bag of you can't hurt me [Archive] - Wizards Community

bag of you can't hurt me [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
mistril
12-14-05, 07:32 PM Ok, we're gearing up for epic, and we're all playing around with some high level magic items. An amusing thought occured to one of our players, and we all thought this was clever. Here's the recipie for a bag of you can't hurt me!

1. Purchase a bag of marbles. Make sure there's about 20 in there.
2. Add a +1 dodge bonus to each marble, costing 5000 a piece. (bonus squared x 2,500, and then x2 for not taking up a spot on the body)
3. You now have +20 dodge bonus to your AC for a mere 100,000 gp plus the cost of marbles. ^_^

Ok so maybe someone has already thought of this. Sorry, I'm just easily impressed. Heh, don't worry, none of us are actually going to abuse this. ... I swear. :-D
MarkB
12-14-05, 07:42 PM I think what you'd end up with is an untouchable bag rather than an untouchable character. Basically, you'd be constantly in danger of losing your marbles. :P
Sae Cael Oanar
12-14-05, 07:46 PM :rimshot:
Sluagh
12-15-05, 12:51 AM Would you gain the benefit of those 20 +1s, or would you have a +1 Dodge bonus to AC at a really high cost... but the security that you could lose 19 of them and not have to worry about losing your bonus.

(ie. would they stack?)
masterofmayhem
12-15-05, 01:16 AM Ok, we're gearing up for epic, and we're all playing around with some high level magic items. An amusing thought occured to one of our players, and we all thought this was clever. Here's the recipie for a bag of you can't hurt me!

1. Purchase a bag of marbles. Make sure there's about 20 in there.
2. Add a +1 dodge bonus to each marble, costing 5000 a piece. (bonus squared x 2,500, and then x2 for not taking up a spot on the body)
3. You now have +20 dodge bonus to your AC for a mere 100,000 gp plus the cost of marbles. ^_^

Ok so maybe someone has already thought of this. Sorry, I'm just easily impressed. Heh, don't worry, none of us are actually going to abuse this. ... I swear. :-D
This is when all the enemies pull out bags of "I'm going to hurt you." 40 marbles in each, and each marble gives a +1 circumstance bonus to attack. Unfortunately for you, these marbles are keyed to chaotic evil [humanoid type your PCs cannot be], and thus are useless to the PCs.

(ie. would they stack?)
Yes, they would stack. Dodge bonuses to AC stack with each other.
Chaser
12-15-05, 01:47 AM I think what you'd end up with is an untouchable bag rather than an untouchable character. Basically, you'd be constantly in danger of losing your marbles. :P

Pretty funny! I do think unslotted item covers this, though.

It would work fine, especially if you started with a core item that grants a +1 dodge bonus.

As with any 'latest and greatest' trick, it would only work for so long, and then somebody really tough would come looking for the unhittable, for reputation, or for the money somesuch must have, or to steal the item, etc.

If I had it, I'd activate it only when I needed it, to avoid the reputation, or to avoid it being obvious to those divining me or the action surrounding me.

This thread could be fun.
mistril
12-15-05, 04:13 PM Actually there is one significant drawback, and that is if you loose your dex bonus to AC. Uncanny dodge would be a very good thing to have along with this item.

As with any 'latest and greatest' trick, it would only work for so long, and then somebody really tough would come looking for the unhittable, for reputation, or for the money somesuch must have, or to steal the item, etc.

Granted. It's still funny to think about though, heh.
savant_warlord13
12-15-05, 04:58 PM the bonus for the marbles would not stack
Chaser
12-15-05, 05:32 PM the bonus for the marbles would not stack

Why is it Dodge bonii would not stack, exactly?
ShinAkuma2
12-15-05, 07:04 PM 1) "Bonii" is not a word. The correct pluralization of "bonus" is "bonuses".

2) Enchanters and Evokers come around and Dominate/Fireball your butt, laughing at your "AC". As if they ever have to interact with that.
Glitch2
12-15-05, 07:17 PM Actually, even by the vague rules of magic item creation, you can't do this. There is a note for the 'other' AC bonus, and it does not include Dodge bonuses. In fact, in the SRD I cannot find a single magic item that grants a dodge bonus. And even if it did include dodge bonus, no sane DM would allow it.
Xanthia
12-15-05, 07:27 PM The DMG says to never create an item that confers a dodge bonus to AC.
masterofmayhem
12-15-05, 07:42 PM the bonus for the marbles would not stack
Yes they would.

Dodge Bonuses
Some other AC bonuses represent actively avoiding blows. These bonuses are called dodge bonuses. Any situation that denies you your Dexterity bonus also denies you dodge bonuses. (Wearing armor, however, does not limit these bonuses the way it limits a Dexterity bonus to AC.) Unlike most sorts of bonuses, dodge bonuses stack with each other.
Esponer
12-15-05, 08:32 PM The bonuses would not exist. Items cannot provide dodge bonuses. End of story.
JadeSpider9643
12-15-05, 08:49 PM Such an insanely munchkinized item (or set of items rather) would be easily countered by an equally munchkinized ring of truestrike, and then the munchkin police will raid your game and kill you all, leaving a bloody (and in some places, Chunky) smear across your chosen gaming area.

Munkinize at your own risk. :smirk:
Juzzman
12-15-05, 10:03 PM The basic problem is that they are in a bag, and so are carried. Almost no magical items confer bonuses when just carried. You would need to equip each marble to get it's dodge bonus. :-)

Juggling maybe?
masterofmayhem
12-15-05, 10:03 PM The bonuses would not exist. Items cannot provide dodge bonuses. End of story.
I'm not saying that they could or should exist, only that, if they did, then they would stack.

Besides, I hate to get technical (since I really don't want anyone using an item like that), but such an item could exist. Because the DM could say so, and thus it would be. ;)

Also note that, in the little blurb where it states that you cannot create items that grant dodge bonuses . . . well, it doesn't actually, explicitly state that (at least in the part that I found. Feel free to contradict me, and give irrefutable proof . . . Please.). The use of "such as" in that single line could possibly be interpreted as only stating a few of the possible choices you could use.

In short, nothing is absolute. In fact, not even the phrase "nothing is absolute," is absolute. ;)
monkmania
12-15-05, 10:52 PM don't the items need to take up a body slot? You'd be limited to one marble per body part.... Otherwise, why not just buy a cloak of resistance, a cloak of the bat, a cloak of displacement and keep them all in your pocket and benefit from all three...?
WolfHati
12-15-05, 11:29 PM I'm not sure exactly where it's written, but I'm pretty sure things do not stack with themselves specifically. So 20 of any one single enchantment would never stack no matter what the bonus type was.
masterofmayhem
12-16-05, 12:25 AM OK, this same avatar thing is throwing me off, heh.

don't the items need to take up a body slot? You'd be limited to one marble per body part.... Otherwise, why not just buy a cloak of resistance, a cloak of the bat, a cloak of displacement and keep them all in your pocket and benefit from all three...?
All items take up a body slot. Except for those items which are designated as "slotless." Making an item slotless doubles the price.
I'm not sure exactly where it's written, but I'm pretty sure things do not stack with themselves specifically. So 20 of any one single enchantment would never stack no matter what the bonus type was.
I've heard this stated from several sources. Until I see actual proof of it, though, I would likely disregard it, since dodge bonuses (and other similar bonuses) are specifically stated as stacking with themselves. Where that bonus comes from should not really matter as much . . .

I'd welcome someone providing some RAW on that, though.
WolfHati
12-16-05, 12:46 AM Well according to the SRD, it is definitely true for spells:

Stacking Effects: Spells that provide bonuses or penalties on attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and other attributes usually do not stack with themselves.

But it it doesn't say anything specific for enchanted items. Though enchanted items are based on spells, so I would think they would behave in the same manner.
masterofmayhem
12-16-05, 01:02 AM Though enchanted items are based on spells, so I would think they would behave in the same manner.
A common mistake. People often assume that because an item was based on this or that spell, then it uses the exact statistics of that spell, although this is not the case. Dust of appearance, for example, uses the glitterdust spell in creation, yet its effects are nothing like the spell. Eyes of petrification are another, better example. One might think that they allow you to use the spell Flesh to Stone, but they actually give you a gaze attack, which would encompass both the passive and active parts of a gaze attack.

An even better example would be the Horn of Blasting. Nowhere in the item's description does it say that it functions like a Shout spell, thus it is not a shout spell—it is merely very similar.
Chaser
12-16-05, 02:02 AM 1) "Bonii" is not a word. The correct pluralization of "bonus" is "bonuses".

2) Enchanters and Evokers come around and Dominate/Fireball your butt, laughing at your "AC". As if they ever have to interact with that.

Lighten up. Or reread my posts and lighten up. Or not.
Novacat
12-16-05, 02:30 AM +20 to AC is nothing in an epic game, if your DM has any sort of wit or competence in building the enemies. Even when the occasional baddy come around that isn't flinging spells or special non-AC-hitting abilities, they should easily have +50 to attacks. This is, however, besides the fact that most encounters your party should have will involve save-or-die spells, targeted abilities, or AoE effects. Also, short of having Uncanny Dodge, being caught flat-footed would deny you the dodge bonus. Hold Person (a 1-st level spell) makes you helpless, and renders your AC null.

So yeah, your idea may work, but you probably won't benefit from it as much as you're thinking.
JadeSpider9643
12-16-05, 05:58 AM +20 to AC is nothing in an epic game, if your DM has any sort of wit or competence in building the enemies. Even when the occasional baddy come around that isn't flinging spells or special non-AC-hitting abilities, they should easily have +50 to attacks. This is, however, besides the fact that most encounters your party should have will involve save-or-die spells, targeted abilities, or AoE effects. Also, short of having Uncanny Dodge, being caught flat-footed would deny you the dodge bonus. Hold Person (a 1-st level spell) makes you helpless, and renders your AC null.

So yeah, your idea may work, but you probably won't benefit from it as much as you're thinking.

Not to quibble on a munchkin thread...but Hold Person is 3rd level....Hold PORTAL is 1st level...and appropiately useless...
Emeramber
12-16-05, 10:11 AM I know 3.0 explicitly stated that you could never make a magic item that granted a dodge bonus, but I'm uncertain if 3.5 has the same proviso. I just recently had someone point out that favored enemy no longer precludes your own race for non-evils.
Novacat
12-16-05, 10:54 AM Not to quibble on a munchkin thread...but Hold Person is 3rd level....Hold PORTAL is 1st level...and appropiately useless...
My bad, but my point remains valid.
tarkin
12-16-05, 11:48 AM Yes, the bag of +1 Dodge marbles would cost the value that you claimed and would work the way you claimed, if the DM allowed them.

The last thing is key. Their is NO rule that says players can make any magic item they want to make, as long as they follow the pricing guidelines.

Instead each DM is supposed to use his brain and say either "Reasonable and alloweable" or "NO, try it this way."

In a Strict, Loose or Power Game, the DM wills say "NO, you can not make a slotless item that provides a dodge bonus to AC".

In an Anything Goes Game, this is a powerfull, good idea that the DM might allow.
masterofmayhem
12-16-05, 04:21 PM I just recently had someone point out that favored enemy no longer precludes your own race for non-evils.
I always hated that rule. It reinforces the stereotype that all elves, dwarves, humans, halflings, and gnomes are good, whereas all kobolds, orcs, goblinkin, and various other "evil" monsters must be evil.

I just always threw it out of my game.

I also made a whole city of good-aligned, peaceful kobolds just to see what my players would do. Yeah, all but one of them wanted to wipe out the entire city . . . :rolleyes:

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
mistril 12-14-05, 07:32 PM	Ok, we're gearing up for epic, and we're all playing around with some high level magic items. An amusing thought occured to one of our players, and we all thought this was clever. Here's the recipie for a bag of you can't hurt me! 1. Purchase a bag of marbles. Make sure there's about 20 in there. 2. Add a +1 dodge bonus to each marble, costing 5000 a piece. (bonus squared x 2,500, and then x2 for not taking up a spot on the body) 3. You now have +20 dodge bonus to your AC for a mere 100,000 gp plus the cost of marbles. ^_^ Ok so maybe someone has already thought of this. Sorry, I'm just easily impressed. Heh, don't worry, none of us are actually going to abuse this. ... I swear. :-D
MarkB 12-14-05, 07:42 PM	I think what you'd end up with is an untouchable bag rather than an untouchable character. Basically, you'd be constantly in danger of losing your marbles. :P
Sae Cael Oanar 12-14-05, 07:46 PM	:rimshot:
Sluagh 12-15-05, 12:51 AM	Would you gain the benefit of those 20 +1s, or would you have a +1 Dodge bonus to AC at a really high cost... but the security that you could lose 19 of them and not have to worry about losing your bonus. (ie. would they stack?)
masterofmayhem 12-15-05, 01:16 AM	Ok, we're gearing up for epic, and we're all playing around with some high level magic items. An amusing thought occured to one of our players, and we all thought this was clever. Here's the recipie for a bag of you can't hurt me! 1. Purchase a bag of marbles. Make sure there's about 20 in there. 2. Add a +1 dodge bonus to each marble, costing 5000 a piece. (bonus squared x 2,500, and then x2 for not taking up a spot on the body) 3. You now have +20 dodge bonus to your AC for a mere 100,000 gp plus the cost of marbles. ^_^ Ok so maybe someone has already thought of this. Sorry, I'm just easily impressed. Heh, don't worry, none of us are actually going to abuse this. ... I swear. :-D This is when all the enemies pull out bags of "I'm going to hurt you." 40 marbles in each, and each marble gives a +1 circumstance bonus to attack. Unfortunately for you, these marbles are keyed to chaotic evil [humanoid type your PCs cannot be], and thus are useless to the PCs. (ie. would they stack?) Yes, they would stack. Dodge bonuses to AC stack with each other.
Chaser 12-15-05, 01:47 AM	I think what you'd end up with is an untouchable bag rather than an untouchable character. Basically, you'd be constantly in danger of losing your marbles. :P Pretty funny! I do think unslotted item covers this, though. It would work fine, especially if you started with a core item that grants a +1 dodge bonus. As with any 'latest and greatest' trick, it would only work for so long, and then somebody really tough would come looking for the unhittable, for reputation, or for the money somesuch must have, or to steal the item, etc. If I had it, I'd activate it only when I needed it, to avoid the reputation, or to avoid it being obvious to those divining me or the action surrounding me. This thread could be fun.
mistril 12-15-05, 04:13 PM	Actually there is one significant drawback, and that is if you loose your dex bonus to AC. Uncanny dodge would be a very good thing to have along with this item. As with any 'latest and greatest' trick, it would only work for so long, and then somebody really tough would come looking for the unhittable, for reputation, or for the money somesuch must have, or to steal the item, etc. Granted. It's still funny to think about though, heh.
savant_warlord13 12-15-05, 04:58 PM	the bonus for the marbles would not stack
Chaser 12-15-05, 05:32 PM	the bonus for the marbles would not stack Why is it Dodge bonii would not stack, exactly?
ShinAkuma2 12-15-05, 07:04 PM	1) "Bonii" is not a word. The correct pluralization of "bonus" is "bonuses". 2) Enchanters and Evokers come around and Dominate/Fireball your butt, laughing at your "AC". As if they ever have to interact with that.
Glitch2 12-15-05, 07:17 PM	Actually, even by the vague rules of magic item creation, you can't do this. There is a note for the 'other' AC bonus, and it does not include Dodge bonuses. In fact, in the SRD I cannot find a single magic item that grants a dodge bonus. And even if it did include dodge bonus, no sane DM would allow it.
Xanthia 12-15-05, 07:27 PM	The DMG says to never create an item that confers a dodge bonus to AC.
masterofmayhem 12-15-05, 07:42 PM	the bonus for the marbles would not stack Yes they would. Dodge Bonuses Some other AC bonuses represent actively avoiding blows. These bonuses are called dodge bonuses. Any situation that denies you your Dexterity bonus also denies you dodge bonuses. (Wearing armor, however, does not limit these bonuses the way it limits a Dexterity bonus to AC.) Unlike most sorts of bonuses, dodge bonuses stack with each other.
Esponer 12-15-05, 08:32 PM	The bonuses would not exist. Items cannot provide dodge bonuses. End of story.
JadeSpider9643 12-15-05, 08:49 PM	Such an insanely munchkinized item (or set of items rather) would be easily countered by an equally munchkinized ring of truestrike, and then the munchkin police will raid your game and kill you all, leaving a bloody (and in some places, Chunky) smear across your chosen gaming area. Munkinize at your own risk. :smirk:
Juzzman 12-15-05, 10:03 PM	The basic problem is that they are in a bag, and so are carried. Almost no magical items confer bonuses when just carried. You would need to equip each marble to get it's dodge bonus. :-) Juggling maybe?
masterofmayhem 12-15-05, 10:03 PM	The bonuses would not exist. Items cannot provide dodge bonuses. End of story. I'm not saying that they could or should exist, only that, if they did, then they would stack. Besides, I hate to get technical (since I really don't want anyone using an item like that), but such an item could exist. Because the DM could say so, and thus it would be. ;) Also note that, in the little blurb where it states that you cannot create items that grant dodge bonuses . . . well, it doesn't actually, explicitly state that (at least in the part that I found. Feel free to contradict me, and give irrefutable proof . . . Please.). The use of "such as" in that single line could possibly be interpreted as only stating a few of the possible choices you could use. In short, nothing is absolute. In fact, not even the phrase "nothing is absolute," is absolute. ;)
monkmania 12-15-05, 10:52 PM	don't the items need to take up a body slot? You'd be limited to one marble per body part.... Otherwise, why not just buy a cloak of resistance, a cloak of the bat, a cloak of displacement and keep them all in your pocket and benefit from all three...?
WolfHati 12-15-05, 11:29 PM	I'm not sure exactly where it's written, but I'm pretty sure things do not stack with themselves specifically. So 20 of any one single enchantment would never stack no matter what the bonus type was.
masterofmayhem 12-16-05, 12:25 AM	OK, this same avatar thing is throwing me off, heh. don't the items need to take up a body slot? You'd be limited to one marble per body part.... Otherwise, why not just buy a cloak of resistance, a cloak of the bat, a cloak of displacement and keep them all in your pocket and benefit from all three...? All items take up a body slot. Except for those items which are designated as "slotless." Making an item slotless doubles the price. I'm not sure exactly where it's written, but I'm pretty sure things do not stack with themselves specifically. So 20 of any one single enchantment would never stack no matter what the bonus type was. I've heard this stated from several sources. Until I see actual proof of it, though, I would likely disregard it, since dodge bonuses (and other similar bonuses) are specifically stated as stacking with themselves. Where that bonus comes from should not really matter as much . . . I'd welcome someone providing some RAW on that, though.
WolfHati 12-16-05, 12:46 AM	Well according to the SRD, it is definitely true for spells: Stacking Effects: Spells that provide bonuses or penalties on attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and other attributes usually do not stack with themselves. But it it doesn't say anything specific for enchanted items. Though enchanted items are based on spells, so I would think they would behave in the same manner.
masterofmayhem 12-16-05, 01:02 AM	Though enchanted items are based on spells, so I would think they would behave in the same manner. A common mistake. People often assume that because an item was based on this or that spell, then it uses the exact statistics of that spell, although this is not the case. Dust of appearance, for example, uses the glitterdust spell in creation, yet its effects are nothing like the spell. Eyes of petrification are another, better example. One might think that they allow you to use the spell Flesh to Stone, but they actually give you a gaze attack, which would encompass both the passive and active parts of a gaze attack. An even better example would be the Horn of Blasting. Nowhere in the item's description does it say that it functions like a Shout spell, thus it is not a shout spell—it is merely very similar.
Chaser 12-16-05, 02:02 AM	1) "Bonii" is not a word. The correct pluralization of "bonus" is "bonuses". 2) Enchanters and Evokers come around and Dominate/Fireball your butt, laughing at your "AC". As if they ever have to interact with that. Lighten up. Or reread my posts and lighten up. Or not.
Novacat 12-16-05, 02:30 AM	+20 to AC is nothing in an epic game, if your DM has any sort of wit or competence in building the enemies. Even when the occasional baddy come around that isn't flinging spells or special non-AC-hitting abilities, they should easily have +50 to attacks. This is, however, besides the fact that most encounters your party should have will involve save-or-die spells, targeted abilities, or AoE effects. Also, short of having Uncanny Dodge, being caught flat-footed would deny you the dodge bonus. Hold Person (a 1-st level spell) makes you helpless, and renders your AC null. So yeah, your idea may work, but you probably won't benefit from it as much as you're thinking.
JadeSpider9643 12-16-05, 05:58 AM	+20 to AC is nothing in an epic game, if your DM has any sort of wit or competence in building the enemies. Even when the occasional baddy come around that isn't flinging spells or special non-AC-hitting abilities, they should easily have +50 to attacks. This is, however, besides the fact that most encounters your party should have will involve save-or-die spells, targeted abilities, or AoE effects. Also, short of having Uncanny Dodge, being caught flat-footed would deny you the dodge bonus. Hold Person (a 1-st level spell) makes you helpless, and renders your AC null. So yeah, your idea may work, but you probably won't benefit from it as much as you're thinking. Not to quibble on a munchkin thread...but Hold Person is 3rd level....Hold PORTAL is 1st level...and appropiately useless...
Emeramber 12-16-05, 10:11 AM	I know 3.0 explicitly stated that you could never make a magic item that granted a dodge bonus, but I'm uncertain if 3.5 has the same proviso. I just recently had someone point out that favored enemy no longer precludes your own race for non-evils.
Novacat 12-16-05, 10:54 AM	Not to quibble on a munchkin thread...but Hold Person is 3rd level....Hold PORTAL is 1st level...and appropiately useless... My bad, but my point remains valid.
tarkin 12-16-05, 11:48 AM	Yes, the bag of +1 Dodge marbles would cost the value that you claimed and would work the way you claimed, if the DM allowed them. The last thing is key. Their is NO rule that says players can make any magic item they want to make, as long as they follow the pricing guidelines. Instead each DM is supposed to use his brain and say either "Reasonable and alloweable" or "NO, try it this way." In a Strict, Loose or Power Game, the DM wills say "NO, you can not make a slotless item that provides a dodge bonus to AC". In an Anything Goes Game, this is a powerfull, good idea that the DM might allow.
masterofmayhem 12-16-05, 04:21 PM	I just recently had someone point out that favored enemy no longer precludes your own race for non-evils. I always hated that rule. It reinforces the stereotype that all elves, dwarves, humans, halflings, and gnomes are good, whereas all kobolds, orcs, goblinkin, and various other "evil" monsters must be evil. I just always threw it out of my game. I also made a whole city of good-aligned, peaceful kobolds just to see what my players would do. Yeah, all but one of them wanted to wipe out the entire city . . . :rolleyes: