Post/Author/DateTime	Post
thegraveyard 01-14-06, 10:49 AM	The first time I've looked at it I thought it was cool, but didn't want to be a beholder. Then I saw LoPs build that uses it and it wasn't a beholder and thus I took another look at the class. Here's what I liked about it afterwards: a) You keep everything after meeting the entry requirements, means after you gain entry to the class, then your in forever, unless there is another part under special heading like monks and paladins have. b) after gaining entry there are a few grafts that you can get that would work for the eye rays and the central eye, page 208 of the Fiend Folio. [INDENT]i) the grafts I mentioned are as follows: third eye, crown of eyes, and eye stalk. These grafts are from the beholder, so should work for the beholder mage's special abilities. So basically what this means is, you no longer have to feat MDJ at all, or maybe a small bit, but you don't have to be running around all the time and once you poke out your third eye (acts like the beholders large central eye), get it taken out or have regeneration cast upon yourself and then you have an anti-magic field to play with. I hope this wasn't already discussed in another thread also, if it is perhaps anyone can be kind enough to post a link and tell me the page if they remember it.
Caelic 01-14-06, 11:01 AM	a) You keep everything after meeting the entry requirements, means after you gain entry to the class, then your in forever, unless there is another part under special heading like monks and paladins have. I'm unclear as to what you mean by this, but the statement taken in isolation isn't true. If you lose the requirements for a prestige class, you lose the class benefits. This is the infamous "Page 16" clause, and while many people hate it with a passion, it has been upheld in numerous sources and no valid rules argument has yet been put forth to contradict it. It may be that there's something in the Beholder Mage class that allows a work-around--I haven't looked at the class in some time--but I don't recall any such clause.
thegraveyard 01-14-06, 11:21 AM	this "page 16" clause.. where might I be able to find it? I'll continue to look through the DMG until I find it and check back to see if there was any help on the matter. as for the part a in my earlier post, the classes say, well the newer ones anyways, says entry requirements instead of just requirements, so by looking at it this way, if you meet the requirements for entry and gain entry to that class, you no longer need to keep them after attaining first level in the class. I can only think of one class that this would not apply to and that is the Ardent Dilettante which has multple requirements that need to be met at different levels.
Caelic 01-14-06, 11:48 AM	Page 16, Complete Warrior. The rule has been reprinted in numerous sources since, but that was the original appearance--hence, "Page 16 Clause." If a character no longer meets the requirements for a prestige class, he or she loses the benefit of any class features or other special abilities granted by the class. There's more, but that's really the salient bit. As I said, many people dislike this rule, and have offered all sorts of arguments for why it should be ignored. The vast majority of those arguments, though, boil down to "This makes it impossible to do things I think should be possible." One common claim is that these rules "conflict" with those in the DMG, and thus are invalid and can be ignored no matter how many times they're reprinted and how many times WotC affirms that they apply. This argument is severely flawed, however; it's based on the notion that if a secondary source says X and the DMG doesn't say anything at all about X, that's a "contradiction." It's not, of course. The DMG says nothing about what happens when you lose the requirements for a class, and thus, no contradiction is present. The other argument offered is that the rule causes problems with the Dragon Disciple class, since by one reading, the DD would lose all class abilities as soon as it hit level 10. A problem with a prestige class due to poor wording, however, does not equal a contradictory rule, and the wording is ambiguous enough ("must not already be a half-dragon") that I'm not convinced that any such problem exists. The debate is never going to end. Frankly, I don't think it would end if they reprinted the DMG with these rules in it. It is, however, the rule as written and as intended.
Santherus 01-14-06, 11:50 AM	Complete warrior - P16 If a character no longer meets the requirements for a prestige class, he or she loses the benefits of any class features or any other special abilities granted by the class. The character retains hit dice from advancing in the class as well as any improvements to base attack bonus and base save bonuses that the class provided. Therefore, whenever you are not a beholder, you do not get the benefits of the beholder mage class. All fair and reasonable, aside from badly thought out classes that disqualify you from qualifying.
Caelic 01-14-06, 11:57 AM	Therefore, whenever you are not a beholder, you do not get the benefits of the beholder mage class. All fair and reasonable, aside from badly thought out classes that disqualify you from qualifying. Like I said, Santherus, I'm not even sure those classes were "badly thought out." They just weren't explicit enough for the kind of semantics and hair-splitting that go on here. Consider the Dragon Disciple. It doesn't say "Cannot be a half-dragon." It says "Cannot ALREADY be a half-dragon." What possible reason could there be for the word "already," if not as an acknowledgement that the character will BECOME a half-dragon?
thegraveyard 01-14-06, 02:09 PM	I've read and reread "page 16" clause and will look in the DMGII to see if I can find it in there and also in some other books of the complete series, I will also take a run through the SRD and the erratas to see if I can't find more reprints of the rule. also, the "page 16" clause could also depend on DM fiat to allow or disallow it. though I can see the level loss and how it would affect what classes you had at the time, I'll look in the DMG for more information on the level loss, then if it states something like "page 16" clause then it was printed before, just more remotely.
gabrion 01-14-06, 02:23 PM	While I'm sure this thread wouldn't appreciate a complete derailment by a long and unfruitful discussion of PrC requirements, I just wanted to point out that Caelic's view is as much an interpretation of rules as the other side. Just keep in mind that what this leaves us with is just one of those gray areas we have to leave up to the DM.
neilthrun 01-14-06, 04:08 PM	Complete warrior - P16 Therefore, whenever you are not a beholder, you do not get the benefits of the beholder mage class. All fair and reasonable, aside from badly thought out classes that disqualify you from qualifying. A prime example of a badly thought out requirement is the Survivor PRC from complete warrior, your highest base save must be less than your HD. So I take Wizard1/Fighter1/Rouge1 and then a level in survivor, all of my saves jump to 4. Disqualifying me from the presitge class. The only way you can really use it by this interpretation is at high levels, where your saves are significantly behind your HD. Even the example survivor would not be qualifing if you interpret it this way. There should be a new rule like, If for some reason a class feature of a PRC would disqualify you for the PRC, it does not disqualify you.
Roatso 01-14-06, 05:33 PM	I just had a thought... doesn't "page 16" conflict with the Polymorph rules? Polymorph allows you to keep abilities gained from classes when switching between forms. Or is it the fact you're losing the effect of a polymorph (by going back from Beholder to whatever) keep it outside of that rule? How does this resolve? :confused:
thegraveyard 01-14-06, 10:22 PM	I just had a thought... doesn't "page 16" conflict with the Polymorph rules? Polymorph allows you to keep abilities gained from classes when switching between forms. Or is it the fact you're losing the effect of a polymorph (by going back from Beholder to whatever) keep it outside of that rule? How does this resolve? :confused: hmm, seems like a good question, if might even turn "page 16" clause invalid
Caelic 01-15-06, 01:49 AM	While I'm sure this thread wouldn't appreciate a complete derailment by a long and unfruitful discussion of PrC requirements, I just wanted to point out that Caelic's view is as much an interpretation of rules as the other side. Just keep in mind that what this leaves us with is just one of those gray areas we have to leave up to the DM. Well, no. No, it isn't. For that matter it isn't "my position." It's what the rules say. It's also what WotC has said...time and time again. Every single official rules source that says anything on the subject says that you lose PrC abilities when you lose the qualifications. If anyone can produce a single actual rules source that makes a statement to the contrary, then we might actually have room for talking about "different positions" and "gray areas." As it is, there are the rules, and then there are people coming up with reasons to ignore those rules. And, yes, I'll admit it--I don't consider looking for justifications for ignoring inconvenient rules to be "optimization."
Caelic 01-15-06, 01:57 AM	I just had a thought... doesn't "page 16" conflict with the Polymorph rules? Polymorph allows you to keep abilities gained from classes when switching between forms. Or is it the fact you're losing the effect of a polymorph (by going back from Beholder to whatever) keep it outside of that rule? How does this resolve? :confused: Quite simply. Using Polymorph to assume a new form does not cause you to lose your class abilities. That is clearly established by Alter Self. However, losing the qualifications for a prestige class DOES cause you to lose your class abilities. Thus, indirectly, Polymorph could cause you to lose class abilities...not as a direct result of being Polymorphed, but as the result of no longer having the necessary requirements to use those abilities. A slightly different example: Polymorph doesn't cause a wizard to lose his spellcasting abilities. What happens, though, if someone uses PaO to turn you into a creature with an Intelligence of 3? Can he still lob his spells? No--although being Polymorphed didn't directly cause him to lose his spellcasting ability, having an Intelligence of 3 causes him to lose the use of those spells. As another example, being Polymorphed won't cause a fighter to lose his Weapon Focus: Bastard Sword, but being Polymorphed into something with no arms will render that feat useless for the time being.
thegraveyard 01-15-06, 02:47 AM	Using Polymorph to assume a new form does not cause you to lose your class abilities. That is clearly established by Alter Self. However, losing the qualifications for a prestige class DOES cause you to lose your class abilities. Isn't this a contradiction of rules? definition of contradiction: contradiction n 1: opposition between two conflicting forces or ideas 2: (logic) a statement that is necessarily false; "the statement `he is brave and he is not brave' is a contradiction" [syn: contradiction in terms] 3: the speech act of contradicting someone; "he spoke as if he thought his claims were immune to contradiction" If it is clearly established by Alter Self that you do not lose any class abilities by changing form. Even if that means you lose one of the requirements to a class, you must retain your class abilities or it will be in contradiction to the Alter Self spell, will it not? going by what you said: Using Polymorph to assume a new form does not cause you to lose your class abilities. That is clearly established by Alter Self. Emphasis mine and should be yours unless of course the older material would be considered invalid and the newer material that isn't core be considered the correct ruling for this matter. Unless this has been published into an errata that changes the DMG and includes this and rewords the spell Alter Self then the "page 16" clause is invalid in my opinion because of the wording of the Alter Self has the clause contradicting itself when this is put into effect. However, the clause can only be in effect if you have the books in which it is posted, unless it is posted in more than just the Complete Warrior book and in the martial class section on page 16, then I will consider it to apply to all martial classes, that means the ones that do not grant an increase of spellcasting (such as assassin, blackguard, heirophant, ect..) the classes that do increase spellcasting power (such as archmage, loremaster, mystic theurge, ect...) are immune to that clause. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- (everything above the line is mo) /|\ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- (everything below this line means that I want cold hard proof)\|/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- I see what you mean that this can be argued for an eternity upon eternity, however unless someone has an official ruling on this that they can post from CS (customer service) or any other official ruling from wizards of the coast and I do not mean quoting the "page 16" clause from the book, then it stands as being invalid and applies to nothing at all.
Roatso 01-15-06, 03:01 AM	Ok, I'm now confused... does this mean that a class (let's say Chameleon) can't polymorph itself into something other than a doppelganger or human... because to do so would make it lose it's class levels in Chameleon? This makes no sense :) edit: crap, forgot to quote... ah well, it should be obvious who I was replying to.
HalasterAteMyHamster 01-15-06, 03:05 AM	Ok, I'm now confused... does this mean that a class (let's say Chameleon) can't polymorph itself into something other than a doppelganger or human... because to do so would make it lose it's class levels in Chameleon? This makes no sense :) edit: crap, forgot to quote... ah well, it should be obvious who I was replying to. I can see that not being an issue, due to the wording of Alter Self/Polymorph/Shapechange. Those spells say you change your form, not what you actually are. PaO makes a distinction by saying that you actually become the new creature. So, I don't see any problem with polymorphing Chameleons.
tsuyoshikentsu 01-15-06, 03:12 AM	Arguments like this occur when you take the two stupidest sets of rules in the game (polymorph and PrC prereq loss) and put them together.
thegraveyard 01-15-06, 10:30 AM	I can see that not being an issue, due to the wording of Alter Self/Polymorph/Shapechange. Those spells say you change your form, not what you actually are. PaO makes a distinction by saying that you actually become the new creature. So, I don't see any problem with polymorphing Chameleons. To have it become permanent you must meat the modifier of +9, and thats only the duration of the spell, but due to the wording of PaO it can truely be permanent with a second casting it seems. so then with just a regular shapechange, turn into a beholder, poke out central eye then level into beholder mage, and due to the Alter self spell, I do not lose the beholder mage's abilities, is this correct? Arguments like this occur when you take the two stupidest sets of rules in the game (polymorph and PrC prereq loss) and put them together. Well, the stupidest set of rules is entirely opinion based, but the arguement isn't really that stupid because with new books people can think of very creative ways to use spells to turn into something else to gain entry to a class, like using shapechange to turn into a war troll (it being a monstrous humanoid) and then taking a level into Soul Eater from BoVD after meeting the other entry requirements. and as for... hmm..... PrC prereq loss? no no NO, there are no prerequisites for PrCs, none, nadda, zilch, zippo, zero...... there are however Entry Requirements emphisis mine, meeting the requirements is entirely different than meeting prerequisites, take a look at feats they have prerequisites that you must meet and maintain to keep them, entry requirements just means you must meet the entry requirements to gain access to the 1st level of the class then your in unless you use the Ardent Dillente (sp?) from the Planar Handbook
Caelic 01-15-06, 12:54 PM	Isn't this a contradiction of rules? definition of contradiction: contradiction n 1: opposition between two conflicting forces or ideas 2: (logic) a statement that is necessarily false; "the statement `he is brave and he is not brave' is a contradiction" [syn: contradiction in terms] 3: the speech act of contradicting someone; "he spoke as if he thought his claims were immune to contradiction" Yes, I have a dictionary, too. In fact, seeing as I teach English for a living, I like to think that I'm fairly conversant with the use of it. If it is clearly established by Alter Self that you do not lose any class abilities by changing form. Even if that means you lose one of the requirements to a class, you must retain your class abilities or it will be in contradiction to the Alter Self spell, will it not? going by what you said: I'll break it down as much as I possibly can: 1. It is established that Alter Self does not cause you to lose class abilities. That is not an effect of casting the spell. 2. That does NOT mean that Alter Self cannot trigger other conditions that DO cause you to lose class abilities. 3. For example, Alter Self cannot kill you. That is not within its capabilities. However, if you cast Alter Self on yourself while flying over a lake of lava, and shift form in such a way as to remove your wings, you will fall into the lava and die. Alter Self did not kill you, but it caused you to be killed indirectly. 4. Now: in the case of Alter Self and Polymorph, a reasonable DM would rule that Polymorphing into a new form does not cause a prestige class to instantly stop functioning; this is correct. A Dwarven Defender who Polymorphs into a troll should not suddenly stop being able to use his Dwarven Defender abilities. 5. That's not what we're discussing here, however. We're discussing what happens when someone Polymorphs into a creature, uses that spell to qualify for a prestige class, and then dismisses the spell. 6. This is a COMPLETELY different situation. The rules for Alter Self upon which you seem so fixated cover the effects of having the spell cast upon you, NOT the effects of having the spell NOT cast upon you. When the spell goes away, if you were depending on the effects of the spell to qualify for a class, you lose those class abilities. Emphasis mine and should be yours unless of course the older material would be considered invalid and the newer material that isn't core be considered the correct ruling for this matter. In general, yes, newer rulings supercede old. In some cases, this is an exception to the general guideline that primary sources supercede secondary. This is why, in third edition, the revised Polymorph spell that appeared in Tome and Blood superceded the version of the spell in the Players' Handbook--despite the fact that Tome and Blood was a secondary source. Unless this has been published into an errata that changes the DMG and includes this and rewords the spell Alter Self then the "page 16" clause is invalid in my opinion because of the wording of the Alter Self has the clause contradicting itself when this is put into effect. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. However, the clause can only be in effect if you have the books in which it is posted, unless it is posted in more than just the Complete Warrior book and in the martial class section on page 16, then I will consider it to apply to all martial classes, that means the ones that do not grant an increase of spellcasting (such as assassin, blackguard, heirophant, ect..) the classes that do increase spellcasting power (such as archmage, loremaster, mystic theurge, ect...) are immune to that clause. Would the fact that the rule was reprinted in Complete Arcane on page 17 change your thinking on that? I see what you mean that this can be argued for an eternity upon eternity, however unless someone has an official ruling on this that they can post from CS (customer service) or any other official ruling from wizards of the coast and I do not mean quoting the "page 16" clause from the book, then it stands as being invalid and applies to nothing at all. As for the customer service responses--of which there have been many, and (uniquely enough) ALL of which have supported the position that, yes, the page 16 rule is in fact a rule...if it'll really make you happy, I can dig them up. The standard response to them is, "Well, they don't count, they're only CustServ!" Please forgive my cynicism on this subject, but everything you're discussing has, in fact, been brought up before...and all of it boils down to "Ignore the rules as written in favor of interpretations and assumptions."
Caelic 01-15-06, 01:02 PM	and as for... hmm..... PrC prereq loss? no no NO, there are no prerequisites for PrCs, none, nadda, zilch, zippo, zero...... there are however Entry Requirements emphisis mine, meeting the requirements is entirely different than meeting prerequisites, take a look at feats they have prerequisites that you must meet and maintain to keep them, entry requirements just means you must meet the entry requirements to gain access to the 1st level of the class then your in unless you use the Ardent Dillente (sp?) from the Planar Handbook Of course, the rules we're discussing don't REFERENCE prerequisites; they reference requirements."Entry requirements" are a smaller subset of "requirements," and thus discussions referencing "requirements" in general do not exclude "entry requirements."
system breaker 01-15-06, 01:19 PM	Caelic, I've read a lot of your posts over the past year or so since I've discovered the CO boards, and I must say the way you are presenting yourself in this thread doesn't quite match up with the cognitive impression that I have of you're previous posts. You might want to relax a bit. Even if you're completely correct about the PrC entry requirements issue you are not going to convince anyone this way. Personally I think you're correct, but your tone is starting to make me want to disagree with you out of principle.
Caelic 01-15-06, 01:29 PM	I apologize for my temper. This is, however, an issue for which I simply have little patience anymore. People looking for justifications to pick and choose which rules to follow...and then claim that their selective interpretation is "RAW"...irritate me, and I'll freely admit that. This issue, in particular, is on upon which my patience was long ago exhausted, because it's become clear that there are many who will never be convinced, no matter how many times the page 16 rule is reprinted, no matter how many times WotC sources affirm that they meant it when they printed it, that it's a rule. That's really the part that exasperates me. I have absolutely no problem with people saying "I don't like this rule and don't intend to use it in my campaign"--none. I have no problem with people saying "This rule causes problems if it's blindly applied across-the-board." I agree with that, in fact; there ARE certain situations where exceptions need to be made. But when people attempt to split hairs and find the vaguest of possible inconsistencies--and then on that basis declare that the rule is "completely invalid and applies to nothing"--that's not optimization. It's not even rules lawyering, because they're attempting to supplant written rules with fuzzy logic and opinion. I'm not sure what it is--but I'll freely admit, it irritates me, and my temper becomes short as a result. Allow me, therefore, to present a slightly less acerbic variation of my last post: This is not likely to be a productive discussion. I do not believe that anyone who does not accept the rules as written on the subject of prestige classes as valid will be convinced by any amount of evidence presented. The fact that they are already prepared to declare the actual written rules as insufficient and invalid strongly implies that nothing of lesser stature (such as the numerous rulings by Customer Service, or the arguments of board members) is likely to sway their opinion. Attempts to do so are only likely to result in a further fraying of tempers. I stand, therefore, by my original position. The rules as written on the subject of prestige class requirements say explicitly that you lose class abilities when you lose the requirements. This rule has been reprinted in multiple sources, and upheld in numerous inquiries to Customer Service. There are no rules anywhere in the official sources for 3.5 that say you retain your prestige class abilities if you lose the requirements. Therefore, the positions boil down to: 1. Follow the explicit rules as written. 2. Ignore the explicit rules as written in favor of interpretations. The second is a valid way of playing, but it is not RAW. I will, therefore, attempt to locate the multiple Customer Service emails that have upheld the validity of the page 16 rules--and which have explicitly affirmed that these rules apply to all prestige classes. I will do this because a request has been made for such material. I am not, however, optimistic about my chances of success, since: A. The threads in which they were posted are quite old. Some were locked, and all are likely to be either archived or deleted at this point. B. Search remains dead. C. Google is not a reliable substitute.
SwordOfJustUs 01-15-06, 01:46 PM	Heres how you "fix" the problem. Stop "cheating" to qualify for a prestige class. The class was obviously made for beholders .. not for poeple who are beholders only on the weekend. Stop advancing your characters the "quick and dirty" way. Although it may not be expressly written, prestige classes are prestigious, characters should have to see out members of these prestige classes so they can join and or be trained by them. As example an elvin rogue who grew up in the city of X doesnt miraciously one day become a deep wood sniper as he is killing monsters in a dungeon / sewer / street / castle / hovel / forest etc. and a month later he doesnt magically become an order of the bow initiate. Consider this: he needs to seek out the deepwood snipers to aquire training and the order for the same, and whos to say they (the snipers and the order) like each other and would even train you if they heard you were part of the other group. (is it not cooler to go quest to find said order etc to earn their teaching and skills, which lead to more ideas for adventure and roleplaying) Beholder mages are beholders, just because you can change into one doesnt mean you can miracously shoot better eye beams because you transformed into a beholder and spent some xp. Shouldnt you have to learn these tricks from another beholder mage? and didnt that beholder mage study "beholder magic" from the begining of its career/life. And why would it show YOU the skills and tricks it learned? YOU being a lower life form fleshling pretending to be a beholder. Stop trying to bend the rules to your whim. "because it was written this way I can do this ..." is a fun exercise for your INT maby roll a WIS check in addition to an INT check, and use some common sense when interpreting. ***please note INT and WIS were used as examples as were the OoTBI, and DWS this is not an assault on anyones build nor their INT or WIS*** Finally: all in all if its more fun for you to be a human beholder mage and your DM will allow it by all means do it. Beside ultimately the game is about FUN. The DM has the final say about what goes on anyway IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT CUSTSERV WOTC GURUS/BOOKS REPRINTS ERATTA, SAY ... the DM is the final word on the way any rule works in his or her game.
Khan the Destroyer 01-15-06, 01:53 PM	The DM has the final say about what goes on anyway IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT CUSTSERV WOTC GURUS/BOOKS REPRINTS ERATTA, SAY ... the DM is the final word on the way any rule works in his or her game. Agreed. However, there is no D&D game going on in this board. People come here to optimize builds. And when doing so, you should stay within the rules as written so that everyone is on the same page. The general exception to this is when someone asks for help and provides a list of houserules used by their DM. In this particular instance, someone is claiming that their build works by RAW even though it doesn't. It is misleading. The other point is that pretty much anything is possible when you ignore the rules as written. Optimization becomes real easy when the rules do whatever you want them to.
system breaker 01-15-06, 01:55 PM	Heres how you "fix" the problem. Stop "cheating" to qualify for a prestige class. The class was obviously made for beholders .. not for poeple who are beholders only on the weekend. Stop advancing your characters the "quick and dirty" way. Although it may not be expressly written, prestige classes are prestigious, characters should have to see out members of these prestige classes so they can join and or be trained by them. The DM has the final say about what goes on anyway IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT CUSTSERV WOTC GURUS/BOOKS REPRINTS ERATTA, SAY ... the DM is the final word on the way any rule works in his or her game. I'm glad I got here to give you the CO rant before anyone else. They probably won't be nearly this nice. You see, here on the CO boards, people don't give too much of a squat about what a sane DM would do if presented with these characters. We are concerned with the actual wording of the various text sources of rules. The Rules As Written (RAW) is practically all that we care about when building characters. There are a tremendous amount of posts like mine on these boards, most are far more eloquent. You'll know them when you see them. Edit: Khan the Destroyer beat me to it.
Caelic 01-15-06, 01:57 PM	That's certainly true, Sword, but here's the problem: This board operates on certain core assumptions and schemas. One of those schemas is "RAW"--Rules As Written. We attempt to make builds conform to the rules as written for a number of reasons: 1. In the case of actual, practical builds meant for use, this increases the chance of the build being accepted in any given campaign. 2. In the case of builds created primarily as mental exercises--such as, say, Pun Pun--adhering to the RAW allows us to locate the weak and potentially exploitable areas of those rules. 3. If we didn't have RAW, we'd have no common ground from which to work. "My build can kill anything! It's a first level UberLeetGawd, and it has the power of Do Anything, which I just made up!" "Yeah? Well, MY character has the power of Tear Up Your Character Sheet, which beats Do Anything!" "Does not! "Does too!" Well, perhaps not quite that bad, but hopefully you see the point. The central issue here really isn't the Beholder Mage, or Polymorph; it's RAW, and what it means. Increasingly on these boards, RAW has come to mean different things to different people, and that's problematic. We're losing our common ground. I would characterize this particular conflict as being between "Strict constructionism" and "Pro-Optimization" schools of thought, and I would define those schools as follows: 1. STRICT CONSTRUCTIONISM: Rules as Written means just that--"Rules as Written." Good or bad, logical or nonsensical, if we're going to talk about RAW we need to accept that that means ALL RAW...including the rules we dislike. 2. PRO-OPTIMIZAION: Rules as Written should be applied in the manner most beneficial to the player. If a rule makes it easier to optimize a character, it is part of the Rules as Written, and should be taken absolutely literally; if it makes it more difficult to optimize a character, then it should be overruled if possible. Players should insist on a literal reading of the rules where such rules benefit their character, and appeal to common sense when the literal rules hinder their character. These are generalizations, not meant to represent the whole or specific position of any given individual. EDIT: Beaten to the punch twice. If brevity is the soul of wit, I'm in deep trouble.
Roatso 01-15-06, 03:58 PM	I can see that not being an issue, due to the wording of Alter Self/Polymorph/Shapechange. Those spells say you change your form, not what you actually are. PaO makes a distinction by saying that you actually become the new creature. So, I don't see any problem with polymorphing Chameleons. Ok, that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying :)
thegraveyard 01-15-06, 07:44 PM	Caelic, I have a full response to one of your earlier two comments that are back to back in page one, but after reading the second page I decided against posting it. There are however a few things that could be interesting, as the rules are writtan or RAW. Now this could be entirely wrong, partially wrong, partially correct, or nearly completely correct. Alter Self states that you don't lose any class abilities, since this is pretty common now in the arguement: Any humanoid aberration (there are very few; and who we will call K for now) could use polymorph to turn into a beholder since they are the same type, this much is correct. then K pokes out the large central eye of his new form, probably having no adverse condition when he turns back to normal. this is debatable since beholders have many eyes and K's eyes could be any two of the eye stalks. then after that initial part, he gets a few beholder grafts namely the eye stalks, crown of eyes, and the third eye. after getting the grafts and ready to level up after one more goblin, he uses polymorph to transform into a beholder and kills said goblin. After killing the goblin and having previous knowledge of beholder mages (this part is assumed), he levels up into that class meeting the requirements at that point in time. Now here's the part for which you do not really ignore the rules, you actually do follow them but it works in reverse as follows: normal self -> polymorph (beholder) -> leveled up (beholder mage) -> spell ends -> K is considered to have a permanent alter self spell in effect (so not to lose class abilities) with the RAW for alter self (and polymorph going off part of them), then this could work this isn't completely ignoring the "page 16" clause it just kind of goes around it in a way. but to further expand the "page 16" clause, it applies to: Just PrCs, though could it not also apply to all classes and not just PrCs? Or do classes have something else that they follow such as special rules for X class (such as Ex-Paladins, Ex-Monks, Ex-Druids, ect...) Going on further to Caelics post that he made 11:57am (the time that I go by) or his latest post above this one that lies between Roatso's and system breaker's posts. The two points given (STRICT CONSTRUCTIONISM and PRO-OPTIMIZAION) are two extremes it seems like, there should be a 3rd view that shows a belnd of both of them instead of for example saying people are either Extreme Liberals or Extreme Conservitives (as far as politcal parties go in the US)
tsuyoshikentsu 01-15-06, 08:57 PM	Uh... That's nice, but how do you perpetually alter self? Stupid question. Use some class or another to get it as a SLA.
Caelic 01-15-06, 10:12 PM	I, too, am not sure where you're getting the permanent Alter Self. Having a Polymorph effect end is not in any way, shape, or form the same thing as using Alter Self to assume a new form. Attempting to apply the rules that govern using an Alter Self spell to losing the effects of a Polymorph is attempting to stuff a round peg into a hexagonal hole. (I think that's what you're trying to argue, but I have to be honest, I'm not entirely sure.) Moreover: I think there's considerable question as to whether you're a "true Beholder," regardless of what spell you use to assume the form. A basic Polymorph most definitely will not work. Polymorph does not change your race; it changes your type. Type is not race. A human and a halfling are both type (humanoid,) but both are different races. Polymorph any Object is arguable, depending on how liberally you interpret "changes one creature into another." As for the page 16 rules, they apply exclusively and specifically to prestige classes, not base classes. Base classes generally don't have entry requirements (apart from alignment, perhaps.) Those that do have requirements that need to be maintained generally spell out the consequences of losing those requirements on a class by class basis (Monk, Paladin, et al.)
Darkstone 01-15-06, 10:38 PM	Uh... That's nice, but how do you perpetually alter self? Stupid question. Use some class or another to get it as a SLA. i like the polymorph any object version better...
thegraveyard 01-15-06, 10:48 PM	Its more of a permanent alter self effect, and if you note this might only work with other aberration types (such as elan or the daelkar half-blood), since they are both of the aberration type and need not worry about subtypes the permanent alter self effect, working on how to get it to be permanent at the lowest level possible well, he's not a beholder kin, but turned into an actual beholder for the purpose of aquiring class levels in beholder mage and I do agree that PaO would be a better arguement for this... hmm... perhaps even a ritual might do the trick from savage species...
Caelic 01-15-06, 11:06 PM	well, he's not a beholder kin, but turned into an actual beholder for the purpose of aquiring class levels in beholder mage Well, now, there's the crux of it. The class doesn't say "actual beholder," it says "true beholder." Now, what does that mean? To me, it seems pretty clear that the character's not a "true beholder." He wasn't born a beholder. Eliminate the magical effect, and he's not a beholder. Even while in beholder form, he doesn't have all of the abilities of a true beholder.
Darkstone 01-15-06, 11:25 PM	That's where polymore any object cast on you to make you into a "true beholder" with the savage speacies feat to aquire the su feats. You might want the 7th level ability of the Master of many forms as well... But then you become a beholder for life.... and become the beholder mage... that's atleast how it could play out...
Caelic 01-15-06, 11:36 PM	That's where polymore any object cast on you to make you into a "true beholder" with the savage speacies feat to aquire the su feats. You might want the 7th level ability of the Master of many forms as well... But then you become a beholder for life.... and become the beholder mage... that's atleast how it could play out... ...except that a true Beholder wouldn't need to have feats in order to employ his supernatural abilities. (For that matter, does Assume Supernatural Ability explicitly say that you can take it more than once? If not, you can't...and at that point, you couldn't get all of the Beholder's supernatural abilities.) Ultimately, this boils down to house rules. If you can convince your DM to bend the rules enough to allow you to get around the rules concerning prestige classes, that's well and good...but at that point, you might just as well say, "I want to play this class because it's very powerful, but I don't want the drawbacks. Can I just play it as a human?"
Mist of Shadows 01-16-06, 12:24 AM	Actually you can take assume supernatural ability (once), then the improved assume supernatural ability for each ability you want. It mentions that you can take it more then once. As far as being exactly the right type of creature for the class, you could probably use both polymorph and a ritual to acquire the right type. Rituals to acquire other types. You are spending so many feats to get things to work that I don't see why you shouldn't be allowed to use the prestige class. On the other hand as the other guy said it's a prestige class where you are supposed to be taught and part of an order to acquire the class abilities. I figure getting a beholder to share is going to be harder then most people think.
thegraveyard 01-17-06, 12:14 AM	I should like to thank the creator of pun-pun, Khan the destroyer, for shedding some light on the subject with the ability that makes pun-pun possible. and yes you can be a human now with a scaled companion with the manipulate form ability, could we bypass the "page 16" clause? if we can we probably wouldn't need a level of beholder mage to gain its class ability of have its caster level increase by two every level. any thoughts on this?
fnord 01-17-06, 12:33 AM	with the manipulate form ability, could we bypass the "page 16" clause? Not exactly, but you can usually ensure that you constantly meet the requirements of the class. But manipulate form renders it all irrelevant anyway, as you can just grant yourself the abilities directly.
Sisyfos 01-17-06, 04:14 AM	That's really the part that exasperates me. I have absolutely no problem with people saying "I don't like this rule and don't intend to use it in my campaign"--none. I have no problem with people saying "This rule causes problems if it's blindly applied across-the-board." I agree with that, in fact; there ARE certain situations where exceptions need to be made. But when people attempt to split hairs and find the vaguest of possible inconsistencies--and then on that basis declare that the rule is "completely invalid and applies to nothing"--that's not optimization. It's not even rules lawyering, because they're attempting to supplant written rules with fuzzy logic and opinion. :tiphat: I think exactly like Caelic in this post. The page 16 rule is very simple and does not really allow for much room to interpretation, yet we see it as people do not like the rule. Liking a rule and thinking it means something else than is written are two separate matters and should be kept as separate. Here is an example what page 16 rule very simply means for a simple build: Chaotic evil human Rogue10/Assassin10 SA: 10d6 Death attack Hide in plain sight Poison use +5 save against poison Improved uncanny dodge level 20 Able to cast 4th level arcane spells For what ever reason the character's alignment changes into chaotic good due to great RP and page 16 rule kicks in because he does not fulfil the entry requirements into assassin anymore: Rogue10/Assassin10 SA: 5d6, NOT 10d6 NO death attack NO hide in plain sight NO poison use NO bonuses to save against poison Improved uncanny dodge level 10 NOT level 20 Cannot cast spells. Does it sound reasonable that the character cannot sneak attack as well as he used to be (he did not lose his skill gained from rogue levels to hit vulnerable spots, but he did lose the skill gained from assassin levels)? Probably not. Does it sound reasonable that he lost the ability to Death attack? Perhaps yes (one could find RP reasons for it, as he no longer wants to use such an "evil" attack, but what if he changed to CN and had no such qualms), but probably not? Why cannot he hide in plain sight anymore? What happened to his skill using poisons without poisoning himself? What happened to his saves against poison? Why can rogues flank him again? Why cannot he cast spells anymore? These are the questions echoing in your mind when you look at the example build and the answer is simple: because he lost his entry requirements into the assassin PrC and when someone loses those the page 16 rule comes into play and strips him of his class abilities in that PrC. How should you react to this? Not by trying to interpret the page 16 rule to mean something else as RAW. This is Caelic's point too: the rule is clear, if you do not like it you can overrule it in your campaigns, but do not pretend that your ruling is RAW as it is not. Sisyfos PS. Page 16 rule also explains to us why Artemis Entreri just had to stay evil ;)
LordofProcrastination 01-17-06, 04:30 AM	I likewise am a little exasperated with this thread. It took an awful lot of work and explanation to generally gain a consensus over in the Dirty Trick #1: Behold! (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=540563) thread that Beholder Mage could be qualified for at all by characters that weren't born floating and spherical. It's going too far to say that everything boils down to house rules, because there is now a solid defense of PaO-induced entry, but when the text is pretty clear on a matter like losing prestige-class requirements, it seems fair to stick to the rules and only buck the matter when you find definite text (not well-wishes) to the contrary.
Caelic 01-17-06, 04:34 PM	I likewise am a little exasperated with this thread. It took an awful lot of work and explanation to generally gain a consensus over in the Dirty Trick #1: Behold! (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=540563) thread that Beholder Mage could be qualified for at all by characters that weren't born floating and spherical. It's going too far to say that everything boils down to house rules, because there is now a solid defense of PaO-induced entry, but when the text is pretty clear on a matter like losing prestige-class requirements, it seems fair to stick to the rules and only buck the matter when you find definite text (not well-wishes) to the contrary. I don't actually dispute that PaO (and only PaO, as opposed to, say, Polymorph) can be used to gain entry, LoP--just that you can't then cancel the PaO and retain the class benefits.
LordofProcrastination 01-17-06, 05:57 PM	I don't actually dispute that PaO (and only PaO, as opposed to, say, Polymorph) can be used to gain entry, LoP--just that you can't then cancel the PaO and retain the class benefits. I know, Caelic. And I agree with you wholeheartedly on this point. My exasperation was with the ungrounded exposulations to the contrary by others in this thread.
Esponer 01-17-06, 06:59 PM	also, the "page 16" clause could also depend on DM fiat to allow or disallow it. So you're depending on DM fíat to allow you to qualify for Beholder Mage while you're not a Beholder? The default is that the rule applies, not that the rule doesn't apply – so you need a house rule to ignore it. ...The only way you qualify for Beholder Mage is by removing any and all DM fíat and using the CO-DM. So your plans simply won't work, I'm... not really sorry, not so much out of exasperation for people trying to make this work, but because... I admit it, I'm a closet non-optimiser, and idea of qualifying for Beholder Mage by rule-tricks irritates me. I'll let Lord of Procrastination off, because at least what he did was actually by the rules, and I don't for one minute believe he actually plays these characters in real campaigns. But... the rules say what they say, and I don't see any point in trying to bend them to get into a class which we wouldn't really want to get into, would we? I mean, hell, if there was a non-overpowered class I didn't and couldn't meet the prerequisites for I'd ask my DM if he'd consider a house rule. That's fair enough in a campaign, as long as you're not doing it for power and it's just because, say, the class is unfairly restricted to those bloody elves, or allows races A and B, but C is similar and was published after the PrC was published. But if I'm going to be a smart ass and play a broken character, I'm going to do it with squeaky clean rules.