since "another" is not a well defined word, but close. |
| michael_noah03-10-05, 09:26 AM | Ok, dictionary definition of another: "one more, an additional" (from Dictionary.com). I fail to see how mine and yours differ. Consider mine again: For all intergers n, there exists another integer within 5 of it. These are identical statements, and both are equally obviously true. Consider your version. Take an integer n. n is within 5 of n+1, n+2, n+3, etc... As n is an arbitrary integer, this is true for all integers. Thus, every integer has another integer within 5 of it, and no integer is more than 5 from another integer. Wrong. Your statement, "for every n, there exists an integer within 5 of n" is true. My statement, "for every n, n is not more than 5 from another integer" is not true. I can show you. 5 is an integer. 11 is another integer. 11-5=6. 6 is more than 5. 5 is more than 5 away from 11. 5 is more than 5 away from another integer. see? You'll note that my statement is analagous to the question at hand. Your statement is not. Your statement is analagous to the statement "for every bug, there is a bug within 10' of it", which is not what the rule says. If you'd like to debate this further, please provide a definition of another that actually supports your position. There are, as I see it, two possible definitions of "another". 1. Any other 2. Some particular other If we take #1 and replace "another" in the sentence, I think it's pretty easy to get my conclusion. Let me know if you don't think that. If we take #2 (i think this is what you're saying? if you meant something else, let me know), then you need to tell me which particular other bug we're talking about. Then, if we replace "another" with the #2 in the rule, you'll find that everyone needs to be within 10' of one particular bug, and you've got a hive mind that has a 10' radius instead of 5' (like I said before). And tell me, if 'All men are mortal' why your version of its negation would be 'No men are mortal'. Because thats equivalent to what you've been saying here. I happily maintain that the proper negation to 'All men are mortal' is 'Some men are not mortal'. Actually, you should also go read Russel's _On Denoting_, or anything by Frege; with luck you might even understand it. That is not what I'm saying at all. I told you what my negation was. And, as soon as I show you a man that is immortal, or a bug that is more than 10' from another bug, the statement fails to hold. And as I said, let's leave our educations and experience out of this. |
| michael_noah03-10-05, 09:35 AM | This is rapidly spiraling off topic. Please, people, if you are going to make arguments for or against, base your arguments in the text. The section in question, I believe? If "at least 50 vermin or animals of the same species " and "no one individual is more than 10 feet from another individual" then "the hivemind may come into effect," agreed? Right. Lets assume that the 50+ vermin/animal same species will be fulfilled. Now we have If "no one individual is more than 10 feet from another individual" then "the hivemind may come into effect." Lets take a closer look at the qualifier. "no one individual is more than 10 feet from another individual." In order to fulfill this, we must look at each individual. Right. If even a single one is "more than 10 feet from another individual." then there will be no hivemind. We must test each vermin/animal to be included to see if it is "more than 10 feet from another individual." Still right. If each individual is 10ft or less from another individual, then we are hivemind-enabled, agreed? Nope. This is the same mistake everyone is making. It doesn't matter if you show that each individual is 10' or less from another. It doesn't matter if you show that each individual has a doctorate in combinatorial logic. you need to show that each individual is not more than 10' away from another bug. This is where you need to decide on the definition of "another". Does it mean "any other" or "some particular other"? If it means any other, than if I can find one bug that is more than 10' from any other bug, no hivemind. If it means some particular other, than we need to measure all the bugs against that one particular other bug, and we're left with all the bugs in a 10' radius sphere around that one particular bug. If you choose to measure bug B against bug A, and Bug C against bug B, I'm going to say that you're really picking whatever bug you want to measure against. In order to do that, you need to define "another" my way - "any other". |
| NobertJoe03-10-05, 10:10 AM | If you wanna get really particular about getting them all within ten feet of one another, just cast Resilient Sphere. 10 foot radius. Then summon your swarms away, they can't even disperse. And what about extra dimensional spaces, how would that effect this build...say i lay a few portable holes, how would that work? |
| Jeremymc03-10-05, 11:59 AM | Does it mean "any other" or "some particular other"? If it means any other, than if I can find one bug that is more than 10' from any other bug, no hivemind. If it means some particular other, than we need to measure all the bugs against that one particular other bug, and we're left with all the bugs in a 10' radius sphere around that one particular bug. You know, it's cases like these that make me regret that we no longer use elaborate, religious/mythological/scatalogical expressions to express our displeasure. Like some sort of reference to the Devil and Jesus' bleeding wounds or something. Something that would have been passe back in 1850. Because this deserves one of those elaborate curses. This is a really boring argument. It's basically constructing a "logical" or "mathematical" argument strictly out of the figments of some sort of semantic drift. It really has no reason to exist. The only reason I actually call it an argument is because there are physically two existant people who are arguing with each other (now, let's say person 1 is represented by "n+43", while person two is "ripe tomato", let's multiply the distance between "the colour blue" and "n+43" and add that to "ripe tomato", and we come up with 40 000. Congratulations me! I've invented an argument!). Quit splitting the meaning of the word "another". It has a meaning in this case. A colloquial meaning that is obvious to anybody. A base, simple, easy meaning. Place the entire argument in the context of what it says in the BOVD. Now, examine the fact that the text has to do ONLY with individuals that are forming the hivemind. Of COURSE the bugs in the hivemind don't have to be 10 ft from ANY bug at all. That's ridiculous, and requires that all vermin on earth be connected in some sort of god-like synaptic network (hey... that's not a bad adventure hook for an Epic-level party...).. Basically it boils down to this: Every member in the Hivemind must be no more than 10 ft from another (etymology: ONE+OTHER. It's not even a Latinate etymology, but is an English one...) member of the Hivemind. Bingo bango bongo, problem over. |
| michael_noah03-10-05, 12:03 PM | Place the entire argument in the context of what it says in the BOVD. Now, examine the fact that the text has to do ONLY with individuals that are forming the hivemind. Of COURSE the bugs in the hivemind don't have to be 10 ft from ANY bug at all. That's ridiculous, and requires that all vermin on earth be connected in some sort of god-like synaptic network (hey... that's not a bad adventure hook for an Epic-level party...).. Basically it boils down to this: Every member in the Hivemind must be no more than 10 ft from another member of the Hivemind. Bingo bango bongo, problem over. I apologize for not making it explicit that we're speaking only about the bugs that make up the proposed hivemind. Not all the bugs in the world. I thought that was clear. What I meant was that "another" could mean "any other bug that is proposed to be part of the hivemind". Is that clear enough for you? And yeah, that's what it boils down to. It just so happens that a number of people disagree on what that statement means. |
| HamHam03-10-05, 02:16 PM | Okay, I'm joining in: "no one individual is more than 10 feet from another individual" By Oxford English Dictionary (you know, "the definitive record of the English Language"), another is a second, further, or additional, one more, one further, or an additional. Important note: another refers indefinitely to any further member of a series of indeterminate extent So, reconstructing the statement: "no one individual is more than 10 feet from a second individual" Now, we can break this down as a statment of X having property Y, thus: "no one individual" has the property of being "more than 10 feet from a second individual". Looking at the first part, it is obvious that the condition will be false if an individual exists that has the property, because the group being specified is the null group: no individuals. Thus for each singular individual, the question "Does this individual have property Y?" must be false. Now we look at that property Y: "more than 10 feet from a second individual". This property can be restated as "there exists a second individual that is more than 10 feet from X". This is a positive question of existance, thus having one individual who isn't more than 10 feet away from X does not disprove it, because it requires only one instance to be tres while all instances must be proved not true for the statment to be true. If I ask you, "Is there a car parked in the street?" you can't look at one segment of the street and say "That one is empty, so there are no cars parked in the street." You have to check all segments over the enitrety of the given range: the street. This is where the fact we noted above comes in: "another refers indefinitely to any further member of a series of indeterminate extent" This clearly shows that the statement "another individual" indicates the entire range of all additional individuals who belong to the subset of individuals attempting to form a hive mind. QED: The OED owns this debate. |
| Squirrelloid03-10-05, 02:24 PM | Wrong. Your statement, "for every n, there exists an integer within 5 of n" is true. My statement, "for every n, n is not more than 5 from another integer" is not true. I can show you. 5 is an integer. 11 is another integer. 11-5=6. 6 is more than 5. 5 is more than 5 away from 11. 5 is more than 5 away from another integer. see? You'll note that my statement is analagous to the question at hand. Your statement is not. Your statement is analagous to the statement "for every bug, there is a bug within 10' of it", which is not what the rule says. There are, as I see it, two possible definitions of "another". 1. Any other 2. Some particular other If we take #1 and replace "another" in the sentence, I think it's pretty easy to get my conclusion. Let me know if you don't think that. If we take #2 (i think this is what you're saying? if you meant something else, let me know), then you need to tell me which particular other bug we're talking about. Then, if we replace "another" with the #2 in the rule, you'll find that everyone needs to be within 10' of one particular bug, and you've got a hive mind that has a 10' radius instead of 5' (like I said before). It is very clear that our entire debate devolves to a definition of another. (1) You have not provided a source for your definitions. Find a dictionary that actually says that. I actually provide a source for my definition (note dictionary.com does not list your definitions), and they agree with the Webster's definitions previously posted. For a word as basic as another, i doubt you can find a definition that conflicts with mine. Superior evidence = superior position. And my definitions clearly support my claim, because i only need to find "some other" within 10', (2) Cross-apply Lord Kiwi's pie argument. If i want another slice, i don't want all of them, and i don't want a particular one of them, i just want some other slice. Any one other slice. Thus the common sense definition of another sides with my interpretation. Further, this specifically disproves your definition #2. (3) Your definition #1 is horribly flawed. If i say 'i don't want another pie slice' this is clearly not the same as 'I don't want any other pie slice'. The second (your #1) means there is some particular pie slice you want, and won't accept any other. The first implies that you aren't interested in more pie. Note that this works perfectly with another == one other. It becomes 'I dont want one other pie slice'. (4) The phrase as written "...no one individual is more than 10 feet from another individual." is logically equivalent to "for all individuals, there exists one other individual within 10' of that individual". 'No one individual' is clearly asking us to check all individuals. I think we both agree on that. So my changing that to 'for all individuals' is legitimate. At this point we are making an existence rather than a nonexistence claim. And because i've toggled a positive/negative descriptor, i need to do that again (in this case, a greater/less than or equal to descriptor, but this is the same thing. not greater than == less than or equal to) to keep the same sense. So now we're looking for within 10' rather than 'more than 10' '. And what has to be within 10' is another individual. So, does there exist another individual within 10'? If so, the candidate we are checking is a legitimate member of the hivemind. Note that this makes no claims about the positions of any other candidate hivemind members or their distance from the current candidate member, only a claim about the candidate's proximity to one other candidate. (5) Just think about it this way. Either another is a global referrant or a singular referrant. If its singular, we need only find one such individual. If global, well, then the word doesn't mean what anyone actually uses it as. I must say, you've amused me and my friends greatly. I'm not going to post anymore about this, and you should do yourself a favor and stop showing your ignorance. |
| Squirrelloid03-10-05, 02:28 PM | Okay, I'm joining in: "no one individual is more than 10 feet from another individual" By Oxford English Dictionary (you know, "the definitive record of the English Language"), another is a second, further, or additional, one more, one further, or an additional. Important note: So, reconstructing the statement: "no one individual is more than 10 feet from a second individual" Now, we can break this down as a statment of X having property Y, thus: "no one individual" has the property of being "more than 10 feet from a second individual". Looking at the first part, it is obvious that the condition will be false if an individual exists that has the property, because the group being specified is the null group: no individuals. Thus for each singular individual, the question "Does this individual have property Y?" must be false. Now we look at that property Y: "more than 10 feet from a second individual". This property can be restated as "there exists a second individual that is more than 10 feet from X". This is a positive question of existance, thus having one individual who isn't more than 10 feet away from X does not disprove it, because it requires only one instance to be tres while all instances must be proved not true for the statment to be true. If I ask you, "Is there a car parked in the street?" you can't look at one segment of the street and say "That one is empty, so there are no cars parked in the street." You have to check all segments over the enitrety of the given range: the street. This is where the fact we noted above comes in: "another refers indefinitely to any further member of a series of indeterminate extent" This clearly shows that the statement "another individual" indicates the entire range of all additional individuals who belong to the subset of individuals attempting to form a hive mind. QED: The OED owns this debate. I'm not clear what you mean by your second-to-last sentence. However, your definition agrees perfectly with the other sourced definitions provided here (Webster's, Dictionary.com). I think it would be clearer to say: x is an individual element of X, all proposed individuals in the hivemind. property Y: there exists another individual within 10' of x Thus we can form the hivemind if for all x element of X, x has property Y. |
| HamHam03-10-05, 02:35 PM | I'm not clear what you mean by your second-to-last sentence. However, your definition agrees perfectly with the other sourced definitions provided here (Webster's, Dictionary.com). I think it would be clearer to say: x is an individual element of X, all proposed individuals in the hivemind. property Y: there exists another individual within 10' of x Thus we can form the hivemind if for all x element of X, x has property Y. But that's not what it says. It says x0 is the nullset of X, all proposed individuals in the hive mind. property Y: there exists a second individual that is more than 10 feet from X If x0 and only x0 has property Y, then we can form a hivemind. Thus, if there are any x other than x0 which have the property Y, the conditional is not met. So, if I can find one individual who has another individual that is more than 10 feet from X, the conditional is not met and I cannot form the hivemind. |
| michael_noah03-10-05, 02:36 PM | Looking at the first part, it is obvious that the condition will be false if an individual exists that has the property, because the group being specified is the null group: no individuals. Thus for each singular individual, the question "Does this individual have property Y?" must be false. Now we look at that property Y: "more than 10 feet from a second individual". This property can be restated as "there exists a second individual that is more than 10 feet from X". This is a positive question of existance, thus having one individual who isn't more than 10 feet away from X does not disprove it, because it requires only one instance to be tres while all instances must be proved not true for the statment to be true. If I ask you, "Is there a car parked in the street?" you can't look at one segment of the street and say "That one is empty, so there are no cars parked in the street." You have to check all segments over the enitrety of the given range: the street. Thank you. You are 100% correct. And because i've toggled a positive/negative descriptor, i need to do that again (in this case, a greater/less than or equal to descriptor, but this is the same thing. not greater than == less than or equal to) to keep the same sense. So now we're looking for within 10' rather than 'more than 10' This is a mistake. "there is an individual within 10' of another individual" is not the negation of "there is not an individual more than 10' from another individual". It's completely possible for both to be true at once. As I have shown. Repeatedly. I think it would be clearer to say: x is an individual element of X, all proposed individuals in the hivemind. property Y: there exists another individual within 10' of x It doesn't matter what you think it would be clearer to say. That is not what it says. |
| SigmaJargon03-10-05, 05:59 PM | Nope. This is the same mistake everyone is making. It doesn't matter if you show that each individual is 10' or less from another. It doesn't matter if you show that each individual has a doctorate in combinatorial logic. you need to show that each individual is not more than 10' away from another bug. This is where you need to decide on the definition of "another". Does it mean "any other" or "some particular other"? If it means any other, than if I can find one bug that is more than 10' from any other bug, no hivemind. If it means some particular other, than we need to measure all the bugs against that one particular other bug, and we're left with all the bugs in a 10' radius sphere around that one particular bug.At least if you are going to argue from a logical standpoint, could you please organize your thoughts into a proof? I had to shuffle through the last two pages to come up with what I think your argument is. Noah's argument, in semi logical form. Let I be the set of positions of a group of vermin and d(x,y) : (I,I)->R be the distance between two i elements of I. "no one individual is more than 10 feet from another individual" <-> Not (There exsists (i1,i2) elements of (I,I) : d(i1,i2) > 10) <-> Every (i1,i2) elements of (I,I) : d(i1,i2) <= 10) ... actually, the more I think about, the more logical Noah's position seems. It doesn't kill the build by any stretch of the imagination, all it means is that you can't go on a trippy semi-infinite power loop without getting creative. Oh, and this still only applies to the duration in which the hivemind is being formed, so it can roll down the street like a river of vermin, LordKiwi. Bah. I'll meditate upon the logic further, and hopefully come to a good, solid conclusion at some point. If anybody has any brilliant insights, be sure to tell. :) |
| HamHam03-10-05, 11:40 PM | Bah. I'll meditate upon the logic further, and hopefully come to a good, solid conclusion at some point. If anybody has any brilliant insights, be sure to tell. :) The key point here is actually not "another" as a lot of people seem to be thinking. It's "no one individual". That phrase defines a certain sub-group of the individuals intended to be in the hivemind, however because it is the null-set it has a special property compared to sub-groups that actually include individuals. If the statement involves such-and-such individuals, it is enough to check those stated individuals for the condition. However, the null-set has the special property of being defined by the negative of all individuals and is thus inherently exclusive to all other sub-groups of X. In other words, N (no one individual) has property Y if and only if all X (individuals) do not have property Y. Thus, to prove the conditional "no one individual is more than 10 feet from another individual" it is necessary to prove that "all individuals do not have the property of there existing a second individual who is more than 10 feet away from them" This is a positive property, which means a single instance is enough to prove it true. Like "I am from another country", as long as there is one country for which this is true, the statement is true. There may be lots of countries from which I'm not, but all I need is one other. Thus, if there is any individual who is more than 10 feet from the first individual, the first individual has the property "there exists a second individual who is more than 10 feet away from him" and thus "no one individual" cannot have that property, making the conditional false. |
| Squirrelloid03-11-05, 12:36 AM | As i said before, i'm done arguing this. Please, read Frege and Russel, or go ask a logic professor. There's no way i can convince you of what the sentence actually means because we have a fundamental difference in interpretation as to what the words mean. I've shown this to 7 people now, ~half of whom are math graduate students, some of whom are specializing in analysis, and they all agree with me. Is language annoying sometimes? Yes, the wording of that sentence could be a lot clearer as to what it means. But it has only one meaning, and clearly any arguments i make are just going to be ignored by all of you. (as my last lengthy post has been). |
| Squirrelloid03-11-05, 12:39 AM | This is a mistake. "there is an individual within 10' of another individual" is not the negation of "there is not an individual more than 10' from another individual". It's completely possible for both to be true at once. As I have shown. Repeatedly. I wasn't negating, i was keeping the same sense. I specifically say i want to keep the same sense. Go back and reread it with that in mind. |
| michael_noah03-11-05, 08:51 AM | As i said before, i'm done arguing this. Please, read Frege and Russel, or go ask a logic professor. There's no way i can convince you of what the sentence actually means because we have a fundamental difference in interpretation as to what the words mean. I've shown this to 7 people now, ~half of whom are math graduate students, some of whom are specializing in analysis, and they all agree with me. Is language annoying sometimes? Yes, the wording of that sentence could be a lot clearer as to what it means. But it has only one meaning, and clearly any arguments i make are just going to be ignored by all of you. (as my last lengthy post has been). How do you know that HamHam and I aren't PhD's in Philosophy and analysis? Stop spouting your credentials, and those of your friends, and do what you're suggesting: Read the argument. I have read your argument through multiple times and you keep making the same mistakes, which I consistently point out. HamHam has done a splendid job reiterating what I said and making it even more clear by explaining some points I neglected to mention. |
| michael_noah03-11-05, 08:54 AM | I wasn't negating, i was keeping the same sense. I specifically say i want to keep the same sense. Go back and reread it with that in mind. Sorry, I mispoke. It is also true that your statement does not have the same meaning as the previous. It is possible for one to be true and not the other. Do I need to bring up the same example again? |
| abjurer03-11-05, 10:38 AM | In fiend folio there is a monster named cranium rats: a swarm of particular rats with the hive mind quality. They gain the ability to cats sorcerer spells if a certain number of them is together in a swarm. Maybe an example can help you reach an agreement about what is a hive mind. It is worth to mention a thing about the "10ft distance" dispute: a 10ftX10ft area is the space occupied by one swarm (as defined in MM). note: fiend foilo was updated/errataed in the "3.5 update booklet" fixing the size of a cranium rats swarm to 10ft area as said above. Hope it helps getting the thread back on track. |
| LordKiwi03-11-05, 11:31 AM | In fiend folio there is a monster named cranium rats: a swarm of particular rats with the hive mind quality. They gain the ability to cats sorcerer spells if a certain number of them is together in a swarm. Maybe an example can help you reach an agreement about what is a hive mind. It is worth to mention a thing about the "10ft distance" dispute: a 10ftX10ft area is the space occupied by one swarm (as defined in MM). note: fiend foilo was updated/errataed in the "3.5 update booklet" fixing the size of a cranium rats swarm to 10ft area as said above. Hope it helps getting the thread back on track. Unfortunatly a Hive Mind is different from a Swarm so the same restrictions don't apply. If anyone cares to comment on the post I made before this one they may notice the problem with all in 10' diameter argument, the example calls for 1000 rats, which don't fit into that space as definded by D&D space rules. For a full explination, see above. Lord Kiwi, |
| michael_noah03-11-05, 11:36 AM | Unfortunatly a Hive Mind is different from a Swarm so the same restrictions don't apply. If anyone cares to comment on the post I made before this one they may notice the problem with all in 10' diameter argument, the example calls for 1000 rats, which don't fit into that space as definded by D&D space rules. For a full explination, see above. Lord Kiwi, This is interesting. Swarms obviously do not follow the D&D space rules. However, the hive mind is not a swarm until after it is formed. This could cause a problem, but, as long as you form the swarm outside of combat, you are not limitted by the normal space rules (I'll find the reference for this if you want...). |
| Ramaloke03-14-05, 11:11 PM | Umm, Guys, want a way to make that permanent and in only one creature? The answer lies in Psionics. Fusion + True Mind Switch. Not Only is the Hord under your control, but it acts as a completely different creature, and a willing one at that, by Polymophing the hord into a human, under your control, you can Fusion with it, and then perform a true mind switch on another target, Taking the loss of a hit die, but the gains that youve gotten are so much better its not even funny. |
| Tempest Stormwind03-14-05, 11:14 PM | Umm, Guys, want a way to make that permanent and in only one creature? The answer lies in Psionics. Fusion + True Mind Switch. Not Only is the Hord under your control, but it acts as a completely different creature, and a willing one at that, by Polymophing the hord into a human, under your control, you can Fusion with it, and then perform a true mind switch on another target, Taking the loss of a hit die, but the gains that youve gotten are so much better its not even funny. Problem: Polymorph targets one target, and swarms (and thus the hivemind) are immune to targeted effects. However, with a high enough UMD score, this is the ONLY obstacle. I think. I have to reference Fusion again -- I haven't touched it since I first read it in 3.0, even though I know it was revised, and I'm told for the better. |
| Ramaloke03-15-05, 12:47 AM | Well, what if the hive mind shapechanges itself? That would definately let it become human, |
| NineInchNall03-15-05, 01:25 AM | I don't think the hivemind itself actually casts anything; rather, it has one of its members cast a given spell. I could be wrong on this. I often am. Wait, what am I saying? I'm never wrong; never! :evillaugh |
| Jeremymc03-15-05, 01:37 AM | This is interesting. Swarms obviously do not follow the D&D space rules. However, the hive mind is not a swarm until after it is formed. This could cause a problem, but, as long as you form the swarm outside of combat, you are not limitted by the normal space rules (I'll find the reference for this if you want...). Wha? Why on earth would space rules change outside of combat? I really think you're going to have to post a reference for this one. You know, forming the hivemind is pretty much what it says. Any rat within 10 ft. of you joins, and any rat within 10ft of any of those first rats... And so on and so on. Is that what you're trying to say? Then yes, the space rules are different. But combat doesn't change them. If you're in combat, you could form the hivemind, and they'd all gather into one 10'ft square as a newly-made swarm. At least, that's what it seems to say. |
| Jeremymc03-15-05, 01:42 AM | Umm, Guys, want a way to make that permanent and in only one creature? The answer lies in Psionics. Fusion + True Mind Switch. Not Only is the Hord under your control, but it acts as a completely different creature, and a willing one at that, by Polymophing the hord into a human, under your control, you can Fusion with it, and then perform a true mind switch on another target, Taking the loss of a hit die, but the gains that youve gotten are so much better its not even funny. Other problems: 1) I'm not sure, but it seems like swarms would be immune to mind-affecting spells. You can't really switch "minds" with 10 000 other creatures. 2) The hivemind gains its power from individual members. If you polymorphed the "Swarm" into a single human being, it would then become a single individual, thus losing all of it's abilities. |
| LordKiwi03-15-05, 04:29 AM | I've just started playing a version of this character in an epic game and it is working well. I've deliberatly limited myself to two swarms most of the time, for CL43 casting, keeping a third swarm in perminant reserve. All the characters are pretty powerful (24th level and the lowest CL in the group is 26, plus everyone is a good fighter and has plenty of skills) so I haven't had any complaints yet. I've only had to threaten a full swarm a couple of times :P I've thought up an interesting trick if you want to self limit the number of swarms you have but get more actions out of them. Giant Vermin will create discreat creatures from an existing swarm, so it can cast hivemind spells, without surounding yourself with a ludicrous number of swarms. You can also hide your swarms inside walls of force or resiliant spheres and keep giant vermin outside to cast spells for you. Lord Kiwi, |
| michael_noah03-15-05, 09:02 AM | Wha? Why on earth would space rules change outside of combat? I really think you're going to have to post a reference for this one. MOVING AROUND IN SQUARES In general, when the characters aren’t engaged in round-by-round combat, they should be able to move anywhere and in any manner that you can imagine real people could. A 5-foot square, for instance, can hold several characters; they just can’t all fight effectively in that small space. The rules for movement are important for combat, but outside combat they can impose unnecessary hindrances on character activities. Good enough? |
| SigmaJargon04-04-05, 08:29 PM | I think I'll post and dispel some of the confusion over stat boasting via hivemind that has arisen over the last few threads I've been browsing. First, let me spell it out - the Vermin Lord that is creating the hivemind is specifically excluded from the Int and Cha booast usually granted to members of a hivemind by the text of the 10th level ability. A straight Vermin Lord build will not gain increased int and cha! However, this does not that mean the increased stats are unobtainable. Consider this situation. Player Rivest is a Human Druid 7 / Master of Flies 3 / Vermin Lord 10. He has a cohort, NPC Shamir, who is a Human Druid 7 / Vermin Lord 10. Rivest and Shamir together summon as many swarms as they want, and then Rivest swarm shapes into a swarm of the appropriate type. Shamir then binds everything into a hivemind under his control. Rivest can then re-bind everything in turn to a hivemind under his control. Rivest would gain the benfits of being a member of the hivemind from Shamir's binding, and Rivest would maintain control of the vermin from his application of Hivemind. Volia. The typical high spellcasting power of a hivemind with the stat boasts thrown in. :D You could possibly also make this work with the Vermin Shape feat... |
| Vecna04-05-05, 06:33 PM | I don't know if anyone is interested, but in Dragon 329 there's an article containing rules to have a swarm as Improved Familiar (that becomes a Magical Beast if previously an animal or vermin) Moreover, if you don't trust your cohort :confused: , you could try (hard if you're not Epic) to duplicate yourself (Psion Fission, Wu-Jen Body Outside Body) to create the first Hivemind. |
| syrics04-05-05, 11:55 PM | I don't know if anyone motioned this, mostly because I don’t want to read through 11 pages of posts. A correctly worded wish might give the character the boosts to cha int but that would be sloppy dming. But that’s not why I posted this thread. . . the real reason is that somewhere someone might have done the above and gotten god like power or more but the down fall is that s/he became unable to leave a certain plane or possibly . . a city named Sigil (became the lady of pain I sorta remember a discussion that said she might be made up vermin or something like that) just my thoughts however wrong they may be. |
| Jeremymc04-06-05, 12:40 AM | Consider this situation. Player Rivest is a Human Druid 7 / Master of Flies 3 / Vermin Lord 10. He has a cohort, NPC Shamir, who is a Human Druid 7 / Vermin Lord 10. Rivest and Shamir together summon as many swarms as they want, and then Rivest swarm shapes into a swarm of the appropriate type. Shamir then binds everything into a hivemind under his control. But if we ARE adapting the 3.0 rules (which had NO swarm type) to the 3.5 rules (which DOES have a swarm type), then we have to admit that the BoVD claims that the Hivemind is a single "swarm", and as such, has a creature limit. Any more creatures and you have yourself a NEW swarm. You can't just bind them all into the same one. This has been said many many times already. I think the limit is like... 10 000 diminutive creatures (ants or somesuch). |
| Shebnar04-06-05, 12:08 PM | But if we ARE adapting the 3.0 rules (which had NO swarm type) to the 3.5 rules (which DOES have a swarm type), then we have to admit that the BoVD claims that the Hivemind is a single "swarm", and as such, has a creature limit. Any more creatures and you have yourself a NEW swarm. You can't just bind them all into the same one. This has been said many many times already. I think the limit is like... 10 000 diminutive creatures (ants or somesuch). We can't argue which is a hivemind swarm limit. By the RAW, it is "as many vermin are within a 10 feet sphere". If you want to consider the hivemind a swarm, you have also to agree that it has its own special rules. It's strange thinking that the author of the BoVD (Mr. Cook) MUST have thought that a Verminlord, stepping beside a termitary and activating the hivemind, by the RAW should score 10000000 with his caster level, even in 3.0, without referring to Swarms...Of course it would be a custom situation which is not detailed by the rules, but it is scary nonetheless ;) |
| Qaetar04-06-05, 12:25 PM | I believe that the statement that BoVD is not meant for players particularly applies here. As far as I can tell, all you need to do is summon enough ants to form a swarm, then walk around collecting new bugs. Leave out some rancid meat for flies, create your own fly breeding program. Create it in an animated undead. (Qaetar) |
| SigmaJargon04-06-05, 02:31 PM | But if we ARE adapting the 3.0 rules (which had NO swarm type) to the 3.5 rules (which DOES have a swarm type), then we have to admit that the BoVD claims that the Hivemind is a single "swarm", and as such, has a creature limit. Any more creatures and you have yourself a NEW swarm. You can't just bind them all into the same one. This has been said many many times already. I think the limit is like... 10 000 diminutive creatures (ants or somesuch).Arg. We covered this at least twice previously. The BoVD never claims that a hivemind is limited to one swarm or that it creates a single swarm out of the component creature. The example it provides of a hivemind is composed of a single swarm, yes, but it is only an example. Other things than a swarm of 500 rats can become a hivemind, as long as they fulfill all the reqs listed in the BoVD, namely, that they must be of the same species and they must be arranged so that no one individual is more than 10 feet from another individual. Anything fulfilling these reqs, including multiple swarms fitting in the limited area, or entering each others squares via the rule that michael_noah pointed out for non-combat situations can be bound into a hivemind. The rules state that a hivemind should played as a single creature as much as possible, but this does not explicitly transform the whole into a swarm. Oh, and Qaetar, I completely agree with you. I personally never let my players touch the BoVD - it has simply too much that is too broken. Hiveminds, cancer magi, soul eaters, Disciples of Dispater, Disciples of Mammon, colossal scorpion poison, flesh rings of scorn, ritual sacrifice, so on and so forth. I think Monte Cook thought that DM's would generally limit themselves so that they don't destroy the world. |
| Shebnar04-06-05, 03:05 PM | Ugh...no, please, don't remind me of ritual sacrifice...a DC 50 knowledge (religion) check and you gain a free Wish - by only killing an enemy. Have I to continue? :eek: :twitch: :yuck: |
| Moriancumer04-07-05, 04:41 PM | I read through about four pages and skipped to the end. Has anyone looked at the Worm That Walks to see how that epic creature might be incoroporated into this build? I mean it seems like it just begs the question. For pete sake it is a swarm. |
| Shebnar04-07-05, 04:46 PM | I read through about four pages and skipped to the end. Has anyone looked at the Worm That Walks to see how that epic creature might be incoroporated into this build? I mean it seems like it just begs the question. For pete sake it is a swarm. A Swarm of Worms has yet to be created ;) , and the Verminlord needs to create an hivemind within creatures of the same specie. |
| Vecna04-13-05, 06:27 AM | Nobody uses a Paragon swarm as Vermin Familiar? Due to the CR + 15 it could probably qualify for Epic feats obtained by the Hivemind. |
| prozacman04-13-05, 08:41 AM | :OMG! this is the most amazingly broken build ever! i love it. let me just say: mwa ha ha ha ha ha ha maby i'm missing something... but why wouldn't someone simply use a 1 lvl warlock dip to totally avoid the whole, needing a staff thing.. and just summon infinite numbers of swarms? or even the verminlords ability to summon swarms? i just kinda view the staff as kinda pointless... but if i'm missing something please point it out. and once again MWA HA HA HA HA SWARMULOUS! :invasion: :invasion: |
| SigmaJargon04-13-05, 12:00 PM | The reason the summon swarm innovation / the summon swarm spell / the summon swarm SP ability of the Verminlord won't work is because they all have a duration of concentration + 2 rounds (or just concentration in the case of the warlock). In other words, even with sonorous hum and various other concentration aiding effects, you could only summon a very few swarms. On the other hand, someone (I'll dig up the name later) made a very sensible suggestion - use a Druid base, take the Child of Winter feat, and summon locust swarms with Extended Summon Nature's Ally. You can end up with many more swarms, all without the complicated mess and the looks the DM gives you when you (mis)use UMD. In summary, I need to update the first post to reflect all the questions, answers, and alternative strategies that have been raised. Nobody wants to slog through all 11 pages. I'll do it this weekend, honest. |
| Jeremymc04-13-05, 11:25 PM | Arg. We covered this at least twice previously. The BoVD never claims that a hivemind is limited to one swarm or that it creates a single swarm out of the component creature. Yes... It in fact DOES. At one point the book refers to the Hivemind explicitly as "the swarm". THE SWARM. THE. ONE. UNO. SOLO. WHATEVER "ONE" IS IN JAPANESE. If you had READ the thread (or, for that matter, the BOVD), you would have read me saying this before, and thus would not have had to type out the word "arg". Followed by the rest of those words. You would have in fact, had to say nothing at all... and the sound of peaceful rest would have soothed your earnest soul like a spiritual balm.... And besides, if you're going to play the Vermin lord in 3.0 rules, where swarms didn't exist - then sure, your swarm can have as many creatures as it wants. But then again, you have to summon EACH creature INDIVIDUALLY. So the power of the Vermin Lord decreases exponentially. You would basically have to spend all of your spell slots per day to summon... maybe 60 or 70 rats... Woo. Scary. |
| Chalhub05-02-05, 04:47 PM | just a thought of mine, but could you form a hive mind using the Dark Speech and the Dark Discorporation warlock invocation? |
| PhaedrusXY05-02-05, 05:10 PM | WHATEVER "ONE" IS IN JAPANESE.ICHI, if I remember correctly from my karate lessons over 10 years ago. ;) |
| Tempest Stormwind05-02-05, 06:41 PM | just a thought of mine, but could you form a hive mind using the Dark Speech and the Dark Discorporation warlock invocation? Unlikely, since the Dark Speech alone isn't enough to incite a hive mind, IIRC. (my BoVD is not available at the moment, so I might be wrong.) |
| SigmaJargon05-02-05, 07:38 PM | just a thought of mine, but could you form a hive mind using the Dark Speech and the Dark Discorporation warlock invocation?You can, but IIRC, its limited to a hivemind of a certain size - 100 I think. Oh, and it is ichi, for what its worth. And Jeremymc I remind you that it is WotC's policy that 3.5 is back compatible. You can use the Vermin Lord in 3.5 as long as it wasn't updated (which it hasn't been, to date). Even in pure 3.0 rules, a single casting of gate through a staff can get you several hundred 1/8 HD vermin. Assuming you go for contractual service, you could slowly amass a rather large swarm. Oh, and I finally got around to updating the first post, somewhat. ;) Need to do some stuff with the original build to add in item familiar to the UMD madness. |
| Chalhub05-03-05, 02:22 PM | But could you control more than one hivemind at a time via the dark speech and dark discorporation? I was in fact interested in the extra feats and not the spellcasting at all. |
| Jeremymc05-03-05, 03:01 PM | And Jeremymc I remind you that it is WotC's policy that 3.5 is back compatible. You can use the Vermin Lord in 3.5 as long as it wasn't updated (which it hasn't been, to date). Even in pure 3.0 rules, a single casting of gate through a staff can get you several hundred 1/8 HD vermin. Assuming you go for contractual service, you could slowly amass a rather large swarm. Oh, and I finally got around to updating the first post, somewhat. ;) Need to do some stuff with the original build to add in item familiar to the UMD madness. Blah blah blah blah. (Gates in several hundred 1/8 Hd blahs). Sure, the Vermin Lord hasn't been updated. But when both it and the Hivemind were created, there was no Swarm "Type". Now there is. That changes things. Change requires an update. The basis for the brokenness of this build is the interaction between the Hivemind and the Swarm Type. So we're out in nowheresville territory. Sure, no official update for hivemind, but there's a DE FACTO update of HUGE PROPORTIONS. Which the author purposefully fudges to make a hugely broken build. If you want to use the Vermin Lord by 3.0 rules go ahead. But saying that "I'm using this character by 3.0 rules, while using these other 3.5 rules to my advantage" isn't so much exploiting a rule, as it is creating a wholly new and abusive rule with the DM's perogative of doing whatever he wants. And I can create rules too. Look: I created a scimitar that kills automatically with every hit! Weeeee!!! And look! I'm an Iron Golem now! Weeee!!! The ability to summon several hundred weak creatures with a 9th level spell and the ability to summon 10 000 creatures with a 3rd level spell are VERY different in power. Frankly, sure.. if you want to waste your Gate spells summoning several hundred individual vermin, that is exactly how it was DONE in 3.0. That's how the Hivemind/Vermin Lord was originally conceived. |
| Tempest Stormwind05-03-05, 03:20 PM | Actually, given how it's written by Monte Cook, I think he'd be jumping with joy at the added complexity the Swarm type brought to the vermin lord. But could you control more than one hivemind at a time via the dark speech and dark discorporation? I was in fact interested in the extra feats and not the spellcasting at all. I still don't have my BoVD... if the Dark Speech feat can grant you the ability to form a hive mind (I don't remember it being able to do so, but if it can), AND it can be done with a move action (you can't take standard or longer actions as a discorporated warlock), then yes, you probably can do it with Dark Discorporation. |
| Chalhub05-03-05, 04:17 PM | But what would happen if I changed back to my natural form? Would it negate the benefits of the hive mind? |
| Tempest Stormwind05-03-05, 04:44 PM | But what would happen if I changed back to my natural form? Would it negate the benefits of the hive mind? Since there is no longer any swarm, or even enough creatures to sustain the hive mind (50 minimum, I think... no BOVD at the moment, as I've said), then there would be no more hive mind. |
| Shebnar05-04-05, 04:28 PM | Yes... It in fact DOES. At one point the book refers to the Hivemind explicitly as "the swarm". THE SWARM. THE. ONE. UNO. SOLO. WHATEVER "ONE" IS IN JAPANESE. If you had READ the thread (or, for that matter, the BOVD), you would have read me saying this before, and thus would not have had to type out the word "arg". Followed by the rest of those words. You would have in fact, had to say nothing at all... and the sound of peaceful rest would have soothed your earnest soul like a spiritual balm.... OK, I read again the BoVD (at least, the parts concerning the Verminlord and the Hivemind: pag. 34 and pag. 75). There is NOTHING-NULLA-NUDDA-NADA-RIEN that even remotely hints to swarm capping in the hivemind. The only two references to a 'swarm' in the text are two examples (one for the Int/Cha augmentation, the other refers to a 'swarm of hivemind rats' fought by a warrior). If it were written in the text something like 'if a swarm of at least 50 vermin or animals of the same species is arranged so that no one individual is more than 10 feet from another etc.' we could extrapolate that only one swarm is allowed, but that's not the case, sorry. And besides, if you're going to play the Vermin lord in 3.0 rules, where swarms didn't exist - then sure, your swarm can have as many creatures as it wants. But then again, you have to summon EACH creature INDIVIDUALLY. So the power of the Vermin Lord decreases exponentially. You would basically have to spend all of your spell slots per day to summon... maybe 60 or 70 rats... Woo. Scary. We are going to play the VL in the 3.5 rules, since the VL needs no tweaking to adjust it. Check out the CO pages. Tons of builds use unupdated 3.0 material. Even the monthly Build Contest allows unupdated rules. P.S.: Besides, note that it is perfectly in the nature of the game that successive supplements/classes/abilities may enhance the pre-existing ones; it is not a 3.0-3.5 problem. A Blackguard now can have 2 times his Cha bonus to his Saves against spells, thanks to the recent Hexblade class... An Antimagic Field (an old D&D feature) is hugely empowered by the Extraordinary Spell Aim feat... Should I continue? Saying that the Swarm type is not compatible with the Verminlord is just like saying that a character cannot take the Extraordinary Spell Aim feat or the Initiate of Mystra feat just because the person who created the AM Field spell couldn't guess the successive, possible game-breaking enhancements of that spell. Nonsense. Of course, as a DM you could forbid a player that feat/that class/that item, but only according to Rule-0. There is no other logic in such a prohibition, except for the mere (and legitimate) game balancing purpose. |
| Vecna05-04-05, 08:12 PM | Blah blah blah blah. Adding Jeremymc to my Ignore List for exceeding my personal threshold of childish rants from a single person... |
| Lusden Veharo08-10-05, 09:26 PM | People need to stop griping about the "no swarms in 3.0" thing. This is the ultimate example of why you shouldn't mix unupdated stuff in with 3.5 rules, and until Wizards makes some pronouncement or update to kill the HIVE, he'll remain that way. I'm still more impressed by purely-3.5 abuses, but this one is original anyway. |
| SigmaJargon08-12-05, 01:27 AM | People need to stop griping about the "no swarms in 3.0" thing. This is the ultimate example of why you shouldn't mix unupdated stuff in with 3.5 rules, and until Wizards makes some pronouncement or update to kill the HIVE, he'll remain that way. I'm still more impressed by purely-3.5 abuses, but this one is original anyway.Just to mention it, there ARE swarms in 3.0. The very first place that the swarm rules appeared (courtesy of James Wyatt) was in the Fiend Folio, which happens to be a 3.0 book. In other words, the H.I.V.E. may be used in completely 3.0 adventures as well as in 3.5 adventures - if anybody dares to try to use it in a serious game. |
| NineInchNall08-30-05, 12:35 AM | edit: damn. I should really learn to finish searching first. :embarrass :embarrass :embarrass I suppose that this constitutes a :bump: |
| Crimson Innocence10-18-05, 11:20 AM | this may have been brought up, I'm not sure, but have you ever considered a rod of security to add to the total you can keep in a 10 foot radius? |
| SigmaJargon11-29-05, 04:39 AM | Bump - the only one of my threads that I will be bumping. I'll save the others to disk, sealed away until the world is again ready for them... |
| Prominence11-29-05, 04:47 AM | After reading some stuff about genesis, is it possible to create your own demiplane using a 3-dimensional space (the mobius strip idea) to increase the amount of swarms you can have within 10' of yourself? |
| Grim_Revenant12-28-05, 01:44 AM | Actually, you don't really need it ... Use the Hivemind to cast Gate. What's its caster level? 4000 or something? So you burn 1000 XP, it's worth it to be able to cast spells with a crazy caster level like that. Now, if we were to use the reasoning that allowed The Word ... We would add half that caster level to our ur-priest level, and we'd be able to blasphemy something like crazy. :evillaugh Wow. The more I think about this, the sillier it gets. And just think what a gestalted Warlock/Vermin Lord could do! He'd turn himself into a swarm (dark discorporation) and turn himself into a hivemind for the duration. :invasion:Yes, in theory you could. With only the slight problem that while Dark Discorporated, a Warlock can only take move actions. So, you have the powers of a whatever-level sorcerer, but you can't use any of them. :weep: You could probably convince most people not to attack you with that magnitude of skill modifiers, but where's the fun in that? Also, by strick RAW you're stuck as a bat form for 24 hours, because you can only take move actions and dismissing an invocation takes a standard action. Insect Plague, OTOH, would make a nice "battery" - it's not mobile, but it's got a nice duration, multiple swarms == multiple spells per round, and you can make a new one in a new location whenever you need to. I think in my next arena, my Warlock's going to take Vermin Lord and use Hivemind if he's in danger of losing. ;) Hell, he gets full caster progression, why not? What's this "The Word" I've heard people talking about? Google search is frankly worthless with such a generic name, can anyone link me to the thread? Oh, and :bump: :rolleyes: |
| Fool_Of_A_Took12-28-05, 05:14 AM | What's this "The Word" I've heard people talking about? Google search is frankly worthless with such a generic name, can anyone link me to the thread? Here's the post for the Wish and the Word. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=4850618) |
| SirAnon05-10-06, 10:51 AM | So I love this thread. I had an idea to add to the power of the build. If you use the rules on the website about druids and vermin companions, then take a locust swarm as your companion (lvl-6), then take arcane hierophant as your last three levels, you get the companion bonuses(more hd most importantly) along with the familiar bonuses. This means that any spell you cast on yourself you can share, meaning any permanent buff spell you use on yourself goes on your swarm. Plus I think you can use spells that affect animals on your swarm. I just think that this adds a great topper onto the build. Anyone know of anything better for the last 3 levels? |
| nunchuckgun08-12-06, 11:33 PM | I didnt want to read 10 pages so I'll just post my question. With an Intelligence in the 4000's, could the hive take class levels? |
| LordPendragon10-16-06, 11:15 PM | It's too bad that a hivemind has to be formed of vermin or animals. I started getting this really awesome image of a technomancer-themed Vermin Lord walking around with a permanent hivemind consisting of fine constructs... fine constructs that are continuously repopulating and building copies of themselves. |
| Araxiss12-05-06, 06:26 PM | Is there a way to get a Mageripper Swarm (from Monster Manual 4) into the hivemind? |
| awaken_D_M_golem03-05-07, 05:35 PM | :bump: Blingy the Psicrystal loves :love: his great-grand-progenitor on his "daddy's" side. Hey , Do Knowledge checks with DCs of 2500+ have any meaning ? |
| Tleilaxu_Ghola03-06-07, 09:05 PM | :bump: Blingy the Psicrystal loves :love: his great-grand-progenitor on his "daddy's" side. Hey , Do Knowledge checks with DCs of 2500+ have any meaning ? You can identify 2490 HD creatures with that. |
| awaken_D_M_golem03-13-07, 06:03 PM | very funny T_G , a little dry ... but I like. It gets better , or worse depending on your perpective. Each creature in the swarm gets the bonus skills and feats. Each and every blessed/blasted one of them. So every skill check can have N--->AH helpers w/ ghastly high help checks. And a few STR boosts , so a little bug can have a Bag of Holding backpack. Not just A little bug , all of them. So each bug in the swarm , has a two swarm backpack , also part of the swarm , because the space in the Bag is non-dimensional. this is my attempt at the first art-work dedicated to the hive : ______________ | bag of holding | | :D ...:D ...:D | |:D |----------------- :invasion: *** the hive *** Actually, given how it's written by Monte Cook, I think he'd be jumping with joy at the added complexity the Swarm type brought to the vermin lord. It's getting even more complicated. ooh ... and the hive can help get Monte's jump check to AH , I hope he's got Aflac { perform check : duck voice }. |
| SunWuKung03-25-07, 12:42 AM | There is nothing limiting the HD of the swarms. Therefore, couldn't we advance the individual swarm's HD to 21, thus qualifying for Epic Spellcasting (with the appropriate skill ranks)? Also, although I DEFINITELY don't want to start another logic debate, for our purposes I believe the Hivemind's size limitations could be considered either of the two large camps. As such, we could create an infinitely large Hivemind. To follow, we should focus on optimizing the 10x10x10 hivemind; if an individual would like to create an alternative that follows the infinite area method, only needing to be applied would be various benefits and population effects of the new Hivemind. P.S.: Jeremymc, you need to cool it. Your proposition that the Hivemind is only one swarm and the comprising swarms only count as one creature in any case is absolutely, positively, certaintly, definitely, absolutely, entirely, and completely disproven, as by many members of this board and contributers to this thread, by many, many, many posts. We are all in total agreement (excepting yourself) that 3.5 is entirely compatible with 3.0 and the build as it stands as of now is perfectly perfect, as per the RAW. |
| SunWuKung03-25-07, 12:54 AM | And another thing: what's Mr. Hive's Fortitude save? 14 or so? Couldn't he be dominated by the most average, unimportant 15th level caster (assuming he could be reached)? |
| Halaku04-11-07, 02:39 AM | stumbled across this after bounceing my own version off a friend, here it is as follows: warlock, summon swarm invocation (bats), dark speech of dark unity on the swarm, hive mind with casting of a level 80 sorc, and one free suggestion on it, use said suggestion to have it gate as many wasp swarms as possible in one casting, use dark speech again to get control of the new hive mind that is caster level 80= 20 wasp swarms, so thats a hive mind with casting of a level 3980 sorc, and you get your free command on it, which is some way to give you total perma control over it, all at level 6. Then caster level 3980 sorc means gating in 995 swarms, which means a total of 1015 swarms, for a hive mind total of casting as a level 202980 sorcerer This continues in to that the called swarms stick around as long as youd like, and then later on you use dark discorpiration to turn into a swarm and join the hive mind whenever you feel like it. --there is controversy over wether or not the dark discorpiration swarm can join the hive mind due it not being the same 'type' of creature, as the original hive minds swarms, wasps-- Also, dark speech was reprinted in fiendish codex 1 and lost the 100HD limit, but the hive mind rules are still only in BoVD as far as ive found. (( note, math is not my strong suit, so apologies if i messed that up )) |
| Aegeu04-12-07, 03:31 PM | The weird thing about the Dark Speech listing in FCI is that it never says what exactly a hivemind is. It just says "You can use dark speech to establish a hivemind." If you don't own BOVD, you're left in the dark. |
| PhaedrusXY04-12-07, 08:27 PM | The weird thing about the Dark Speech listing in FCI is that it never says what exactly a hivemind is. It just says "You can use dark speech to establish a hivemind." If you don't own BOVD, you're left in the dark.I guess it's not called Dark Speech for nothin'. :rimshot: |
| Aegeu04-13-07, 10:42 PM | Gaah! That was horrible! I think that that qualifies as a usage of the Dread version of Dark Speech. |
| nytemare370104-20-07, 08:49 AM | And then the swarm(s) can cast shapechange... hmm, I'm not even sure what happens there. DEAR GOD... Sphere of swarms Shapechange into something BIG Rain of falling critters. Hulking hurler cries at massive damage output. Note: Just to make it worse...Next action, summon new swarms! |
| Aegeu04-24-07, 03:24 PM | Ancient dragons weigh about a million tons, right? :evillaugh: |
| awaken_D_M_golem11-23-07, 03:48 PM | Pun-Pun (polymorphed) vs. The H.I.V.E. http://images.ucomics.com/comics/ga/2007/ga071016.gif . |
| ZexionAlmasy01-24-08, 11:39 AM | I have a small question, I noticed there was a fine swarm of Fey on MM III. What would happen if I made them into a Effigy and then built them with the artificial intelligence shown in Dragon Mag? Would they count as a swarm, but from being effigy automatically link with me for the hive mind effects but are so small that they could count as individuals each using aid another? |
| Yawar01-31-08, 10:29 AM | I have a question. Since the H.I.V.E. is an 4938 or so level sorcerer with about that many ranks in spellcraft and knowdlege aracana and supousedly access to epic feats such as EPIC SPELL CASTING, couldn`t order it to research a spell that turns you into a god (the same epic spell that Pun-Pun used)? I mean make the hive cast Cold Assasain or Cold Killer, or whatever the spell name is, 493 times per day or so naming each day 493 flyes or chosen verming as your proxy and finally reclaiming reclaiming your godhood for a truly obscene deity rank. This way you aren`t only the owner of the most powerful spellcaster, you`re the most powerful god. |
| AncientDragon02-03-08, 02:31 PM | you`re the most powerful god. we're in theoretical optimization, aren't we? Is spam if I humbly ask to someone to look Here (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=14997855#post14997855)? |
| loganic102-09-08, 02:41 PM | Can someone clarify the caster level system a little? Can I as a warlock 10/VL 10 summon a swarm of 5 fine swarms and form a hivemind? Per swarm of 10,000 Int: 207 Cha: 204 with caster level of 190 so 5 swarms, would be 5x that. Where do you get the stats for Str/Dex/Con? On top of that, Can't I summon additional swarms and add them to the hive mind? I don't know if I can form/unform it at will, but then it doesn't really matter at that poin, if I can nuke spells like that. |