Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Drezden 02-02-06, 11:01 AM	Ok, since the Circle has decided that Imbue Familiar with Spell Ability is overpowered - since it gives out 3-5 free quicken spells - it is time for equal treatment for DMM: Quicken. Sure, it requires 2 feats and a little more effort to use than Imbue Familiar, but the net effect is the same - quicken spells get pumped out with no level adjustment. In fact, you could argue DMM: Quicken is worse, since at least Imbue was limited to 5th level spells tops (and that was only at 15th cl), while DMM: Quicken allows a Cleric to Quicken 6th-8th level spells. Between Karma beads and Divine Spell Power, Clerics are already juiced up - if Imbue Familiar has to go, then we need equal treatment for equal effects - ban DMM: Quicken. One could make an argument for banning DMM altogether, but I am limited mine to just the most abusive feat - DMM: Quicken. Daren
chrispedersen 02-02-06, 12:06 PM	Actually, isn't the ultimate crack in the game Divine spell power - where you heighten your turning ability with glory domain, good spell, karma beads.. and bust out a holy work Kill at apl +12 or so, killing all the non saving enemies with one spell? If we are capping things, rule that these domains, items etc, only count toward actual turning... C
Mortepierre 02-02-06, 12:13 PM	if Imbue Familiar has to go, then we need equal treatment for equal effects - ban DMM: Quicken. One could make an argument for banning DMM altogether, but I am limited mine to just the most abusive feat - DMM: Quicken. No way! Getting it cost a cleric two feats AND 4 turning attempts each time it's used. You can't possibly compare it with Imbue Familiar.
Sieylianna 02-02-06, 12:19 PM	No way! Getting it cost a cleric two feats AND 4 turning attempts each time it's used. You can't possibly compare it with Imbue Familiar. You obviously haven't had access to the nightsticks which provide inexpensive turning attempts. I'm in favor of restricting divine spell power and divine metamagic. As a compromise, I'd settle for removing the karma bead, since that is at the root of most of the abuses I've seen. Ed
GreySector 02-02-06, 12:26 PM	The problem doesn't lie with the Divine Metamagic feat. In order to be at all useful you have to have a decent Charisma, and at least one Extra Turning feat. At most you can probably Divine Metamagic (quicken, chain, maximize, etc.) a spell with a high slot adjustment one or two times per day. The problem lies with an associated magic item from Libris Mortis. Each one grants four extra turning attempts per day (IIRC), they are infinitely stackable, and they merely have to be in your possession to function. The nightstick takes an otherwise reasonable ability (given the amount of resource focus required) and turns it into an overpowered ability by essentially removing the limiting factor (i.e. turning attempts). -Michael Eshleman
Mortepierre 02-02-06, 12:38 PM	You obviously haven't had access to the nightsticks which provide inexpensive turning attempts. No, I haven't. But then again, that's a regional problem. So, instead of nerfing the clerics to make the arcane casters feel better, wouldn't it be easier to tell writers of regional adventures to be a little less.. ah.. "generous" with limited-access items that are known for being problematic? (as a side note, I am not aware of Core adventures giving access to them but if there are, the advice stays the same)
Moryath 02-02-06, 12:42 PM	The problem doesn't lie with the Divine Metamagic feat. In order to be at all useful you have to have a decent Charisma, and at least one Extra Turning feat. At most you can probably Divine Metamagic (quicken, chain, maximize, etc.) a spell with a high slot adjustment one or two times per day. The problem lies with an associated magic item from Libris Mortis. Each one grants four extra turning attempts per day (IIRC), they are infinitely stackable, and they merely have to be in your possession to function. The nightstick takes an otherwise reasonable ability (given the amount of resource focus required) and turns it into an overpowered ability by essentially removing the limiting factor (i.e. turning attempts). -Michael Eshleman The question then becomes: who was silly enough to give these things out like candy? -Resident of a region that doesn't have Item Access On Crack.
redgamer 02-02-06, 12:48 PM	One region gave adventure access to it to people who completed a very difficult interactive at high APL. Certaintly not giving access like candy but now there is a PC (probably retired) who has (had?) 40 of them.
amnuxoll 02-02-06, 01:03 PM	I definitely think Divine Spell Power should go. The worst thing is that you don't need to have a high charisma to use it. I have seen two PCs now successfully tweak out their Cha 8 clerics so that Divine Spell power always yields a caster level increase. It's broken and needs to be limited or restricted. I'm less worried about Divine Metamagic but agree it's been abused. I would not be sorry to see it go.
Gelth 02-02-06, 01:04 PM	No way! Getting it cost a cleric two feats AND 4 turning attempts each time it's used. You can't possibly compare it with Imbue Familiar. This is part of the problem. People don't actually know how it's used. It's 5 turning attempts, not 4. I can compare it with Imbue Familiar. It's a way of frontloading spells faster. They have very similar effects. The Divine version is both more powerful (higher level spells work, and it can work from 3rd level) and more difficult to aquire (2 or more feats). It's also entirely Core. --Penn, Ket Triad
Simpi 02-02-06, 01:34 PM	I second the motion on banning them all. S.H, the guy from Naerie
solbergb 02-02-06, 01:44 PM	The big difference between Imbue Familiar and ANY variety of quicken (DMM, normal, swift action spells, class abilities or items that use swift/immediate actions) is this. You get one and only one swift/immediate action per round. Given spells like Delay Death, Close Wounds, etc, there are already pressures on this action, as low as level 3. (it would be lower for wizards, but LGCS still prevents the noncore swift L1 spells from being used until 3) Around level 12, when quicken is practical, most folks who don't take quicken choose to avoid it because they're already overburdened with swift action options. Imbue familiar, by contrast gives a whole extra character worth of actions for use. Std action AND swift action. So instead of going from 1 to 2 actions, you go from 1 to 4 actions. Is DMM quicken powerful? Yes it is. Does it have a high opportunity cost (3 feats). Yes it does. What is the actual impact? 1-2 swift spells per day, at top caster level. I'm for either banning nightsticks or issuing a rules clarification that multiple nightsticks don't stack (an interpretation I've seen on non-LG boards, using the usual rules for stacking). You can have 40 of them in posession, but it is like casting false life 40 times. Mainly because nightsticks should at most add one more swift spell, not let you make all your spells swift. Now compare to imbue familiar. Is it powerful? Yes it is. Does it have a high opportunity cost (1 L6 spell slot, some lower level slots)? Not really. Compare to Contingency, which has similar costs, but only gives you one spell period, and that spell is highly restricted with respect to allowed target types and effects. What is the actual impact? several spells and swift spells I don't think the two are comparable. DMM Quicken is ok with me. For the cost, if you want to ban a divine feat, Divine Spellpower would be my candidate. The effects of that feat can last for hours, and because it doesn't explicitly need turn undead attempts, a character with elemental domains can spellpower pretty much every level-dependent spell they can cast.
Drezden 02-02-06, 01:56 PM	As others have pointed out, with Nightsticks floating around, people who seek to take advantage of DMM: Quicken can easily Quicken 4 or more of their top spells. In addition, well it is nice that there are Swift action spells available now, being able to cast a few of them is not going to prevent you from unleashing 2 of your top level spells if you need them. Also, how high is the oppurtunity cost when Quicken by itself is a great feat and Extra Turning (to the extent it is needed) is a pre-req for the most popular Cleric prestige class (Radiant Servant). Imbue familiar is not even available until 11th level. With DMM: Quicken, you have 3rd level Clerics casting (what should be) 5th and 6th level spells, 9th level Clerics casting 9th level spells and ultimately 15th level Clerics casting 12th level spells. That seems as broken, if not more so, than Imbue Familiar. Daren The big difference between Imbue Familiar and ANY variety of quicken (DMM, normal, swift action spells, class abilities or items that use swift/immediate actions) is this. You get one and only one swift/immediate action per round. Given spells like Delay Death, Close Wounds, etc, there are already pressures on this action, as low as level 3. (it would be lower for wizards, but LGCS still prevents the noncore swift L1 spells from being used until 3) Around level 12, when quicken is practical, most folks who don't take quicken choose to avoid it because they're already overburdened with swift action options. Imbue familiar, by contrast gives a whole extra character worth of actions for use. Std action AND swift action. So instead of going from 1 to 2 actions, you go from 1 to 4 actions. Is DMM quicken powerful? Yes it is. Does it have a high opportunity cost (3 feats). Yes it does. What is the actual impact? 1-2 swift spells per day, at top caster level. I'm for either banning nightsticks or issuing a rules clarification that multiple nightsticks don't stack (an interpretation I've seen on non-LG boards, using the usual rules for stacking). You can have 40 of them in posession, but it is like casting false life 40 times. Mainly because nightsticks should at most add one more swift spell, not let you make all your spells swift. Now compare to imbue familiar. Is it powerful? Yes it is. Does it have a high opportunity cost (1 L6 spell slot, some lower level slots)? Not really. Compare to Contingency, which has similar costs, but only gives you one spell period, and that spell is highly restricted with respect to allowed target types and effects. What is the actual impact? several spells and swift spells I don't think the two are comparable. DMM Quicken is ok with me. For the cost, if you want to ban a divine feat, Divine Spellpower would be my candidate. The effects of that feat can last for hours, and because it doesn't explicitly need turn undead attempts, a character with elemental domains can spellpower pretty much every level-dependent spell they can cast.
virtual 02-02-06, 02:24 PM	I have to agree that DMM: Quicken is overpowered when compared to other rules items in LG. The 2 things that make it more powerful than Imbue Familiar are the fact that it can be used on a cleric's highest level spells, and it is incredibly flexible. A DMM:Q cleric can cast 2(1 swift, 1 standard) of his highest level spells in a single round. While Imbue Familiar would allow even more actions, most of those additional actions were restricted in one form or another to lower level spells. On top of that he can choose which spell he wants to quicken from any he has memorized. While this "Sudden" ability is availble in LG, it is usually limited, and in the case of Quicken almost impossible to qualify for.
Mortepierre 02-02-06, 02:25 PM	This is part of the problem. People don't actually know how it's used. It's 5 turning attempts, not 4. Right, I wrote too quickly. I'll grant you that (I usually combine DMM & Maximize, which is only 4 turn attempts). Though 5 instead of 4 turning attempts only underscores how costly it's for us divine caster (no, not everyone and their mother is a Radiant Servant these days, at least not in my region) Besides, here is another way to look at it. Any arcane user who feels nerfed and also feels like nerfing us should ask himself if it's really in his best interest to antagonize his team's main healer Go on, ask yourself and remember all those times you were snatched from death's door by a timely quickened-cure (yes, some of us actually use DMM for the benefit of our companions rather than to maximize our Holy Smite) That said, I am fully in favor of a semi-nerf along the line of "you can't use DMM on a spell that, once improved, would normally take a slot higher than a 9th level spell"
theliel 02-02-06, 02:35 PM	the problems of Radiant whatevers being too common (and the associated no disadvantage to using the overwhelming VAST majority of cleric prestigue classes) and pretty much NEEDING DMM feats to survive (sorry, i didn't optomise my chracter. without something to bring me up to what the 'hardcore' consider 'usefull' or what the "us vs. them" authors think is survivable i need my divine extended poe's) is a problem with the cleric class in general and how turning, domains and the general progression of the class, not living grayhawk.
CaiasWard 02-02-06, 02:39 PM	Another thing people forget is that you may only use one Divine Feat a round (See CD). As for not letting Night Sticks 'stack', they aren't an bonus of any kind so you need to effectively rewrite the item. The cost is low for them, which is part of the problem, but I don't think banning them really does much either. Then you just will get the Radiant Servants of Pelor dominating with them as well as the NPCs who can afford to blow all their feats on Extra Turning and DDM Quicken. Thereby making it harder on the PCs. My primary (before he retired) had 8 Nightsticks (I had Divine Might and Divine Shield and a 26 charisma). My cohort had 4 of them (with DMM Quicken and Chain, DSP, Domain Spontenaity, etc). I think the cost of nightsticks should go up, but banning them really just shifts the problem
zoinks69 02-02-06, 02:41 PM	I'll toss in my opinion here as well. I'll note that 40 Night Sticks is beyond reality (did you really mean 10 granting 40 turns?). Cost aside (who has 300k laying around?) there's no utilty to having that many quickened/whatevered spells in a normal module. (Well, I guess if you have a few other high-level casters that are tossing high level pearls your way). In any case, I'm in favor of "powering down" the PCs only to keep the NPCs at bay as well (give everyone the same restrictions outside of specials and the like). Night Sticks not stacking sounds good (or limit players to one each, or both). Perhaps the price could be adjusted to be LG-specific relative to the power of the item in light of the dmm/dsp rules. quick edit: From Caias "one Divine Feat a round (See CD)." Interesting catch. I've never heard anyone mention that at a table, but it does limit things "a little".
balakus01 02-02-06, 02:41 PM	I agree. I have seen 3 clerics at around 4 to 6 level abuse Divine Spell Power and Divine Metamagic for awhile now I'm suppressed these feats are still around. All 3 clerics where created together and all have CHA's of at least 16+, with the Extra Turning feat. One of them worships Pelor and is going to take levels in Radiant Servant of Pelor to make it worse while another was designed to be able to Turn or rebuke almost everything you can in the game with intent to exploit these feats. Eventually they will have all the toys they need to push it even farther. The feats either need to be clarified better or made limited. Original message----------------------------------------------------------- I definitely think Divine Spell Power should go. The worst thing is that you don't need to have a high charisma to use it. I have seen two PCs now successfully tweak out their Cha 8 clerics so that Divine Spell power always yields a caster level increase. It's broken and needs to be limited or restricted. I'm less worried about Divine Metamagic but agree it's been abused. I would not be sorry to see it go.
redgamer 02-02-06, 03:00 PM	Sorry. Yes I did mean 40 extra turn attemps.
RanielK 02-02-06, 03:31 PM	Actually, isn't the ultimate crack in the game Divine spell power - where you heighten your turning ability with glory domain, good spell, karma beads.. and bust out a holy work Kill at apl +12 or so, killing all the non saving enemies with one spell? If we are capping things, rule that these domains, items etc, only count toward actual turning... C Which shows that too many people use this feat incorrectly. The feat states "treat the results of the turning check as a modifier to your caster level on the next divine spell in that round. For example, if a cleric used this feat and rolled a 16 on his turning check, he would gain a +2 bonus to his caster level. . . " What this doesn't do is take the turn check and make that your caster level. Able to turn a 30 hd creature because you some how tricked your turn level out to Cleric level +20? Big deal. The most you can get is a +4 to casterlevel. Yes that is still a big boost, and yes most turning clerics worth their salt shouldn't fall below Cleric level (that +3 to the check makes up for all but the most hideous of cha penalties and/or a dice that are only able to roll 1's), but no one should be throwing out a spell at their caster level +12. Miles Now crack beads and orange ioun stones and DSP combined? That's a whole 'nother story. But then I've got a Wild Mage who'll match you crazy caster level for crazy caster level. And he's not even crafted the orange ioun stone yet. ;)
thethe 02-02-06, 04:23 PM	I think we got alittle off topic, while divine spell power is overpowered, DMM: Quicken is by far worse. With a very few exceptions my PC would always take a hit from a spell at +4CL then two spells. I really hate this feat for NPC's because I've played mods where the writers just gave the baddies nightsticks, and getting hit in a surprise round with 2 of their highest level spells is very cruel. Anyways lets compare DMM:quicken to Sudden Quicken. DMM = Extra Turning, Quicken Spell, and Divine Metamagic. 3 Feats and a Dwarf with 6 Char can quicken spell 1/day, with the option of getting more turns for more quickens. Sudden Quicken = Quicken Spell, Sudden Empower, Sudden Extend, Sudden Maximize, Sudden Silent, Sudden Still, and Sudden Quicken. 7 Feats for 1/day without the option for any more.
RanielK 02-02-06, 04:33 PM	Ok, since the Circle has decided that Imbue Familiar with Spell Ability is overpowered - since it gives out 3-5 free quicken spells Daren I'm interested in where my Wizard is getting all these spells he's willing to toss off will he nill he. Granted having a number of quickened spells to buff up or lay down one hella big barage on the official big bad is not to be missed. However, folks keep overlooking the fact that those are 4-6 spells (2-7 if you're a wild mage) that are no longer in the Wizards head until: a)used, b)lost (darn that targeted G Dispell), or c)a new day has begun (which still applies to a and b on top of everything else). I don't know about the rest of you spellcasters, but I: 1)haven't come accross too many 5+ round combats, 2)haven't needed to dominate the landscape soooo drastically that 5 quickened spells were necessary, and 3)have come across the "obligatory thug attack" tm which was meant to suck resources. Now in the vein that what's good for the goose is good for the gander (or master/familiar in this case) applies to Pearls, Rods o' MM goodness, etc, there are ways to get the most out of your familiar's spells (provided they can carry such fun, which most can't and must to posses and use such things). These don't change the calculations though as: a)you don't have those spells so you aren't casting them/that slot 2+times (the +being the Pearl, the 2 being you + familiar with Imbue), b)if you've got em (pearls, rods, oh my) you were probably going to use them anyway and not save them until you had access to Imbue Fam (at least I'm not) and c)you and your familiar need your own rods o'mm if your going to do that supposedly ubiqitous You: Swift/Quickened nastiness (roded), You: normal nastiness (equally roded) Familiar: Swift/quickened nastiness (roded some more), Familiar:Normal nastiness (roded yet again). I will not deny it is powerful, but its brokenness seems to be predicated on every day having two battles and every battle having three+ rounds of You, You again, Familiar, Familiar again. Granted the opportunity cost is not as high as DMM:Quicken, but there is at least one year 5 out there than can give access to it (to level out the playing field for those folk whose regions provide little access). Miles
Starfox_SFX 02-02-06, 04:37 PM	. A DMM:Q cleric can cast 2(1 swift, 1 standard) of his highest level spells in a single round. While Imbue Familiar would allow even more actions, most of those additional actions were restricted in one form or another to lower level spells. On top of that he can choose which spell he wants to quicken from any he has memorized. While this "Sudden" ability is availble in LG, it is usually limited, and in the case of Quicken almost impossible to qualify for. I could never figure this out either, why is sudden quicken, which requires at least 6 prerequisites so that you can use it once per day limited, while DMM quicken (or any of the DMMs for that matter) is core? Consider that when it is mentioned DMM quicken has 2 prerequisites, that isn't true, it only has 1, quicken. A cleric with 14 cha and no extra turning can use DMM quicken once a day, just like sudden quicken. The extra turning allows one to use it more than once a day. Why are the sudden feats which at best allow you to use them once a day limited, while the DMM feats which easily allow you to use them multiple times a day core?
CSHunt68 02-02-06, 04:46 PM	In the above example, taking Extra Turning would _not_ allow any more uses of Divine Metamagic Quicken. It provides four more turn attempts, not the five which are required.
Mattastrophic 02-02-06, 04:51 PM	My thoughts on the whole Divine Metamagic mess are plain and simple: Restrict it or erratta it. Now, I don't want to sound like a party pooper. I've also come up with some pretty sick Divine Metamagic combinations, my personal favorite being Divine Metamagic(Chain) with Reach Raise Dead in Battle Interactives. That's 5,000 GP to Raise CL number of people. *pause for reaction* ...Exactly. Divine Metamagic quickly became the standard for clerics to follow, and it really throws the magic system off. Just Restrict it and be done with it. -Matt
Starfox_SFX 02-02-06, 05:12 PM	In the above example, taking Extra Turning would _not_ allow any more uses of Divine Metamagic Quicken. It provides four more turn attempts, not the five which are required. I was just pointing out that extra turning isn't *required* to take DMM quicken. What it does do is allow the *possibility* of using DMM quicken more than once per day, which is an option the sudden feats don't have. In the very basic example I gave, you are right that extra turning by itself wouldn't be sufficient, but picking up a cloak of cha +2 wouldn't be a stretch to fill the gap, and this ignores actually building the character from the start to use it more than once per day.
Moryath 02-02-06, 06:04 PM	On the one hand, I think this debate is silly, as Divine Metamagic does require the expenditure of resources to use and isn't any worse than a Rod of Quicken. On the other hand, we've got a larger issue, which is that prior to the Spell Compendium the Clerics got most of the love and the Wizards/Sorcerors continually got the shaft, while after SC entered play the best that can be said is that BOTH types of casters took a bloody beating with a nerfbat. I don't think Imbue Familiar should have been Restricted. Even in the worst-case scenarios, the best a Familiar could contribute (under the current rules) in a single round is one 5th-level spell and one quickened 1st-level spell if memorized that way.
solbergb 02-02-06, 06:27 PM	My thoughts on the whole Divine Metamagic mess are plain and simple: Restrict it or erratta it. Now, I don't want to sound like a party pooper. I've also come up with some pretty sick Divine Metamagic combinations, my personal favorite being Divine Metamagic(Chain) with Reach Raise Dead in Battle Interactives. That's 5,000 GP to Raise CL number of people. *pause for reaction* -Matt Uh...reach spell gives you a RAY effect not a TARGET effect. Which means at most tables, chain can't be combined with it. And even at the ones where the judge doesn't know the difference between a targeted spell and an effect/ray spell, you're talking about a trick that needs a level 13+ caster to pull off. The intersection of these two events is small (judge who thinks you can chain rays and high level tables with a character who has prepped reach raise dead) and the intersection with a table that actually loses 2+ people in one fight is even smaller.
Mattastrophic 02-02-06, 06:40 PM	Uh...reach spell gives you a RAY effect not a TARGET effect. I pointed out the Battle Interactive as being the arena of usefulness, in which the PC 15th-level Cleric14/Heirophant1 (that's what I screwed up, it's the Heirophant level, not the Reach Spell) is around to manage the Raising of everyone else at the Battle Interactive who just died. But let's drop any debate over my little example and stay focused on the main issue. If we have a feat that leads to even remotely consider such things, it's a liiiiittle too powerful. As I said, Divine Metamagic throws off the whole magic system, so just Restrict it or erratta it. -Matt
Elfen_Archangel 02-02-06, 06:46 PM	If Imbue Familiar was taken out for, we're guessing the equivalent of a free quicken spell each round, the divine metamagics should be taken out, if only DMM: Quicken. Access to meta-magics for free without bumping up the spell level while using an ability (turning) that most clerics won't use as their regions rarely see undead, is far too broken - for lack of a better word. I would personally put all the DMM on the restricted list. Matthew Schad
redgamer 02-02-06, 06:49 PM	The trick with arcane heirophant its things like change heal on undead. Do 75 damage to everyone undead who makes their save. I agree the DMM is way overpowered but arcane heirophants reach ability when chained is overpowered even without DMM.
RanielK 02-02-06, 06:49 PM	If we have a feat that leads to even remotely consider such things, it's a liiiiittle too powerful. -Matt In that case there is another feat that allows not only the casting of one or two extra spells per round, but also allows one to make use of extra magic items and the like. I posit that if such as DMM:quicken and Imbue Familiar should be restricted based on the more than one quickened and one normal spell per single players action = broken/restrict it, then Leadership should also be restricted or casters shouldn't be allowed to have caster followers. And before you say, but but but. You get a whole 'nother casters worth of spells (even if they are below you in level, they have more than your familiar would ever have at spell levels higher than the familiar) plus they will always go right at the opportune time (based either on the just right init roll or your delaying them until then). Miles
redgamer 02-02-06, 06:51 PM	Yeah, cohorts add a lot of power to a group. That is why they are counted in the APL. Feat and spell selection is not.
Elfen_Archangel 02-02-06, 06:53 PM	Not only are they counted in the APL, they take up 1 of 6 spots for PC's at the table, whereas a familiar with Imbue or a cleric with a DMM would not take up more than one spot. Matthew Schad
Moryath 02-02-06, 06:55 PM	If Imbue Familiar was taken out for, we're guessing the equivalent of a free quicken spell each round, the divine metamagics should be taken out, if only DMM: Quicken. Access to meta-magics for free without bumping up the spell level while using an ability (turning) that most clerics won't use as their regions rarely see undead, is far too broken - for lack of a better word. I would personally put all the DMM on the restricted list. Matthew Schad And I think it's silly. If we want this question answered, we need to know (A) why the Circle banned Imbue Familiar (which had already been Limited) and (B) what, precisely, the Circle gauges the cost of a Feat to be worth. Looking at it logically: Imbue Familiar eats up a 5th level spell slot in exchange, which could be considered too low of a cost. DMM eats up a FEAT, and straight-classed (heck, even Cleric/PRC's) don't get very many of those at all. Is a Feat worth somewhere between 15,000 and 38,000 GP? If so, then DMM is not even an issue, because the exchange is the cost of a Rod of whatever metamagic you've attached your DMM to. Feats are precious things. In order to have DMM, you first have to have the metamagic you're adding to it, and then you have to take DMM. I don't see where the problem lies there. A 12th level Cleric still only has 5 feats to work with (6 if they're human) by that point, so you've just spent 1/3 or more of your feats getting to it. That's plenty of sacrifice in exchange for the ability granted.
Elfen_Archangel 02-02-06, 07:02 PM	Except that there are clerics that can use their DMM more than 3 times per day, which is only what you'd get out of a rod. Being able to use a feat to quicken a spell without bumping the spell level 15 times in a battle interactive is effectively 5 rods of quicken, and the player was using it on 7th-9th level spells. So this was granting him 850,000 gp in magic items. Matthew Schad
Mattastrophic 02-02-06, 07:06 PM	It seems that the Divine Metamagic issue has just hit the realm of the Infinite Argument. I'll say no more, then. -Matt
Moryath 02-02-06, 07:08 PM	Except that there are clerics that can use their DMM more than 3 times per day, which is only what you'd get out of a rod. Being able to use a feat to quicken a spell without bumping the spell level 15 times in a battle interactive is effectively 5 rods of quicken, and the player was using it on 7th-9th level spells. So this was granting him 850,000 gp in magic items. Matthew Schad Ok, looking at it logically now: Cleric gets 3 turning attempts per day just for being a Cleric. Cleric has (being reasonable here) 16 CHA score, for +3 more. Cleric has Extra Turning, for +4 attempts per day. Okay, that's ten turn attempts, or TWO DMM:Quickens per day. At this point, without going to an 18 Charisma, even a Nightstick won't give him another one, because it'll only give him 14 turn attempts per day. If he's somehow getting 75 turning attempts per day (DMM:Quicken uses 5 per use, one for the attempt and one for each level bump the feat requires, 5 attempts times 15 times you said he did it = 75 turning attempts), someone screwed up the rules somewhere. Period. And that's not a cause for you to call for the feat to be banned, but a call to fix the ROOT cause (e.g. whatever in $deity's name he's exploiting to get all those turning attempts).
CSHunt68 02-02-06, 07:20 PM	The trick with arcane heirophant its things like change heal on undead. Do 75 damage to everyone undead who makes their save. I agree the DMM is way overpowered but arcane heirophants reach ability when chained is overpowered even without DMM. Touch spells can't be chained.
redgamer 02-02-06, 07:41 PM	Yes, I know. That is why you have to be an arcane heirophant.
Elfen_Archangel 02-02-06, 07:43 PM	Ok, looking at it logically now: Cleric gets 3 turning attempts per day just for being a Cleric. Cleric has (being reasonable here) 16 CHA score, for +3 more. Cleric has Extra Turning, for +4 attempts per day. Okay, that's ten turn attempts, or TWO DMM:Quickens per day. At this point, without going to an 18 Charisma, even a Nightstick won't give him another one, because it'll only give him 14 turn attempts per day. If he's somehow getting 75 turning attempts per day (DMM:Quicken uses 5 per use, one for the attempt and one for each level bump the feat requires, 5 attempts times 15 times you said he did it = 75 turning attempts), someone screwed up the rules somewhere. Period. And that's not a cause for you to call for the feat to be banned, but a call to fix the ROOT cause (e.g. whatever in $deity's name he's exploiting to get all those turning attempts). Except that this character had more than one nightstick. And I know they were offered in an interactive with no limit, I've also seen them offered in at least another 3 modules. The point is that they're cleric candy now, and there are a lot of clerics that have them - heck, I know fighters, bards, wizards, etc, that bought them for their cleric buddies to use - which allow you to DMM one round all day every day in a normal module. Even with the limited use of using it 3 times a day, that's a free possible greater metamagic rod, which can be as expensive as 170,000 gp (quicken). Far more useful than a mere feat should be, which is why it should be restricted. Matthew Schad
CSHunt68 02-02-06, 09:16 PM	Yes, I know. That is why you have to be an arcane heirophant. Hierophants can't chain touch spells. The Divine Metamagic feats are fine.
Iswald 02-02-06, 10:39 PM	I don't think the two are comparable. DMM Quicken is ok with me. For the cost, if you want to ban a divine feat, Divine Spellpower would be my candidate. The effects of that feat can last for hours, and because it doesn't explicitly need turn undead attempts, a character with elemental domains can spellpower pretty much every level-dependent spell they can cast. Since Divine Spell Power requires positive or negative energy, it shouldn't be working with elemental turn attempts. It seems to me that nightsticks are the problem with DMM. Either banning nightsticks or always limiting the purchase to 1 per AR would cut down on the problems they are causing.
Bob_the_Theurge 02-02-06, 10:54 PM	Since Divine Spell Power requires positive or negative energy, it shouldn't be working with elemental turn attempts. It seems to me that nightsticks are the problem with DMM. Either banning nightsticks or always limiting the purchase to 1 per AR would cut down on the problems they are causing. Simply enforcing the rules as written (benefits from the same source should never stack) also would be just fine for that, I think. I'd also like to note for the record that I've never even seen a nightstick, but I live in the BK. In the words of Weird Pete, "Where are you getting all of this claptrap?!?"
JohnduBois 02-02-06, 10:57 PM	Nightsticks are VERY easy to fix. Restrict their use to being held. That way, nobody can ever get more than eight extra turns out of them. As an added note, I think there's a problem whenever a book needs four pages of errata, three of which are stat block fixes.
Iswald 02-02-06, 11:09 PM	Simply enforcing the rules as written (benefits from the same source should never stack) also would be just fine for that, I think. I don't have the book that nightsticks are from. But, I'm willing to assume that they work the same as metamagic rods (except for the holding part) and having multiple rods or nightsticks should allow you to benefit more times.
Elfen_Archangel 02-02-06, 11:45 PM	Actually, they are rods, they're not wonderous items. And the text is "Anyone who possesses the rod and is able to turn or rebuke undead gains four more uses of the ability per day." The feats used to make it are Craft Rod and Extra Turning. And as the text in the PHB says, Extra Turning stacks with itself. Item aside, Divine Metamagics are still broken. They allow a metamagic feat to be added to a spell without the spell level increasing. They're much more useful and powerful than a Sudden Metamagic. Matthew Schad
Mortepierre 02-03-06, 04:04 AM	Except that this character had more than one nightstick. And I know they were offered in an interactive with no limit, I've also seen them offered in at least another 3 modules. The point is that they're cleric candy now, and there are a lot of clerics that have them - heck, I know fighters, bards, wizards, etc, that bought them for their cleric buddies to use - which allow you to DMM one round all day every day in a normal module. Which modules? Regional? Meta-regional? Core? Because if it's the first two, then - sorry - but that's YOUR meta-region's problem. Don't swing the nerfbat at people playing elsewhere just because some people from your corner of the world are grossly overpowered! If it's the 3rd, then it's the Nightsticks themselves that need nerfing.
Moryath 02-03-06, 09:16 AM	Which modules? Regional? Meta-regional? Core? Because if it's the first two, then - sorry - but that's YOUR meta-region's problem. Don't swing the nerfbat at people playing elsewhere just because some people from your corner of the world are grossly overpowered! Hear Hear!
Elfen_Archangel 02-03-06, 10:22 AM	The point is still that allowing a number of metamagics throughout the day without bumping spell level is too powerful. Compare it to a sudden metamagic which only allows it once a day, and there's no comparison. Matthew Schad
JohnduBois 02-03-06, 10:43 AM	Divine Metamagic SHOULD provide greater benefits than the appropriate Sudden feat, with the exception of Sudden Quicken and possibly Sudden Empower and Maximize. Let's look at the prerequisites. Sudden feats require either no prerequisite or a general "any metamagic" prerequisite, with the exception of Sudden Quicken. Divine Metamagic requires the specific metamagic feat you wish to DMM (see Complete Divine errata), as well as the ability to turn/rebuke undead. A feat with greater prerequisites should provide a greater benefit. That said, the cost/benefit ratio of DMM: Quicken does seem to be skewed, and it should be reviewed. I also feel that capping the slot which the spell would have occupied at 9th would fix any brokenness that exists. However, this would need an LGCS clarification or an addition to the errata document.
CSHunt68 02-03-06, 10:43 AM	It's not too powerful. Let it be.
Moryath 02-03-06, 10:45 AM	The point is still that allowing a number of metamagics throughout the day without bumping spell level is too powerful. Compare it to a sudden metamagic which only allows it once a day, and there's no comparison. Matthew Schad It's also divine-only (specifically Cleric or Paladin only), instead of applicable to all casters, and the two are treated differently. Plus to be REALLY effective, without the usage of certain broken items that some triad never should have given out like that, it requires extra feats to use. If you want it to be effective like you're claiming, you have to have an 18+ Charisma (as a CLERIC), plus the Extra Turning feat. Plus the Metamagic feat. Plus the Divine Metamagic Feat. Ok, so they have three uses of the thing a day, but they burned three feats and gimped their character by putting at least a 16 into Charisma, thus ensuring that their Save DC's on the spells are jack squat and they have absolutely no physical stats to speak of. Sounds like a fair trade to me. To get to 15 turning attempts per day, you need to be a Cleric (3 attempts), have Extra Turning (4 attempts), and then you need 8 more so you either need a Nightstick (which shouldn't be given out or else should be ruled not to stack) or you need a 26 Charisma, OR you have to take the Extra Turning feat multiple times. This isn't even CLOSE to broken. You're trying to get a feat killed because some idiot triad handed out a broken item. I call BS.
chrispedersen 02-03-06, 11:06 AM	In that case there is another feat that allows not only the casting of one or two extra spells per round, but also allows one to make use of extra magic items and the like. I posit that if such as DMM:quicken and Imbue Familiar should be restricted based on the more than one quickened and one normal spell per single players action = broken/restrict it, then Leadership should also be restricted or casters shouldn't be allowed to have caster followers. And before you say, but but but. You get a whole 'nother casters worth of spells (even if they are below you in level, they have more than your familiar would ever have at spell levels higher than the familiar) plus they will always go right at the opportune time (based either on the just right init roll or your delaying them until then). Miles The cohort occupies a table slot. It costs you one feat to bring someone to the table that will contribute way less than the average player. I don't think there are any issues of balance with leadership.. C
Moryath 02-03-06, 11:09 AM	The cohort occupies a table slot. It costs you one feat to bring someone to the table that will contribute way less than the average player. I don't think there are any issues of balance with leadership.. C There aren't any issues of balance with DMM either. There's an issue of balance with an item that some triad never should have started handing out.
tormey 02-03-06, 11:19 AM	Uh...reach spell gives you a RAY effect not a TARGET effect. Not according to customer support: No, the spell is still range:Touch, but you have the ability to use touch spells at 30ft. Please quote this e-mail in any response. **************************************** ******* Zephreum Aristotle Games Support Wizards of the Coast 1-800-324-6496 **************************************** ******* In response to this question: Subject: How to "Reach Spell" and "Chain Spell" interact? The "Reach Spell" metamagic feat from Complete Divine says: "You may cast a spell that normally has a range of touch at any distance up to 30 feet. The spell effectively becomes a ray, ...". This feat has a 2 slot bump. The "Chain Spell metamagic feat from Complete Arcane says: "Any spell that specifies a single target and has a range greater than touch can be chained. ..." This feat has a 3 slot bump. Looking at a typical touch range spell like "Air Walk", the template of the spell is: ... Range: Touch Target: Creature (Gargantuan or smaller) touched When the "Reach Spell" metamagic feat is applied, does the template change to: ... Range: 30 Target: One Creature (Gargantuan or smaller) ... In which case it would be a valid target for "Chain Spell". or does it change to: ... Range: 30 Effect: Ray ... In which case it is not a valid target for "Chain Spell." It seams that a 5 slot bump is a sufficient price to pay for turning a touch spell into a chained spell, especially since most buff spells already seem to have variants like this built in with a 4 slot bump (i.e. Bear's Endurance -> Bear's Endurance, Mass)
SYB 02-03-06, 01:39 PM	I've read every post in this thread, and I came to a simple conclusion: Nightsticks should be restricted. The evidence seems to indicate that someone can min-max their feats to get multiple Quickens a day (at the cost of turn attempts). But, unless my math is wrong, without magic items, this is limited to, at most 5 "free" Quickens a day (before retirement level) and only if you use EVERY feat available to you. That seems like a reasonable trade off. On the other hand, the nightsticks seem to create an actual exploit. They turn a two feat combo into something overpowered. And, lest we forget, there is a cost to DMM. It uses turn attempts. While turn attempts are often not so useful, you never know when your 8th or 10th level mod will have a room of wraiths, wights, or shadows. These are NASTY little undead that are a significant threat well beyond their CR, but can be obliterated by a cleric with a turn or two left. -SYB
Eric_Pittsburgh 02-03-06, 04:02 PM	I agree. I have seen 3 clerics at around 4 to 6 level abuse Divine Spell Power and Divine Metamagic for awhile now I'm suppressed these feats are still around. All 3 clerics where created together and all have CHA's of at least 16+, with the Extra Turning feat. One of them worships Pelor and is going to take levels in Radiant Servant of Pelor to make it worse while another was designed to be able to Turn or rebuke almost everything you can in the game with intent to exploit these feats. Eventually they will have all the toys they need to push it even farther. The feats either need to be clarified better or made limited. The Elemental Domain's and the Plant Domain's turning abilities won't "fuel" Divine Metamagic Quicken because it specifically uses Turn Undead attempts. There are only a few that can be powered by non-undead turning attempts. So if the one who took the various Elemental domains has been using those turning attempts to power DMQ, then he has been cheating (whether intentionally or not). I specifically looked into this with my cleric of Wenta (Air and Plant Domains). But I don't have the Complete books in front of me right now to see which ones can be powered by non-turn undead attempts. Eric Pittsburgh
Gelth 02-03-06, 04:37 PM	The Elemental Domain's and the Plant Domain's turning abilities won't "fuel" Divine Metamagic Quicken because it specifically uses Turn Undead attempts. There are only a few that can be powered by non-undead turning attempts. So if the one who took the various Elemental domains has been using those turning attempts to power DMQ, then he has been cheating (whether intentionally or not). I specifically looked into this with my cleric of Wenta (Air and Plant Domains). But I don't have the Complete books in front of me right now to see which ones can be powered by non-turn undead attempts. Eric Pittsburgh Elemental turning and such can currently be used to power Divine Spell Power. Nowhere do the rules forbid it. However, the most recent Dragon magazine has, in Sage Advice, advised that all divine feats only work with Turn Undead attempts, not other kinds of turning. Once that makes it into the FAQ, that'll fix that particular cheese. Nightsticks: At my table, like all items, nightsticks have to be used properly in order to function. For rods and similar items, that means wielded in a hand. Similar bonuses don't stack, and thus they wouldn't stack with themselves anyway, unless it explicitly states that they do (and having a prerequisite of a feat that does stack doesn't mean the item does as well). Does that help fix them? If anyone knows of rules that contradict this, please advise. --Penn, Ket Triad
Britt 02-03-06, 04:43 PM	While I prefer a ruling that keeps them from stacking, they are not technically a bonus, so I don't know if that would work. I would have no problem running it that way or having it run that way for me. As for it being a rod, you take it out in the morning, use it, gain your four turn attempts, then put it back up. It doesn't say the you can use it four times a day or anything like that. Personally, I think that if you could only use one a day, they would be balanced. I'm not sure the rules support that, but I tend to lean towards balanced interpretations when I can get away with it :p
RanielK 02-03-06, 06:43 PM	The evidence seems to indicate that someone can min-max their feats to get multiple Quickens a day (at the cost of turn attempts). But, unless my math is wrong, without magic items, this is limited to, at most 5 "free" Quickens a day (before retirement level) and only if you use EVERY feat available to you. That seems like a reasonable trade off. -SYB I have this ability with my Wizard and it only cost one feat that is considered by most to be not worth it's weight (so to speak). It requires the use of one skill that is well worth its weight to pull off, but there you have it. No min/max + one feat + one skill = one extra spell per round. If I were to add two more feats, it would get crazy. What are these wonderful things, you ask. 1)Improved familiar (in my case pseudodragon, though a mephit or elemental would be more useful as they can speak and are small humanoid shaped critters) 2)UMD (currently at +14, just need a Scepter of Obedience and one level to push activate blindly, the only way my pseudodragon can activate anything, to a 75% chance for new items, 90% for something he has succeeded with in the past) 3)Craft Wand (then I would have any spell on my list that could go into a wand available to him) 4)Quicken Spell (then I'd get three spells a turn) Too bad I'm not a wiz/rog/at, then it'd get real crazy, cause he could share spell all those wonderful "strike" spells with me and I'd go to town with sneak attack damage. The point being, just because a Player is capable of tactically sound decisions, doesn't make any particular feat broken/in need of banning. Multiple spells in one round seems to be the breaking point for most people. I'm curious to know how many folks here have seen others use this and take it from useful to broken. And by broken, I mean 3+ round combats, 2 combats a day, 5+ of those rounds using the DMM:Quicken. And preferable do so in most if not all mods, usually "because they could" and not "because it was the only way to survive" as this seems to be the only way most people can envision this being used. Miles
Sieylianna 02-03-06, 06:51 PM	3)Craft Wand (then I would have any spell on my list that could go into a wand available to him) 4)Quicken Spell (then I'd get three spells a turn) You can only put spells up to 4th level in a wand. By the time you're quickening meaningful spells, a fourth level spell from a wand isn't much of a threat. In addition, you have the scepter in one hand, so you can't have a weapon/rod/etc in the other hand or you won't be able to cast spells. You've also blown three feats on this, improved familiar, craft wand and quicken spell. Ed
CaiasWard 02-03-06, 07:08 PM	Elemental turning and such can currently be used to power Divine Spell Power. Nowhere do the rules forbid it. However, the most recent Dragon magazine has, in Sage Advice, advised that all divine feats only work with Turn Undead attempts, not other kinds of turning. Once that makes it into the FAQ, that'll fix that particular cheese. Nightsticks: At my table, like all items, nightsticks have to be used properly in order to function. For rods and similar items, that means wielded in a hand. Similar bonuses don't stack, and thus they wouldn't stack with themselves anyway, unless it explicitly states that they do (and having a prerequisite of a feat that does stack doesn't mean the item does as well). Does that help fix them? If anyone knows of rules that contradict this, please advise. --Penn, Ket Triad Penn, your reading of the item description is very much off base in my opinion. Nowhere is the ability described as a bonus to turning attempts. In fact, the use of multiple nightsticks is supported by the fact that Extra Turning can be purchased more than once. Stating "having a prerequisite of a feat that does stack doesn't mean the item does as well" really doesn't prove anything. Can you show me where something that is not even described as a bonus does not allow multiple uses? As you have described, it would appear that no one can use more than one Pearl of Power in a day, since they grant a 'bonus' or recovering a spell. The bonus stacking rules are fairly specific; to try to stretch them further is an error in judgment and one I hope you don't try to enforce in your region. Your interpretation really has little basis in the rules from what I can see. Please reconsider what appears to be a very slanted reading of the rules to correct what you consider to be a balance issue.
Arvagor 02-03-06, 07:43 PM	Elemental turning and such can currently be used to power Divine Spell Power. Nowhere do the rules forbid it. I would strongly disagree -- the rules for using Divine feats (CD 77) specifically says: Second, the force that powers a divine feat is the ability to channel positive or negative energy to turn or rebuke undead. Each use of a divine feat costs a character a minimum number of one turn or rebuke attempt from her number of attempts per day.The second sentence is obviously referring back to the first, meaning onlu turn or rebuke undead attempts are permitted to be used. Any DM who is allowing otherwise is not reading the rules correctly...
RanielK 02-03-06, 07:49 PM	You can only put spells up to 4th level in a wand. By the time you're quickening meaningful spells, a fourth level spell from a wand isn't much of a threat. In addition, you have the scepter in one hand, so you can't have a weapon/rod/etc in the other hand or you won't be able to cast spells. You've also blown three feats on this, improved familiar, craft wand and quicken spell. Ed The Quicken spell is for me and is so you get into Imbue Fam territory (3 spells per round per wizzie). The craft wand is one level below Imbue Familiar's cap of 5th. I get out of it what I need, G. Invis and fly on round one. For the same output as DMM:Quicken (two feats Improved Fam/Craft Wand), I get something that is only slightly less useful, (4th level spells versus up to 8th level spells with DMM:Quicken). As for the scepter, its for the familiar. It and a wand don't beat his light load (so he can still fly) and is used to push his UMD to around 75 - 90% success. And when it comes to throwing 3rd or 4th level spells around, there are many that are useful through out a players career, especially as it frees up the Wizard from having to memorize buffs that only need to run about 5 rounds anyway. Miles
Sieylianna 02-03-06, 09:56 PM	As for the scepter, its for the familiar. It and a wand don't beat his light load (so he can still fly) and is used to push his UMD to around 75 - 90% success. And when it comes to throwing 3rd or 4th level spells around, there are many that are useful through out a players career, especially as it frees up the Wizard from having to memorize buffs that only need to run about 5 rounds anyway. However, neither a scepter nor a wand is on the list of magic items which can be used by an animal companion/familiar etc. Ed
RanielK 02-03-06, 11:23 PM	However, neither a scepter nor a wand is on the list of magic items which can be used by an animal companion/familiar etc. Ed That's all well and good except those restrictions are on what a familiar can wear; something that is overcome by getting a mephit or elemental familiar, which is possible (I have access to dust or salt mephit). There is also at least one fellow with a dragon wyrmling (which can wear/use any magic item). As far as what items a familiar can USE, that's a different story based on what it is deemed a familiar can pick up. A pseudodragon, with a higher light load (15lbs), and claws that can presumable manipulate small objects (after all their big cousins, the dragons, have the same appendages and are able to manipulate items). As far as UMD is concerned, it is general viewed as a skill a familiar can use under the activate blindly DC. I've yet to see (or hear about) a judge that would rule against it. The scepter requires one to hold it, something a pseudodragon can do. Miles
gibson2004 02-04-06, 11:00 AM	I believe that when you use reach on a spell, its changes the spell to a range greater than touch i.e. ranged touch as is the requirement in the feat definition and exampled in its comparrison to a ray. I believe the use of ray in the definition is only to give you an example because you are now required to make a ranged touch attack similar to a ray's attack. I believe the definition of reach would be better if it either took out the ref. to ray or simply stated becomes a ray. The cheese factor with this combo is when you use divine metamagic instead of level bumps. Ex. memorize a reach slay living at 7th lvl (2 lvl bumps for reach) and then divine metamagic chain the spell for only 4 turn attempts. Heres one better, Heirophant and Divine reach. Divine reach has no level bumps and thus you can divine mm chain it for only 4 turn attempts. I believe the key here is that if the spells acutually stayed touch spells ( and thus not chainable) then your attack is str. based, but both reach and divine reach state that attacks must be ranged touch, which changes the spell since ranged touch is dex. based. To me, this combo far exceeds the cheese factor of DMM quicken.
CSHunt68 02-04-06, 11:36 AM	Well, when the Reach feat say that the spell "effectively becomes a ray", that ends the discussion for me. Rays can't be chained. (If you think they can, just hop on over to Infinite Monkeys and join the debate - I won't discuss it here.) Even if you look back at the response an earlier poster got from Customer Service (fwiw), they themselves say that the spell stays Range: Touch, but it can be used up to 30'. So, even if it doesn't explicitly become a ray, it stays Range: Touch (touch becoming anything up to 30', but hey) and can't be chained. Frankly, I think it's useful just to ignore Cust Serv and read the feat as it's written - it turns touch spells into rays, which can't be chained.
chrispedersen 02-04-06, 02:25 PM	That's all well and good except those restrictions are on what a familiar can wear; something that is overcome by getting a mephit or elemental familiar, which is possible (I have access to dust or salt mephit). There is also at least one fellow with a dragon wyrmling (which can wear/use any magic item). As far as what items a familiar can USE, that's a different story based on what it is deemed a familiar can pick up. A pseudodragon, with a higher light load (15lbs), and claws that can presumable manipulate small objects (after all their big cousins, the dragons, have the same appendages and are able to manipulate items). As far as UMD is concerned, it is general viewed as a skill a familiar can use under the activate blindly DC. I've yet to see (or hear about) a judge that would rule against it. The scepter requires one to hold it, something a pseudodragon can do. Miles Congratulations, You've met your first one. Although this isn't really suitable for a rules discussion. Activating blindly - "Some magic items are activated by special words, thoughts, or actions. You can activate such an item as if you were using the activation word, thought, or action even when you're not and even if you don't know it. You do have to perform some EQUIVALENT activity in order to make the check." In other words, if the wand has a command word, you must speak. You also must be capable of manipulating the wand or object. So, I won't rule it out entirely. Some items are activated by thought. But most items have verbal triggers. Pseudodragons don't speak, and hence are incapable of activation, as are most familiars. Ravens can speak, then the question will be are they strong enough to manipulate the device. So, cases of familiar activation should be rare indeed. Best C
Elfen_Archangel 02-04-06, 02:51 PM	Congratulations, You've met your first one. Although this isn't really suitable for a rules discussion. Activating blindly - "Some magic items are activated by special words, thoughts, or actions. You can activate such an item as if you were using the activation word, thought, or action even when you're not and even if you don't know it. You do have to perform some EQUIVALENT activity in order to make the check." In other words, if the wand has a command word, you must speak. You also must be capable of manipulating the wand or object. So, I won't rule it out entirely. Some items are activated by thought. But most items have verbal triggers. Pseudodragons don't speak, and hence are incapable of activation, as are most familiars. Ravens can speak, then the question will be are they strong enough to manipulate the device. So, cases of familiar activation should be rare indeed. Best C Telepathy is not gone into at great length. You can "speak" to others through telepathy. Why could you not "speak" to a wand or other magic device? This is how it has been explained to me, and I've allowed it at my tables. Also, a dragon has 4 phalanges (fingers/claws) which is more than ample to hold something. It can aim a wand, which I've not had a problem with. In the Draconomicon it details what a dragon can and cannot do with magic items or wear. The only restrictions I've seen is that they don't have weapon proficiencies until they can take an alternate form. Then they gain proficiency with simple weapons. They also never have any armor proficiencies. Matthew Schad Matthew Schad
Britt 02-04-06, 03:20 PM	Telepathy is not gone into at great length. You can "speak" to others through telepathy. Why could you not "speak" to a wand or other magic device? This is how it has been explained to me, and I've allowed it at my tables. Telepathy, by definition, is mental communication. Unless you have an intelligent wand, which you can't, you can't communicate telepathically with it. Having telepathy doesn't allow you to command-word activate items without actually speaking. It /might/ allow you to do other wacky things with other sentient beings, but it doesn't allow you to communicate with innanimate, non-sentient items. Plus, command-word doesn't mean you're communicating with the item, telling it to activate and it complies; that's just how the item works.
RanielK 02-04-06, 06:07 PM	Congratulations, You've met your first one. Although this isn't really suitable for a rules discussion. Activating blindly - "You do have to perform some EQUIVALENT activity in order to make the check." C I do expect some table variation. However, most view the next sentence as the ruling factor. "That is, you must speak, wave the item around, OR otherwise attempt to get it to activate." It is this that I and others interprete as allowing the pseudodragon to activate a wand. Under Activate Wand, UMD only allows you to spoof your spell list. You MUST still speak the command word to activate the wand. Activating Blindly only requires you to do something that is meant to make the thing go. But to be honest, it's why I tell most everyone else to get a mephit if they can. Mephits speak, have hands and are humanoid shaped. So 2 feats or one and good access plus UMD can come real close to replicating Imbue Familiar or DMM:Quicken. Does this mean we now ban Improved Familiar because it meets the 3 spells per round per character clause? Miles
Objulen 02-04-06, 06:15 PM	I'd personally be more of a fan of Twinned Spell that Quicken Spell, depending on what domain choices you can make (since spells in your domain are added to your class list, any domain that has damaging arcane spells becomes much more appealing), as it doesn't eat extra spell slots, but that's just me. The only issue I'm seeing with DMM is the excessive availability and stacking of the items from the LM nightsticks. Otherwise, using DMM with any really powerful metamagic feat costs 4 - 5 uses of turn/rebuke undead per day, and the really good ones (quicken, twin spell) require 2 Extra Turnings (1 if you have Charisma 16) to use anything requiring 5 turn attempts. So, if you manage to get to level 15 with 16 CHA, you can turn/rebuke undead 25 times a day, which translates out to 5 - 6 uses of DMM with quicken or twin spell. Considering that it is eating all your feats, that's not broken. It's nice, but that's about it. The one thing that doens't make sense to me is how the Sudden feats are restricted, however. I can gain access to a Twinned/Quickened Finger of Death as long as I have the Death domain (unless Destruction was added back into LG and no one told me) 2 or more times a day, and that's fine, but if a wizard, druid, or sorcerer has one free quicken, suddenly the world comes crashing to a halt?
kjenks 02-04-06, 08:42 PM	I have no problem with Divine Metamagic: Quicken. It requires three feats and uses up a bunch of turn attempts. It doesn't make the cleric dominate the game. It doesn't mean that every table with such a cleric will automatically win. It's good, but not game-breaking. So please, leave it alone.
Drezden 02-04-06, 09:11 PM	I could say the same things about Imbue Familiar with Spell Ability - it doesn't make the arcanist dominate the game, it doesn't mean that every table with such an arcanist will automatically win, it's good not great. The point is that DMM: Quicken is even better (and more "broken") than Imbue Familiar and if you are going to ban Imbue Familiar, then you should ban DMM: Quicken too. As far as the high feat cost, this is more than made up for by the use of Nightsticks which really makes DMM: Quicken even more broken. In other words, sure high cost to get DMM: Quicken, but get a couple of Nightsticks and the payout is more than worth it. I would rather the Circle not ban either Imbue Familiar or DMM: Quicken, but if one is going to go, the Circle should be consistent and the other should go too. Daren I have no problem with Divine Metamagic: Quicken. It requires three feats and uses up a bunch of turn attempts. It doesn't make the cleric dominate the game. It doesn't mean that every table with such a cleric will automatically win. It's good, but not game-breaking. So please, leave it alone.
Objulen 02-04-06, 09:24 PM	As far as the high feat cost, this is more than made up for by the use of Nightsticks which really makes DMM: Quicken even more broken. In other words, sure high cost to get DMM: Quicken, but get a couple of Nightsticks and the payout is more than worth it. I would rather the Circle not ban either Imbue Familiar or DMM: Quicken, but if one is going to go, the Circle should be consistent and the other should go too. No, the Circle should either fix or ban Nightsticks. The problem isn't DMM, it's the fact that you can cheese it with an item. What you are suggesting is like saying that Fighters should be banned because they can get an item that increses their attack and damage by 1 for cheap, and it stacks. As for Imbue Familiar, I'm not familiar with it, but from what I understand, it chucks out spells. Given that Divine magic isn't generally as powerful as Arcane magic when it comes down to raw spell power/damage, it could be a reason for the change.
Drezden 02-04-06, 09:36 PM	You must have not gotten the chance to play with a high level optimized Cleric. Caster Clerics above 13th level routinely end combats with 1 spell (Holy Word) and a good Melee Cleric Build can out damage straight fighter/barbarian BDFs - particularly if they can quicken one of their higher level buffs. Trust me, high level Clerics take a backseat to no class when it comes to raw damage output - however that is measured. Daren [snip] As for Imbue Familiar, I'm not familiar with it, but from what I understand, it chucks out spells. Given that Divine magic isn't generally as powerful as Arcane magic when it comes down to raw spell power/damage, it could be a reason for the change.
Objulen 02-04-06, 09:46 PM	You must have not gotten the chance to play with a high level optimized Cleric. Caster Clerics above 13th level routinely end combats with 1 spell (Holy Word) and a good Melee Cleric Build can out damage straight fighter/barbarian BDFs - particularly if they can quicken one of their higher level buffs. Trust me, high level Clerics take a backseat to no class when it comes to raw damage output - however that is measured. Daren No, I haven't, and playing a combat cleric hasn't really interested me much. Holy Word definantly would be game breaking, however, since most foes, especially in a traditional setting like Greyhawk, are generally evil, and sometimes neutral. How effective would that build be if they were facing good opponents? And do evil opponents use Blasphemy? Are the lawful/chaotic equivelents used? Also, since anything with HD equal to the caster level is only deafened, how many hordes are the PCs facing in the modules for lvl 13+ characters?
Drezden 02-04-06, 10:08 PM	Good opponents are almost non-existent in LG. Blasphemy is something that evil opponents use quite frequently. As far as the limitation on caster level with Holy Word, it is not very hard for an optimized caster cleric to boost his caster level very high. With Bead of Karma (+4), Divine Spell Power (up to +4), Good domain (+1), and an Orange Ioun Stone (+1), getting caster level up to +9 or +10 above caster level is not terribly hard. Daren No, I haven't, and playing a combat cleric hasn't really interested me much. Holy Word definantly would be game breaking, however, since most foes, especially in a traditional setting like Greyhawk, are generally evil, and sometimes neutral. How effective would that build be if they were facing good opponents? And do evil opponents use Blasphemy? Are the lawful/chaotic equivelents used? Also, since anything with HD equal to the caster level is only deafened, how many hordes are the PCs facing in the modules for lvl 13+ characters?
Objulen 02-04-06, 10:31 PM	Good opponents are almost non-existent in LG. Blasphemy is something that evil opponents use quite frequently. As far as the limitation on caster level with Holy Word, it is not very hard for an optimized caster cleric to boost his caster level very high. With Bead of Karma (+4), Divine Spell Power (up to +4), Good domain (+1), and an Orange Ioun Stone (+1), getting caster level up to +9 or +10 above caster level is not terribly hard. Daren So what we have is essentially a way to power cheese the system, either Paralyzing everything for 1d10 minutes (10 rounds is more than enough to do so much damage that you've basically won), or killing any non-good creatures in the area. I hope these players are going to spring for True Ressurections for their non-good allies. :/ But if you look at it, Divine Metamagic doesn't come close to being an enabler for this. It's Devine Spell Power and Bead of Karma, not being able to potentially spam two Holy Words in one round, or a Holy Word and something else. If anything, it means that Divine Spell Power needs to be restricted in some way, or otherwise limited, along with Bead of Karma, at least in relation to the four "Word" type spells. Personally, if I were a DM, and not bound by LG rules for APL, I'd reduce xp and gold rewards for those who pulled a stunt like this by alot -- CR means Challenge Rating, after all.
Elfen_Archangel 02-04-06, 11:01 PM	Personally, if I were a DM, and not bound by LG rules for APL, I'd reduce xp and gold rewards for those who pulled a stunt like this by alot -- CR means Challenge Rating, after all. How can you justify not giving them full xp and gold for surpassing the challenges in the module in legal ways? This is something that I'd take to the Senior GM before you'd finished the second AR. It's not in the power of the DM to say, "You kicked my butt too hard, and I didn't like it, even though I'm supposed to be impartial, so I'm not giving you full xp and gold." Soon you'll be telling the Cavaliers that if they Spirited Charge you'll deduct xp and gold. Remind me not to ever sit at one of your tables. I like DM's that don't cheat. Matthew Schad
blood_kite 02-04-06, 11:07 PM	Elfin, I think Objulen was saying that if someone tried this in a home campaign he was running he would reduce the xp and gold rewards. He'd have every right to do it then.
Elfen_Archangel 02-04-06, 11:15 PM	Elfin, I think Objulen was saying that if someone tried this in a home campaign he was running he would reduce the xp and gold rewards. He'd have every right to do it then. My apologies to Objulen. I misread what he had posted. ^.^ If I see you at a con Objulen, I'll buy you a drink.. hehe Matthew Schad
Objulen 02-04-06, 11:20 PM	How can you justify not giving them full xp and gold for surpassing the challenges in the module in legal ways? This is something that I'd take to the Senior GM before you'd finished the second AR. It's not in the power of the DM to say, "You kicked my butt too hard, and I didn't like it, even though I'm supposed to be impartial, so I'm not giving you full xp and gold." Soon you'll be telling the Cavaliers that if they Spirited Charge you'll deduct xp and gold. Remind me not to ever sit at one of your tables. I like DM's that don't cheat. Matthew Schad Do note that spirited charge does not stack with the effects of the Cavalier PrC. Honestly, I can't see why the Council hasn't nerfed this combo already. It's basically a legal cheat. You are taking a lvl 7 spell and making it better than a lvl 9 spell (Wail of the Banshee). If I were a DM and had a regular LG game with a player who did something like that, I'd probably start considering folding my game. There's nothing in the rules that I know of that bans it, but I couldn't, in good concience, support such a blatant exploit. It's not fair to the people in LG who aren't cheesing it this way.
Elfen_Archangel 02-04-06, 11:53 PM	Do note that spirited charge does not stack with the effects of the Cavalier PrC. Honestly, I can't see why the Council hasn't nerfed this combo already. It's basically a legal cheat. You are taking a lvl 7 spell and making it better than a lvl 9 spell (Wail of the Banshee). If I were a DM and had a regular LG game with a player who did something like that, I'd probably start considering folding my game. There's nothing in the rules that I know of that bans it, but I couldn't, in good concience, support such a blatant exploit. It's not fair to the people in LG who aren't cheesing it this way. I'm not saying that I like holy word. I think it's cheesy beyond all heck. I've heard authors cracking out cleric NPC's with blasphemy's because they've just judged a table and got holy word'd to the nine hells and back. Personally, if any spells should be moved to the restricted list it's holy word. I honestly don't think the PC's getting hit by a blasphemy now and then is a bad thing. Matthew Schad
Objulen 02-05-06, 12:00 AM	I'm not saying that I like holy word. I think it's cheesy beyond all heck. I've heard authors cracking out cleric NPC's with blasphemy's because they've just judged a table and got holy word'd to the nine hells and back. Personally, if any spells should be moved to the restricted list it's holy word. I honestly don't think the PC's getting hit by a blasphemy now and then is a bad thing. Matthew Schad It really wouldn't be that bad if you couldn't boost your caster level up by 9 to 10 points. All I'd say they need to do is do a change like Polymorph. They limited Polymorph to one size larger than normal, because Hyrdas were the cheese. Limit the Word spells so their caster level is unaffected by items and feats. Then you have a spell that's good for dealing with hordes, but nothing beyond what other casters would have (Circle of Death, for example), which is where it should be.
gibson2004 02-05-06, 12:47 PM	The game has built in a way to balance such a heavy hitting spell. Its called SR. I am a 14 level Cleric, whom has dropped a 22 hd holy word (DSP & Krack bead) only to role low on my SR check and thus have the spell fail. Once you start playing the high apls, you will/should face creatures with high SR and even the ability (some evil outsiders/npcs) to cast blasphemy. By no means is holy word a given in combat. However, turning undead is virtually a given, with the combination of various magic gear (up to +4 from turn check, phylactery, rod of defiance, scepter of the netherworl, glory domain, ect.). But this cheese is a whole different thread.
solbergb 02-05-06, 08:31 PM	Eh...anyone wanting to make use of DMM+holy word also probably has pretty good spell penetration. My wife's sac exorcist at L11 can't fail on spell pen < 17, (18 evil outsiders) and when she hits level 12 and can do divine spellpower linked with consecrated presence, her limit will jump to the low 20s, depending on whether she got less than +4 on her divine spellpower (her range is +3 or +4 only), whether the target is an evil outsider and the exact spell used (she has caster boosts in some schools due to domain powers) Yes, she was built this way, because her primary purpose in life is banishing evil outsiders, who have both good saves and high SR. But it tends to mean SR isn't much of a defense for other monsters, at least not for her. Assay Resistance, of course, if present, makes things even easier. As would the arcane mastery feat (taking 10 on caster level checks for someone already optomized for high spell penetration really helps...it's likely what she'd take if divine spellpower got banned)
Objulen 02-05-06, 09:50 PM	The game has built in a way to balance such a heavy hitting spell. Its called SR. I am a 14 level Cleric, whom has dropped a 22 hd holy word (DSP & Krack bead) only to role low on my SR check and thus have the spell fail. Once you start playing the high apls, you will/should face creatures with high SR and even the ability (some evil outsiders/npcs) to cast blasphemy. By no means is holy word a given in combat. However, turning undead is virtually a given, with the combination of various magic gear (up to +4 from turn check, phylactery, rod of defiance, scepter of the netherworl, glory domain, ect.). But this cheese is a whole different thread. Except that there are feats and items that raise your ability to overcome SR, and given that you aren't going to see outsiders with drastically higher HD (and thus drastically higher SR), the very act of raising your caster level defeats that SR, since it gives you 9 to 10 extra points to by pass it, 13 to 14 if you have Spell Penetration and Greater Spell Penetration. For example, an average outsider for an APL 13 would be a CR 13 monster, with standard D&D RAW, could be a Glabrezu. It has SR 21. If you increase your caster level by 9 points, that means you have a caster level of 22. Good bye Glabrezu. Divine metamagic is sort of cheesey if you have the items to give you god-awful uses of it per day. Holy Word can be made cheesy just with a feat and a domain (+5 to your caster level lets you paralyze non-good enemies in the 40ft.) against equal HD enemies.
chrispedersen 02-05-06, 11:41 PM	Do note that spirited charge does not stack with the effects of the Cavalier PrC. Honestly, I can't see why the Council hasn't nerfed this combo already. It's basically a legal cheat. You are taking a lvl 7 spell and making it better than a lvl 9 spell (Wail of the Banshee). If I were a DM and had a regular LG game with a player who did something like that, I'd probably start considering folding my game. There's nothing in the rules that I know of that bans it, but I couldn't, in good concience, support such a blatant exploit. It's not fair to the people in LG who aren't cheesing it this way. A ref is entitled to not allow a player to sit at the table, for whatever reasons he sees fit. And that includes holy word kills. C
RanielK 02-06-06, 12:19 AM	A ref is entitled to not allow a player to sit at the table, for whatever reasons he sees fit. And that includes holy word kills. C I'd be interested to see where it says that in any official RPGA document. Now, you can be restrictive about who gets to play in a home game. Once you get into game days and conventions, the only reasons you can bar a person from a table are too many players/too few judges, or the player has committed an infraction that permits ejection from the table or event. Last I looked, using Holy Word wasn't on the list of ejectable offenses. Miles
Britt 02-06-06, 12:23 AM	AFAIK, Miles is correct. You can refuse to judge a table as long as a player is there (nothing in the RPGA guidelines says you have to DM :)), but you can't refuse to allow a player to join a table. It basically would become a standoff situation where either the judge caves and runs the table with the player, the player caves and doesn't play, or the table doesn't go off.
ca551u5 02-06-06, 01:10 AM	I'm not saying that I like holy word. I think it's cheesy beyond all heck. I've heard authors cracking out cleric NPC's with blasphemy's because they've just judged a table and got holy word'd to the nine hells and back. Personally, if any spells should be moved to the restricted list it's holy word. I honestly don't think the PC's getting hit by a blasphemy now and then is a bad thing. Matthew Schad Except that Blasphemy is better than Holy Word by several orders of magnitude. You don't have to hear a Blasphemy, and its lethal at every single tier of effect. You don't even have to load an NPC up with lethal equipment or DSP to wipe a party with Blasphemy, since its lowest tier of effect is dazing, and at the APLs where the Words of Faith start flying, action deprivation is damn near guaranteed kills. On the matter of DMM, I wouldn't lament its passing for one simple reason; it breaks one of the most fundamental rules of magic in that it lets Clerics use effective slots that they're usually several levels away from having. LG at least had the sense to can Persistent spell, but Divine Quicken and Divine Twin are still running around, and the existence of the Nightstick just makes things a LOT worse. I haven't met a single cleric who didn't grab Divine Metamagic in the last respec, or wasn't planning to take it. That tells me something is wrong.
Sieylianna 02-06-06, 07:48 AM	AFAIK, Miles is correct. You can refuse to judge a table as long as a player is there (nothing in the RPGA guidelines says you have to DM :)), but you can't refuse to allow a player to join a table. It basically would become a standoff situation where either the judge caves and runs the table with the player, the player caves and doesn't play, or the table doesn't go off. I had a judge who told us that he wouldn't judge the table if we had an Iniititate of the Seven-fold Veil in our party. (He had a bad time with the class in previous slots). Ed
Objulen 02-06-06, 09:05 AM	Except that Blasphemy is better than Holy Word by several orders of magnitude. You don't have to hear a Blasphemy, and its lethal at every single tier of effect. You don't even have to load an NPC up with lethal equipment or DSP to wipe a party with Blasphemy, since its lowest tier of effect is dazing, and at the APLs where the Words of Faith start flying, action deprivation is damn near guaranteed kills. On the matter of DMM, I wouldn't lament its passing for one simple reason; it breaks one of the most fundamental rules of magic in that it lets Clerics use effective slots that they're usually several levels away from having. LG at least had the sense to can Persistent spell, but Divine Quicken and Divine Twin are still running around, and the existence of the Nightstick just makes things a LOT worse. I haven't met a single cleric who didn't grab Divine Metamagic in the last respec, or wasn't planning to take it. That tells me something is wrong. It's really nice, but is it too nice? I don't think so. It let's clerics use Quicken and Twin for free, essentially, but what spells, other than the Words, are good enough to make such an impact that it's worth banning the feat? Without Nightsticks, it costs 5 turn attempts per pop, so it takes multiple Extra Turnings to get another use of it and it only applies to that one metamagic feat. Plus, if you look at it, Twinned spells are more inhrently powerful than Quickened spells, but more limited, since Twinned spells don't use up extra spell slots, but are much narrower in application, while Quickened spells are flexible, but eat into your spells per day. Now, I think that the Word spells, and items that grant extra turn/rebuke attempts (especially those that stack) should be changed and/or banned so they can't be used to break the system. But Divine metamagic, while powerful isn't brokenly so for a cleric. Without Persistant Spell, there are limits to what they can do with it (though domains can be used to get around this limitation to a degree). The only real question this brings up, to me, is why the Sudden series of feats are banned when DMM isn't. A CHA 14 Cleric can use DMM Quicken at level 6; a CHA 16 cleric can use it again at lvl 9; 12 if not, but once again at 15 and 18. A human cleric can use it starting at level 3 (taking Quicken and Extra Turning at level 1). Players who want Twinned Spells must wait until level 9, since DMM and Twin Spell aren't in the PHB. That's a long stretch of progression for non-humans. It does cost the cleric 2 feats to get DMM, but given that LG has its own "houserules" for spells and feats, one could add the base metamagic feat for the Sudden feat as a prerequisite and make the minimum level 6th on the Sudden feats. That would make more sense to me, of they were a problem, then banning them.
Iswald 02-06-06, 09:30 AM	I haven't met a single cleric who didn't grab Divine Metamagic in the last respec, or wasn't planning to take it. That tells me something is wrong. Wow. That's where I went awry. Twice. I don't think you could restrict DMM quicken by itself. You'd have to restrict either DMM or quicken. BTW, the sudden feats aren't restricted, they're limited. It'd be fine to limit DMM, but that would make for a lot of special missions to obtain it. That or authors would look for ways to give access.
Objulen 02-06-06, 09:35 AM	BTW, the sudden feats aren't restricted, they're limited. It'd be fine to limit DMM, but that would make for a lot of special missions to obtain it. That or authors would look for ways to give access. You are correct. Still, the principle remains the same.
Madfox11 02-06-06, 09:47 AM	It basically would become a standoff situation where either the judge caves and runs the table with the player, the player caves and doesn't play, or the table doesn't go off. Or the player promises not to use the holy word spell ;) Most local players around here do not use the spell as long as the DM does not use blasphemy even if NPCs have prepared it in the adventure or there are high HD half-fiends in it. The only downside is that the 7th level spells of the cleric are downright crappy...
Lupo 02-06-06, 09:50 AM	On the matter of DMM, I wouldn't lament its passing for one simple reason; it breaks one of the most fundamental rules of magic in that it lets Clerics use effective slots that they're usually several levels away from having. LG at least had the sense to can Persistent spell, but Divine Quicken and Divine Twin are still running around, and the existence of the Nightstick just makes things a LOT worse. I haven't met a single cleric who didn't grab Divine Metamagic in the last respec, or wasn't planning to take it. That tells me something is wrong. ok, i admit that divine spell power is a little underrated for the number of turning attempts you have to burn for it (using elemental or plant turnings for it definitely seems at least cheesy, i would even rule against it). what good are turning attempts in LG anyway??? normaly the undeads one encounters are buffed till the top of their head, in a desecrated and unhallowed area, and bolsterd to the max by an evil priest. so just don't try turning them, its a waste. (a cleric character of me encountered an elemental last adeventure, *joy, i have turn elemetal, lets figure out whether i can do it, heck it was an ELDER elemetal with some 24 hd", no way to turn it, no matter what i roll) for divine metamagic, especcially with quicken, it uses up nearly every single feat slot a cleric has (apart from the cwi, that is), to get it running. ok you can build a cleric with a 16 charisma, but apart from the quicken trick, he is dead meat. not much strength, not much con. (i have a now fourth level cleric who is running this route. if he is lucky he will be able to do two quickened spells at level 10!) the problem comes in with the "nightsticks" (i haven't seen any anywhere on my ARs, yes i would grab one), just remove them from the campaign and the problem collapses. *sarcasm on* hey, by the way shouldn't we ban POWER ATTACK, it's just to good, every fighter takes it, or those damned "LESSER ORBS", every sane arcane caster jumps on them NO SAVE, NO SPELL RESISTANCE. or radiant servants of whatshisname, if i have to build yet another cleric, it would be a radiant servant of ATROA. *sarcasm off* ciao lupo aka martin m.
Objulen 02-06-06, 09:56 AM	what good are turning attempts in LG anyway??? normaly the undeads one encounters are buffed till the top of their head, in a desecrated and unhallowed area, and bolsterd to the max by an evil priest. so just don't try turning them, its a waste. *cough* cleric if Wee Jas *cough* rebuke undead *cough* legions of undead *cough*
Madfox11 02-06-06, 10:08 AM	Actually, a cleric that truly specializes in undead turning has a decent chance of turning them even in LG adventures. The real problem is that turning tends to be an all-or-nothing effect. If unsuccessful, nothing happens, and if successful it could mean the end of the fight in one round which tends to be anti-climax for everybody except the cleric. Hence the authors reluctance to use easilty turnable undead. I tend to dislike the Turn Undead ability, and I like the idea of allowing clerics to do other things with it then turning undead. I just wish it were less desruptive things then increasing caster levels and applying meta-magic feats to a spell. Mind you, under many circumstances these are not immediately disbalancing. It is just that under specific circumstances it does, and it does so painfully so...
Objulen 02-06-06, 10:13 AM	If unsuccessful, nothing happens, and if successful it could mean the end of the fight in one round which tends to be anti-climax for everybody except the cleric. Hence the authors reluctance to use easilty turnable undead. That could be solved by mixing undead with other creatures. They can be easier to turn that way, but when they are, you don't wipe out the encounter.
A'Talsen 02-06-06, 10:34 AM	That could happen a few times, but then the character leaves the game. Rebuking is the only *directly specified* EVIL act. It says so directly int he PHB, so any time a cleric goes to rebuke undead, they need to receiv a warning about it being an evil act, and (by the rules) it must be noted on the AR at the end of the game. Sucks, but it true... (I don't have my PHB with me, but I'll try to find the page number and note it later on tonight; it isn't in the SRD, BTW). Michael "Fish" Murphy *cough* cleric if Wee Jas *cough* rebuke undead *cough* legions of undead *cough*
Objulen 02-06-06, 10:46 AM	That could happen a few times, but then the character leaves the game. Rebuking is the only *directly specified* EVIL act. It says so directly int he PHB, so any time a cleric goes to rebuke undead, they need to receiv a warning about it being an evil act, and (by the rules) it must be noted on the AR at the end of the game. Sucks, but it true... (I don't have my PHB with me, but I'll try to find the page number and note it later on tonight; it isn't in the SRD, BTW). Michael "Fish" Murphy Actually, it says that channeling negative energy is an evil act, so that would apply to spontanous inflict spells, if you wanted to be literal. However, neutral characters can do evil things; they just have limits. A CN character can rob people blind and not turn evil, for example. This is especially true if they are balancing their game-evil acts with good acts, like the general objective of many modules, i.e. saving people, etc. Also, read the part on neutral people on the good/evil axis: "People who are neutral with respect to good or evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment ot make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are commited to other by personal relationships." Generally speaking, a neutral character has a basic respect for the rights of others, but doesn't go out of her/his way to help them. Since "channeling negative energy" is considered an evil act, but doesn't violate the natural rights of the innocent, it isn't the sort of evil act that would make the character evil, especially if that character was balancing it by helping others, being kind, etc. In the end, there's really not much difference between a netural character who rebukes undead and one who uses a Summon Monster spell to summon a fiend, or use Blasphemy on a rogue celestial (i.e. an evil one that still has the good descriptor) etc. Since you're using what the game considers evil to be a tool, an not going around using it to hurt people, it is a very neutral thing to do.
theliel 02-06-06, 12:38 PM	considering that 3.x ASSUMES that you'll stop turning around 8th level and use those turning attempts to power other things then restricting/limiting the devine feats would, well, pretty much hose people with turn attemps as the designers continue to crack out material that assumes you'll have those items.... the problem is not with the feats the problem is how the game is designed at it's core. *shrug* i've got no cure for that. just the nature of the beast.
Britt 02-06-06, 12:47 PM	Where do you get the idea that 3.x assumes you will stop turning at 8th level? I see no support for that assumption. I wish people would, as that would get rid of the Radiant Servant problem in the BK.
Reylance 02-06-06, 02:43 PM	Unfortunately, turning does not work well at higher APLs, because HD increases far faster than CR for many types of undead and all elementals. The solution would be to give every undead and other turnable creature a turn DC, so that a cleric could possibly turn a 24 HD zombie. But we'll have to wait until D&D 4.0.
Britt 02-06-06, 03:01 PM	To my recollection, the only undead you'd be fighting with an appropriate CR and HD over 20 would be zombies and skeletons. Those are both intended to be difficult to turn; they are the melee monsters of the undead world. The rest are all going to be around 16HD or so at APL12. A 12th level turning cleric can get 21HD with only PHB and DMG items (Improved Turning, /periapt of undead turning/, +4 on turn check). Unless you start talking about weird creatures out of non-core books, but then you also start talking about weird abilities and items from other books (like /sceptre of the netherworld/) and you stay about where you started. A cleric that wants to be able to turn undead will be able to turn most undead.
Reylance 02-06-06, 03:06 PM	Unfortunately, turning does not work well at higher APLs, because HD increases far faster than CR for many types of undead and all elementals. The solution would be to give every undead and other turnable creature a turn DC, so that a cleric could possibly turn a 24 HD zombie. But we'll have to wait until D&D 4.0.
theliel 02-06-06, 05:12 PM	Where do you get the idea that 3.x assumes you will stop turning at 8th level? I see no support for that assumption. I wish people would, as that would get rid of the Radiant Servant problem in the BK. It's direct from Liber Mortus or Complete Divine. I'll get you an exact quote and page number soon. But yha, the CR is supposed to mean more HD + turn resistance than you can reasonably turn after about 8th lvl or so.
theliel 02-06-06, 05:24 PM	Where do you get the idea that 3.x assumes you will stop turning at 8th level? I see no support for that assumption. I wish people would, as that would get rid of the Radiant Servant problem in the BK. Sorry about that. ...HOwever, because Hit Dice generally increase much faster than a creature's CR, a cleric of 5th level or high er often faces undead creatures that have more Hit Dice than he can possibly affect with his turn undead ability. This means that high-level clerics are generally better off using thier powerful spells or combat abilities directly against undead creatures rather than turning them. So in essence WotC expects turning to be pretty much worthless by 5th level. You NEED to have a use for positive energy channeling otherwise it's a pointless class ability....But I find this is a problem with how turning is implimented rather than the mechanic it's self.
solbergb 02-06-06, 05:24 PM	To my recollection, the only undead you'd be fighting with an appropriate CR and HD over 20 would be zombies and skeletons. Those are both intended to be difficult to turn; they are the melee monsters of the undead world. The rest are all going to be around 16HD or so at APL12. A 12th level turning cleric can get 21HD with only PHB and DMG items (Improved Turning, /periapt of undead turning/, +4 on turn check). Unless you start talking about weird creatures out of non-core books, but then you also start talking about weird abilities and items from other books (like /sceptre of the netherworld/) and you stay about where you started. A cleric that wants to be able to turn undead will be able to turn most undead. Well...what you say is both true and not true. It is true that undead at your CR can be turned by a cleric who has kept up with his turning ability (no non-turning PRC's, item/feat/class ability investment to get a few level bumps above his actual level). However a lot of undead fall into one of these categories: 1. Single or dual enemy, which means they're CR+2 or +3 2. Advanced from weaker undead, at 4 hit dice per CR Either of these may in fact prove unturnable. What I've noticed (my wife plays a sac ex who is mostly focused on demon dismissing, but is pretty good at undead too) is that the cleric can strip away minion undead, leaving the "hard nut" for the party to fight. I actually like that dynamic....as an author I'd be inclined to give the BBEG one less CR and give him a few below-CR minions, so clerics actually get to turn something and have an impact on the fight (but it isn't impossible if there is no cleric) without turning the whole encounter into a single die roll. A super-crocked out cleric can sometimes turn the BBEG undead too, but hey, that's their focus. I don't complain when somebody performs better because he's invested half his feats into one edge condition and that condition comes up. (recently the party TWF rogue took advantage of a roleplay distraction to sneak up on the dangerous enemy spellcaster out of combat, and initiated combat. After a surprise round+won init+full attack, nobody at the table expected anything but a downed spellcaster...and nobody begrudged him his moment in the sun)
theliel 02-06-06, 05:27 PM	Unfortunately, turning does not work well at higher APLs, because HD increases far faster than CR for many types of undead and all elementals. The solution would be to give every undead and other turnable creature a turn DC, so that a cleric could possibly turn a 24 HD zombie. But we'll have to wait until D&D 4.0. oh please dear lord no seperate turning stat.... the hd vs. result works just fine, but there are two large problems: the table realy aguht to either be a multiplier or at certian critical cleric levels (every five, every four, etc.) a multiplier added. Also the fact that you start with as many as you'll ever have is also a problem (much like domains). It'd be much better to start with lvl + cha for turns and one domain with new domains every x levels as well. but yha. 4.0. maybe.
Britt 02-06-06, 05:30 PM	I was actually assuming a single or dual mob encounter. Take a look at the CR/HD comparison for all but skeletons or zombies in the MM. Most have HD one or two higher than their CR, which means an appropriate challenge for an APL12 table, single mob, would have an average of 16 or 17 HD. Even with +4 Turn Resistance, a good turning cleric can still succeed. You are correct about advanced undead, though. Those get nasty quickly.
solbergb 02-06-06, 05:56 PM	A single mob or dual mob undead will usually have some additional turn resistance beyond his statblock. Access to a L3+ cleric as part of the EL? Desecrate. Is access to any cleric as part of the EL? Bolster You get the idea. I should have been more explicit with my "Case 1" situation.
Britt 02-06-06, 06:00 PM	But then you have situational modifiers to the EL that would, if calculated properly, give you a lower CR base creature for the same EL that an unbolstered/un-unhallowed undead would create.
solbergb 02-06-06, 06:23 PM	Sometimes the ability to self-bolster is built into the EL. A cleric/ghost, for example. A lich. A BBEG boss with clerical minions instead of undead minions (who combined only add 1 to the EL). Actually...for a BBEG undead, it almost doesn't make sense to not have him in a good environment, but of course the source of the good environment has to be accounted for. The point is that the kind of thing that can bolster an undead by +8 (desecrate+bolster) is not going to add 8 to the EL. It likely won't add more than 1, 2 at the outside. So it is similar to advancing undead, where they gain +8 hit dice for +2 CR.
Objulen 02-06-06, 08:17 PM	Unfortunately, turning does not work well at higher APLs, because HD increases far faster than CR for many types of undead and all elementals. The solution would be to give every undead and other turnable creature a turn DC, so that a cleric could possibly turn a 24 HD zombie. But we'll have to wait until D&D 4.0. Well, there are a few ways to do this. Of course, the standard tricks, with Knowledge (Religion) and a high charisma, work, but are there any restrictions are crafting a ruby dagger? Is it even in the game? It gives LN clerics of Wee Jas +4 to their level for purposes of turning, rebuking, and bolstering undead, so that would probably help. It costs a feat (True Believer) or a lvl 6 spell slot, however. The real reason people have problems is because Heightened Turning is no longer core, as its only been reprinted in the Libris Mortis. With Empower Turning, you could gain at least a bonus of 33% to your turning roll without effecting your turning damage, which would help get closer to the +4 turn level at higher levels.
RanielK 02-07-06, 12:47 AM	Well, there are a few ways to do this. Of course, the standard tricks, with Knowledge (Religion) and a high charisma, work, but are there any restrictions are crafting a ruby dagger? Is it even in the game? It gives LN clerics of Wee Jas +4 to their level for purposes of turning, rebuking, and bolstering undead, so that would probably help. It costs a feat (True Believer) or a lvl 6 spell slot, however. The Ruby dagger will at best be seen as a prop in a mod since it is a relic. It wont be there for pc use. I came across a Tome of the Stilled Tongue (Vecna) in a mod that was there to be distroyed. To create a relic requires the Sanctify Relic feat, which is restricted IIRC. The real reason people have problems is because Heightened Turning is no longer core, as its only been reprinted in the Libris Mortis. With Empower Turning, you could gain at least a bonus of 33% to your turning roll without effecting your turning damage, which would help get closer to the +4 turn level at higher levels. Empower Turning actually affects your turn damage, thus allowing you to a guaranteed shot at affecting the highest level you can affect, or really blow up on hella big horde of undead weinies. As far as turning not being effective at higher levels, that really depends on what is affecting you or the undead. Below is a list of everything I could find that would affect the turn result one way or the other, except for the Scepter of the Underworld (+3 turn level). Since you can only hold two things, you have to choose between the Scepter of Obedience (+5 to Charisma checks, thus to Turn Checks, thus be more likely to affect something), of the Underworld (+3 turn level, thus affect a higher and more HD of creature) or the Rod of Defiance (-4 to turn resistance in 30 feet, thus tool those liches). The below assumes access to all the goodies you need (good luck there) and access to Heighten Turning (though there are calculations without it). The True Holy Symbol is out of Planar Handbook and I have seen access to it (if your a Pholtan). Desecrate w/Altar -6 turn check Unhallow -4 turn check Bolster -4 turn check Charisma (Cloak +6) +CHA+3 turn check K(Religion) synergy +2 turn check Scepter of Obedience +5 turn check True Holy Symbol +2 turn check Glory Domain +2 turn check Total check -2+CHA turn check Turn Resistance -4 turn level (i.e. +4 to Undead HD) Improved Turning +1 turn level Sacred Armor +2 turn level (unnamed bonus) Sacred Shield +2 turn level (unnamed bonus but expect table variance on stack) Phylactry of Undead Turning +4 turn level Heighten Turning +x turn level Rod of Defiance +4 turn level (-4 turn resistance in 30ft) Total level +9+x+level turn level Base damage +2d6 damge Charisma (Cloak +6) +CHA+3 damage Glory Domain +1d6 damage Improved Turning +1 damage Sacred Armor +2 damage (see above) Sacred Shield +2 damage Phylactry of Undead Turning +4 damage Empower Turning x1.5 damage Heighten Turning -x damage Total damage (+3d6+12+CHA-x+level)1.5 damage 1d20-2+CHA (3d6+9+CHA-x+level)1.5 damage Min hd affected +5+x+level hd Max +13+x+level hd Delmar Cha 14 (without cloak) assuming all spells, feats, items, conditions above Turn check HD Turn Dmg Avg Dmg Level 12, hghtn 12, roll 10 10 33 hd (3d6+14)1.5 36.75 hd Level 12, no hghtn, roll 10 10 21 hd (3d6+23)1.5 50.25 hd Level 15, hghtn 15, roll 10 10 39 hd (3d6+16)1.5 39.75 hd Level 15, no hghtn, roll 10 10 24 hd (3d6+29)1.5 59.25 hd Level 20, hghtn 15, roll 10 10 44 hd (3d6+19)1.5 44.25 Hd Level 20, no hghtn, roll 10 10 29 hd (3d6+34)1.5 66.75 hd Improved Turning, Empowered Turning, The Scepter of Obedience, Phylactry of Undead Turning and Knowledge (Religion) synergy are pretty much a given for a straight cleric with CWI. By 12th level, you should have seen access to the scepter and will qualify on CL+2 for the phylactry. This alone is enough to get a decent turn check. Any thing else is gravy. Miles
Iswald 02-07-06, 09:01 AM	To create a relic requires the Sanctify Relic feat, which is restricted IIRC. It's a limited feat actually. I spent TUs to gain access, but I don't know that I would ever take it since I have no idea what I'd be able to make with it.
Objulen 02-07-06, 09:38 AM	It's a limited feat actually. I spent TUs to gain access, but I don't know that I would ever take it since I have no idea what I'd be able to make with it. There's a list of items in Complete Divine you can make with it. They require either the True Believer feat in relation to the diety associated with the relic, or the sacrifice of a cleric spell slot of varying level. The Ruby Dagger is an example of a relic (of Wee Jas). They tend to be powerful.
Objulen 02-07-06, 09:47 AM	Empower Turning actually affects your turn damage, thus allowing you to a guaranteed shot at affecting the highest level you can affect, or really blow up on hella big horde of undead weinies. Which is nice. I'd take it for a rebuke cleric. The only problem is if you are facing undead with more than 1 HD than you. You can effect undead with upto 5 HD more than you, but it takes a very good roll on your turning check. Since you get 50% more turning damage with Empower Turning, if you could sacrifice 33% of the base with Heighten Turning, you could apply it to more powerful undead while keeping your normal Turning damage (since 66% * 150% = 100%). As far as turning not being effective at higher levels, that really depends on what is affecting you or the undead. Below is a list of everything I could find that would affect the turn result one way or the other, except for the Scepter of the Underworld (+3 turn level). Since you can only hold two things, you have to choose between the Scepter of Obedience (+5 to Charisma checks, thus to Turn Checks, thus be more likely to affect something), of the Underworld (+3 turn level, thus affect a higher and more HD of creature) or the Rod of Defiance (-4 to turn resistance in 30 feet, thus tool those liches). The below assumes access to all the goodies you need (good luck there) and access to Heighten Turning (though there are calculations without it). The True Holy Symbol is out of Planar Handbook and I have seen access to it (if your a Pholtan). Desecrate w/Altar -6 turn check Unhallow -4 turn check Bolster -4 turn check Charisma (Cloak +6) +CHA+3 turn check K(Religion) synergy +2 turn check Scepter of Obedience +5 turn check True Holy Symbol +2 turn check Glory Domain +2 turn check Total check -2+CHA turn check Turn Resistance -4 turn level (i.e. +4 to Undead HD) Improved Turning +1 turn level Sacred Armor +2 turn level (unnamed bonus) Sacred Shield +2 turn level (unnamed bonus but expect table variance on stack) Phylactry of Undead Turning +4 turn level Heighten Turning +x turn level Rod of Defiance +4 turn level (-4 turn resistance in 30ft) Total level +9+x+level turn level Base damage +2d6 damge Charisma (Cloak +6) +CHA+3 damage Glory Domain +1d6 damage Improved Turning +1 damage Sacred Armor +2 damage (see above) Sacred Shield +2 damage Phylactry of Undead Turning +4 damage Empower Turning x1.5 damage Heighten Turning -x damage Total damage (+3d6+12+CHA-x+level)1.5 damage 1d20-2+CHA (3d6+9+CHA-x+level)1.5 damage Min hd affected +5+x+level hd Max +13+x+level hd Delmar Cha 14 (without cloak) assuming all spells, feats, items, conditions above Turn check HD Turn Dmg Avg Dmg Level 12, hghtn 12, roll 10 10 33 hd (3d6+14)1.5 36.75 hd Level 12, no hghtn, roll 10 10 21 hd (3d6+23)1.5 50.25 hd Level 15, hghtn 15, roll 10 10 39 hd (3d6+16)1.5 39.75 hd Level 15, no hghtn, roll 10 10 24 hd (3d6+29)1.5 59.25 hd Level 20, hghtn 15, roll 10 10 44 hd (3d6+19)1.5 44.25 Hd Level 20, no hghtn, roll 10 10 29 hd (3d6+34)1.5 66.75 hd Improved Turning, Empowered Turning, The Scepter of Obedience, Phylactry of Undead Turning and Knowledge (Religion) synergy are pretty much a given for a straight cleric with CWI. By 12th level, you should have seen access to the scepter and will qualify on CL+2 for the phylactry. This alone is enough to get a decent turn check. Any thing else is gravy. Miles Not quite. Heighten Turning, IIRC, only adds to the turning roll, not your cleric level for turning. As it is, it isn't core, but I don't remember if it's limited. Out of the 3 rods, you'd want Rod of the Underworld, unless you were facing something with Turn Resistance above 3. You can only get +4 to your cleric level with a good turn check, so increasing your effective cleric level is more reliable IMO. As long as you can get decent bonuses to your turning check (say, +9), you'd have +4 with Improved Turning and Rod of the Underworld all the time. Plus, you suffer diminishing returns from Turning check boosts after you push it to a point where you generally get +4 to your cleric level all the time. Of course, if you can do both, that's good too. :)
Iswald 02-07-06, 12:18 PM	There's a list of items in Complete Divine you can make with it. They require either the True Believer feat in relation to the diety associated with the relic, or the sacrifice of a cleric spell slot of varying level. The Ruby Dagger is an example of a relic (of Wee Jas). They tend to be powerful. You would still have to find access. That's unlikely to happen. In the extremely improbable event of getting access to a relic, it'd most probably be something in the favor section or be given for free (with some constraints and a tithe) which means you wouldn't be able to craft it. Not to mention that you need some other crafting feat to use with sanctifiy relic.
Objulen 02-07-06, 02:10 PM	You would still have to find access. That's unlikely to happen. In the extremely improbable event of getting access to a relic, it'd most probably be something in the favor section or be given for free (with some constraints and a tithe) which means you wouldn't be able to craft it. Not to mention that you need some other crafting feat to use with sanctifiy relic. It is unlikely to gain access to the item itself, but if you gain access to sanctify relic, then you can take the appropriate item creation feat (such as Craft Magical Arms and Armor) to make your own relics. Depending on build, that may or may not be a terrible price to pay. For a cleric of Wee Jas Lord of the Undead type, two feats and a level 6 spell slot for +4 to your base level when rebuking is worth it, especially since you are really only giving up one feat if you are going to craft other arms and armor for yourself (and since you are a cleric, you can benefit from that greatly. Additionally, for creating your own relics, the CD suggests that you give the player a discount equal to 400 * the spell slot needed * minimum caster level on the full price, so that would translate out to 200 * the spell slot needed * minimum caster level for the actual creation process. That's not included in LG as far as I know, so that's a balancing factor as well.
Britt 02-07-06, 02:34 PM	AFAIK, having Sanctify Relic and the appropriate Craft feat does not allow you to craft relics without access per the normal rules for MIC.
RanielK 02-07-06, 03:32 PM	Not quite. Heighten Turning, IIRC, only adds to the turning roll, not your cleric level for turning. As it is, it isn't core, but I don't remember if it's limited. Yeah, my bad. I misread. It sacrifices turning damage for an improved turning check, for a total change up to your cleric level. Out of the 3 rods, you'd want Rod of the Underworld, unless you were facing something with Turn Resistance above 3. You can only get +4 to your cleric level with a good turn check, so increasing your effective cleric level is more reliable IMO. As long as you can get decent bonuses to your turning check (say, +9), you'd have +4 with Improved Turning and Rod of the Underworld all the time. Plus, you suffer diminishing returns from Turning check boosts after you push it to a point where you generally get +4 to your cleric level all the time. Boosting the turning check comes in handy if everything is going against you and/or you need to ensure a max result. Turning levels are necessary if you need to kill the big bad. Miles
Objulen 02-07-06, 04:34 PM	AFAIK, having Sanctify Relic and the appropriate Craft feat does not allow you to craft relics without access per the normal rules for MIC. That is true, but it makes one wonder: why would a module grant access to Sanctify Relic, but not the ability to actually make one? It seems somewhat pointless, not that it couldn't happen.
Objulen 02-07-06, 04:55 PM	Yeah, my bad. I misread. It sacrifices turning damage for an improved turning check, for a total change up to your cleric level. It's probably one of the best ways to boost your turning score, with Empowered Turning, since, even if you have to apply Heightened Turning before Empowered Turning, you stil lend up with a 33% bonus on the Turning Check, so if you're level 7 with 16 CHA you can get +4 on the Turning check without effecting your Turning Damage (since min of 2d6 + 7 + 3 = 12, and [min 2d6 + 3 + 3] * 1.5 = 12). Boosting the turning check comes in handy if everything is going against you and/or you need to ensure a max result. Turning levels are necessary if you need to kill the big bad. Miles If everything is going against you, then its probably weenie, and equal to or less than your cleric level, which means that you just need a 10, everything else being equal. With CHA 16 + Kn (Religion) 5, that's +5 right there. Improved Turning means that you can get an 8. What you need is HD of turning damage, which you get from Empower Turning. An Empowered Eagle's Splendor gives a +6 bonus to Charisma, so that's another +3. A 7, before items, which means you always turn undead at your HD with Improved Turning. You only really need to boost that check when you are trying to go after something with more HD than you. Rod of the Underworld always gives +3, which is the same as if you got a score of 22 at a score of 13, which is much easier to get, and if you get a score of 22 anyway, then you are at +7. That's why it's better to have enchancments to your level when turning/rebuking, instead of bonuses to your turning check, because once you boost your turning check, then getting a roll larger than a certain number doesn't help you (i.e. the bonuse don't stack), and they aren't consistant, or as powerful. For example, with the rod that gives +4 to turning checks, I just made it so that a roll higher than 18 (everything else not giving bonuses) doesn't help me anymore than a roll of 18. With CHA 14 and Kn (Religion) 5, that means that a roll higher than 14 doesn't help me at all. However, if I just increase my turning level outright with an item by +3, I always get that, so as long as I can keep my turning checks averaging 10, I'll always have +3, and I'll get anything extra for rolling high on my turning check as well. Since you really don't need the Rod that gives you +4 to turning checks to do this (since Eagle's Speldor + Kn (Religion) 5 + CHA 14) gives you a bonus of 6, which means that you need only a 4 to break even), I'll always have the +3, and if I roll a 7 or higher, I'll get that bonus as well. With CHA 16 and an Empowered Eagle's Splendor, that rises to 8, which means I only need a 2 to break even, and get a bonus starting at 5, and if you can unearth Heightened Turning in a module, you can use it start at 10 or 12 without any net harm to your turning damage, so you are starting at +4 (+5 with Impr. Turning), and just keep going up.
Arvagor 02-07-06, 05:59 PM	... An Empowered Eagle's Splendor gives a +6 bonus to Charisma, ...Sorry to nitpick, but if you're going to make a rules argument, make sure you have the rules right... Eagle's splendor cannot be empowered, as it has no variable effects (other than duration, which does vary with empowered either) We now return you to ... whatever ...
Doogles5628 02-07-06, 08:56 PM	Anyone out there able to sum up in a nutshell what's wrong with Divine Metamagic: Quicken itself? Everything I've read so far seems to indicate this ability only becomes bad when combined with things such as nightstick or prayer beads. Why not make cuts here and there, such as to restrict nightstick and / or prayer beads? Perhaps disallowing the stacking of Extra Turning and said items? 20 cha is 5, 3 + 5 is 8, +4 for extra turning is 12 turn attempts a day, not even enough for 3 uses per day. Maybe people are just jealous, and not being reasonable?
gibson2004 02-07-06, 11:05 PM	Most classes have their own ways of sculpting a character with a high cheese factor. This (power gaming) is designed for mainly one specific use or contribution to the party. I agree with a previous comment about how we don't here about how much damage a fighter can dish in a round with all of the feats available for damage dealing characters. The fact that clerics can use turn attempts for DMM Quicken is only one way a cleric gains some cheese factor, but since most clerics have a low initiative, generally everyone else has already gone and done their thing before the cleric has even a chance to show some cheese. And with several mods occuring in 1 day's time, being able to blow my turn attempts for DMM is only good for 1 maybe 2 combats. If the powers that be think this somehow unbalances game play, then restrict nightstick (don't allow them to stack). With most parties having at least one or more neutral characters in the group, a cleric doing a high holy word at the end of initiative is generally not an option. Being a high level RSoP able to destroy (greater turn) a 25-29 hd undead, if that doesn't work, then thats where the other party members take over. Let us clerics be, if we have a chance to offensively contribute to a battle, then let us have our momment of glory. I have never heard of anyone complaing about the empowered or maximized healing we contribute to you poor souls who seem to always get to act (high initiative) before we do: or maybe that is just our perceived party role. Either way, 99% of the time, a cleric will opt to save/help a party member rather than possibly hurt/kill a foe. So, this whole discussion about clerical power possiblities is just that, a possibility and not the norm. Here, have an DSP/Rod of Exstension "Hereo's feast" on me.
RAM 02-08-06, 12:52 AM	I suspect that any time someone uses the word jealous it is likely to be a flame. One problem with DMM is that it allows a character to cast spelss which are higher level than they could normally cast. For example Quickened Heal is a ninth level spell and would require a 17th level Cleric to cast it, but an eleventh level cleric with DMM: Quicken could also cast it at the cost of 5 turn attempts. Of course this is also possible with the aid of a metamagic rod. And I could imagine people asking for those to be banned also. To compare the two: : a MM Rod of quicken(from the SRD) uses a hand slot(at my tables anyway), requires access and costs 35000(up to 3rd level spells), 75500(up to 6th level spells) or 170000(upt to 9th level spells) can be used 3 times per day. : DMM Quicken(from memory)uses two feats(but quicken spell is usually a good feat for a cleric), is not available until 3rd level and uses 5 turn attempts per use. As I understand it a 3rd level cleric can use DMM to quicken 2nd level spells and can quicken their highest level spell slots from them once a day assuming 14 charisma and no other boosts (it would also be arguable that DMM causes extra turning to become overpowered). 14 charisma costs a human 6 build points, 3/14ths or a little under 1/4 of their total build, it is stll easy to have 2 good stats(18 14 or 16 16 10 or 16 14 14 all seem practical). Given the costs I doubt a lesser rod will ever quicken a clerics highest level slots and will probably not generate a spell of a level the cleric could not cast anyway(3(spell) + 4(quicken) = 7th level spell = 13th level cleric and 35000 is a lot to spend at 12th character level). A standard rod at 75500 is highly unlikely to come into play before 7th level spells at which point it cannot affect the highest level spells, though it can generate 10th level spells so could cause problems. The greater rod is sufficiently expensive that it seems that it will probably only come into the high level campaign. While charisma 14 and two feats are prohibitive to melee focused clerics though a hand slot is probably more valuable. The rod would be more attractive to clerics which were not using weapons but would still be difficult where somatic components were involved. The rods may be used 3 times per day per rod, while the feat may be used once per 5 turns. I believe the prohibitive gold cost on the rods balance them. As for the feat I think it is balnced provided you can only use it once(clerics with 30 Charisma are quite rare). However combine with sources of additional turning it can be quite a concern to have clerics frequently using spells above 9th level.
Arvagor 02-08-06, 09:20 AM	One problem with DMM is that it allows a character to cast spelss which are higher level than they could normally cast.Let me play baatezu's advocate for a moment, and substitute a word (or two) in the sentence above... - "One problem with a wand is that it allows a character to cast spells which are higher level than they could normally cast." - "One problem with a scroll is that it allows a character to cast spells which are higher level than they could normally cast." Now granted, each of the above has its own limitations (scrolls have potential mishaps, wands have a limit on the level of spells that can be stored within them), but if somebody made the statements above, you'd laugh them out of the game...
Elfen_Archangel 02-08-06, 09:27 AM	Let me play baatezu's advocate for a moment, and substitute a word (or two) in the sentence above... - "One problem with a wand is that it allows a character to cast spells which are higher level than they could normally cast." - "One problem with a scroll is that it allows a character to cast spells which are higher level than they could normally cast." Now granted, each of the above has its own limitations (scrolls have potential mishaps, wands have a limit on the level of spells that can be stored within them), but if somebody made the statements above, you'd laugh them out of the game... Yes, but they'd have to have the proper ranks in UMD for it to work as flawlessly as DMM:Q would. They'd need a score of 19 just to always cast from a wand. And then, they would need access to such a higher level spell. The fact is, you don't find access to very many scrolls or wands above 3-4th level spells. There isn't a plethora of scrolls of holy word out there. (Though I have seen scrolls of heal on an AR or 3). So while it may be silly, it's not comparable to DMM:Q.
GreySector 02-08-06, 09:58 AM	They'd need a score of 19 just to always cast from a wand. Uh, there is no attribute prerequisite to be able to activate spell trigger items. From the SRD "Anyone with a spell on his or her spell list knows how to use a spell trigger item that stores that spell. (This is the case even for a character who can’t actually cast spells, such as a 3rd-level paladin.)" -Michael Eshleman
Objulen 02-08-06, 10:32 AM	Sorry to nitpick, but if you're going to make a rules argument, make sure you have the rules right... Eagle's splendor cannot be empowered, as it has no variable effects (other than duration, which does vary with empowered either) We now return you to ... whatever ... True. I keep on thinking of Eagle's Spelndor from 3.0, when it was veriable and could be maximized or empowered.
Objulen 02-08-06, 10:44 AM	Let me play baatezu's advocate for a moment, and substitute a word (or two) in the sentence above... - "One problem with a wand is that it allows a character to cast spells which are higher level than they could normally cast." - "One problem with a scroll is that it allows a character to cast spells which are higher level than they could normally cast." Now granted, each of the above has its own limitations (scrolls have potential mishaps, wands have a limit on the level of spells that can be stored within them), but if somebody made the statements above, you'd laugh them out of the game... Actually, the easiest way to cast spells above your level is from scrolls. With the Arcane Mastery feat, you can take 10 on caster level checks (though you need to be able to cast 1st level arcane spells), which means that an 8th level caster can take 10 and use 9th level scrolls form a 17th level caster (since the DC = scroll's caster level +1). Now, since you can't take 10 in combat, this isn't quite as useful as it looks, but given that it still allows you do something like cast Shapechange from a scroll before combat begins, when you get the drop on someone, it's still very nice, particularly for Mystic Theurges or Arcane Hyrophants, who can use this with both arcane and divine spells. In combat, scrolls are very easy to use as well -- a 14th level caster just needs a 4 to use a 9th level spell at the minimum caster level.
Elfen_Archangel 02-08-06, 10:51 AM	Uh, there is no attribute prerequisite to be able to activate spell trigger items. From the SRD "Anyone with a spell on his or her spell list knows how to use a spell trigger item that stores that spell. (This is the case even for a character who can’t actually cast spells, such as a 3rd-level paladin.)" -Michael Eshleman You didn't read all of my post. Or all of Argavor's. He said " "One problem with a wand is that it allows a character to cast spells which are higher level than they could normally cast." - "One problem with a scroll is that it allows a character to cast spells which are higher level than they could normally cast."" To cast, from a scroll, a spell of a higher level than you can use, you have to UMD it. To cast from a wand without error you need a UMD score (notice that I didn't say attribute score, but UMD score) of 19. This way you can roll a 1 and get a 20 to active a wand. To cast from a scroll you would need a UMD score of 20 + caster level (for 9th level spells that's probably 17, so a UMD score of 37). That's in no way comparable to DMM:Q. Matthew Schad
Objulen 02-08-06, 10:54 AM	Yes, but they'd have to have the proper ranks in UMD for it to work as flawlessly as DMM:Q would. They'd need a score of 19 just to always cast from a wand. And then, they would need access to such a higher level spell. The fact is, you don't find access to very many scrolls or wands above 3-4th level spells. There isn't a plethora of scrolls of holy word out there. (Though I have seen scrolls of heal on an AR or 3). So while it may be silly, it's not comparable to DMM:Q. 1) There may not be a plethora of spells, but then again, you don't necessarily need one. A wizard can scribe any spell in her/his spellbook, so a Mystic Theurge, or other caster who has lost arcane caster levels (generally from a PrC) with wizard levels can scribe a spell into her/his book with the standard Spellcraft DC (which isn't hard to make, given the Int bonus, Kn (Arcana) synergy bonus, and, if you really need it, feats), and then scribe that scroll whenever needed. Being able to actually cast the spell is not listed as a prerequisite in LG for wizards. 2) Even if you don't have the base ability to cast a lvl 9 spell, it's not hard to get -- a since use of the appropriate ability score booster will allow a caster with a 15 in the appropriate ability to cast a lvl 9 spell. 3) As mentioned above, spell completion doesn't require the necessarily ability score required to actually cast the spell.
Elfen_Archangel 02-08-06, 11:03 AM	1) There may not be a plethora of spells, but then again, you don't necessarily need one. A wizard can scribe any spell in her/his spellbook, so a Mystic Theurge, or other caster who has lost arcane caster levels (generally from a PrC) with wizard levels can scribe a spell into her/his book with the standard Spellcraft DC (which isn't hard to make, given the Int bonus, Kn (Arcana) synergy bonus, and, if you really need it, feats), and then scribe that scroll whenever needed. Being able to actually cast the spell is not listed as a prerequisite in LG for wizards. 2) Even if you don't have the base ability to cast a lvl 9 spell, it's not hard to get -- a since use of the appropriate ability score booster will allow a caster with a 15 in the appropriate ability to cast a lvl 9 spell. 3) As mentioned above, spell completion doesn't require the necessarily ability score required to actually cast the spell. I read your post a few times, and I'm still confused. Are you saying that you think a wizard can cast 9th level spells without using a scroll, or a wand, and without being 17th level?
Arvagor 02-08-06, 11:13 AM	To cast, from a scroll, a spell of a higher level than you can use, you have to UMD it. To cast from a wand without error you need a UMD score (notice that I didn't say attribute score, but UMD score) of 19. This way you can roll a 1 and get a 20 to active a wand.No, you don't. A 1st level wizard can activate a wand of fireball with no check whatsoever, as fireball appears on the wizard spell list (wands use the spell trigger activation method, and "Anyone with a spell on his or her spell list knows how to use a spell trigger item that stores that spell."). To activate a scroll of the same, he has to make a caster level check ("If she meets all three requirements but her own caster level is lower than the scroll spell’s caster level, then she has to make a caster level check (DC = scroll’s caster level + 1) to cast the spell successfully.") DC in the case of fireball would be 6. Heck, a 1st level wizard can use a scroll of wish if he wants to... the DC would be 18, not impossible (20% for Wiz1), but still doable; if he fails, then you've got the DC 5 Wisdom check to avoid a mishap. The only mishap of any consequence to our Wiz1 would be the first one on the list -- "A surge of uncontrolled magical energy deals 1d6 points of damage per spell level to the scroll user." -- but I know more than a few PCs who would be willing to risk the aformentioned odds @ level 1. But we digress...
blood_kite 02-08-06, 11:22 AM	I beleive Objulen is saying that a wizard can get a hold of spells that are too high of a level for him to currently cast, scribe them into his spellbook, and then make scrolls of that spell despite the fact he can't actually cast the spell. He could then cast the spell from the scroll he created. If that is what he is saying then I'm afraid he is mistaken. Being able to cast a spell of that level might not be a requirement for using a scroll, but according to the DMG under creating scrolls it says you must either prepare the spell you wish to scribe in one of your spell slots or know the spell (in the case of spontaneous casters only.) Wizards cannot make scrolls of spells that are of a higher level than the wizard can cast.
Objulen 02-08-06, 11:26 AM	I read your post a few times, and I'm still confused. Are you saying that you think a wizard can cast 9th level spells without using a scroll, or a wand, and without being 17th level? A 9th level scroll fall into the lap of a 14th level wizard, that wizard can cast it without too much difficulty, either taking 10 with a feat, or having to roll a 4 to cast it in combat, and that's without anything that increases your caster level. An 10th level cleric with the Good domain needs a minimum of a 3 to cast Holy Word, since it is a good spell and the character casts it at +1 level. This also applies to Divine Spell Power, Death Knell, and other similar effects. But what if you don't have the necessary INT, you might ask? Then you are just one Fox's Cunning away from being able to cast the spell if you have 15 INT. The same goes for any ability and its appropriate boost spell. And thus, scrolls are perhaps the easiest and cheepest way to gain access to higher level spells than one should normally have.
Elfen_Archangel 02-08-06, 11:32 AM	No, you don't. A 1st level wizard can activate a wand of fireball with no check whatsoever, as fireball appears on the wizard spell list (wands use the spell trigger activation method, and "Anyone with a spell on his or her spell list knows how to use a spell trigger item that stores that spell."). To activate a scroll of the same, he has to make a caster level check ("If she meets all three requirements but her own caster level is lower than the scroll spell’s caster level, then she has to make a caster level check (DC = scroll’s caster level + 1) to cast the spell successfully.") DC in the case of fireball would be 6. Heck, a 1st level wizard can use a scroll of wish if he wants to... the DC would be 18, not impossible (20% for Wiz1), but still doable; if he fails, then you've got the DC 5 Wisdom check to avoid a mishap. The only mishap of any consequence to our Wiz1 would be the first one on the list -- "A surge of uncontrolled magical energy deals 1d6 points of damage per spell level to the scroll user." -- but I know more than a few PCs who would be willing to risk the aformentioned odds @ level 1. But we digress... Very true. But my point still remains that there is no such check for using DMM:Q. Which is why it can't be compared.
Objulen 02-08-06, 11:38 AM	I beleive Objulen is saying that a wizard can get a hold of spells that are too high of a level for him to currently cast, scribe them into his spellbook, and then make scrolls of that spell despite the fact he can't actually cast the spell. He could then cast the spell from the scroll he created. If that is what he is saying then I'm afraid he is mistaken. Being able to cast a spell of that level might not be a requirement for using a scroll, but according to the DMG under creating scrolls it says you must either prepare the spell you wish to scribe in one of your spell slots or know the spell (in the case of spontaneous casters only.) Wizards cannot make scrolls of spells that are of a higher level than the wizard can cast. That's correct. I was looking all over for that section too, but didn't find it. It's still true that scrolls are an easy way to get higher level spells than you can normally cast.
GreySector 02-08-06, 12:01 PM	You didn't read all of my post. In fact I did. Your post just doesn't make any sense. I don't see where Use Magic Device enters into this discussion at all. We are talking about spellcasters using spell completion and spell trigger items for spells on their spell lists. To cast, from a scroll, a spell of a higher level than you can use, you have to UMD it. No, you just have to make a caster level check (assuming you meet all the other requirements for activating a spell completion item). To cast from a wand without error you need a UMD score (notice that I didn't say attribute score, but UMD score) of 19. This way you can roll a 1 and get a 20 to active a wand. Why would a caster have to use Use Magic Device to activate a spell trigger item (wand or staff)? -Michael Eshleman
GreySector 02-08-06, 12:05 PM	Actually, the easiest way to cast spells above your level is from scrolls. With the Arcane Mastery feat, you can take 10 on caster level checks [snip] Now, since you can't take 10 in combat, this isn't quite as useful as it looks. See the Complete Arcane Errata. "Page 73: Arcane Mastery. You can use this feat even while under stress." -Michael Eshleman
Medicelious-Melharmonac 02-08-06, 12:29 PM	As a cleric who has not used and will probably never use DMM I personally do not care if it is allowed to be used or not. However, this whole post seems to be a "If I cannot have it no one can" type of post. If more people played LG characters designed to make their party more powerful and highlighted the groups strength I think less of this type of thing would occur. That being said: After watching, 30 or so Radient Servants with DMM(whatever) its really nuts what they can do when given a "free" extra turning feat for 9,000 gp. Personally I would make a ruling that Nightsticks do not stack with one another and possessing more than 1 does not increase your overall turn attempts. If you do get DMM removed from LG please at least give clerics a rebuild on their feats because its going to screw a lot of us.
Sieylianna 02-08-06, 12:37 PM	If you do get DMM removed from LG please at least give clerics a rebuild on their feats because its going to screw a lot of us. Some of us were arguing for it being restricted before it was even allowed into the campaign (along with some spells which were finally redone in SC). Ed
theliel 02-08-06, 02:22 PM	Some of us were arguing for it being restricted before it was even allowed into the campaign (along with some spells which were finally redone in SC). Ed And also stop using sources which assume that a 5th level or higher cleric will be using his turn attempts differntly (see my quote from pg. 19 of Liber Mortus). There are only two things which increase with level for clerics, turn strength and spell caster level. Much like sorcerers and to a slightly lesser extent wizzards (they get famialiars, a feat and spell caster level) there is NO reason a cleric shouldn't take a PrC that increases spell level, especially when most sources assume you won't be turning unless youv'e taken a dedicated turning class like RSoP or Sacred Exorcist.
Sieylianna 02-08-06, 05:10 PM	And also stop using sources which assume that a 5th level or higher cleric will be using his turn attempts differntly (see my quote from pg. 19 of Liber Mortus). I have no idea why you are attributing this to me? Ed
Objulen 02-08-06, 05:44 PM	Very true. But my point still remains that there is no such check for using DMM:Q. Which is why it can't be compared. Yes and no. DMM:Q is consistant, but you can only quicken, and you have to build your character's feat progression around it. Compare this to items which allow characters to potentially use spells above their level, allow for a much wider variety of feats, and are much more independant from the character's base progression, especially if you are making your own, since you have more time to earn the money back, since you are not leveling as quickly. See the Complete Arcane Errata. "Page 73: Arcane Mastery. You can use this feat even while under stress." -Michael Eshleman That's the thing I hate about erratas. Unless they are something that particularly stand out (like the Master of Many Form's errata, which made the PrC functional purely as written) I don't remember them half the time. With this, then scrolls become the best way to jump the curve -- an arcane caster can use any scroll with a caster level 9 above her/his normal level, which means that a level 8 caster can reliably use minimum caster 9th level scrolls.
RAM 02-09-06, 05:47 AM	While scrolls, wands, potions, wonderous items, weapon enchantments, rings ect. do allow you to cast spells above what is normally possible the costs and access involved are prohibitive at higher levels and they rarely provide a significant boost. 3rd level scrolls are expensive for characters that cannot normally cast them and it just gets worse from there up. 2nd level scrolls are viable at low levels but are still expensive and only permit a single level boost. DMM Quicken reliably provides a 4 level boost, which is impossible via scrolls without access. I may be in a rare situation here but IIRC I could count on 1 hand the number of times I got access to scrolls above level 4 not to mention that it would have to be permament access to benefeit in the ways you refer to. Even in a home game the 9th level party that burns through a 9th level scrool once an adventuring day will run short on gold pretty quickly. but I do not meen to advocate a position, personally I beilieve that DMM is balanced by itself, I would not presently hazard a guess as to wether it would be balanced when factoring in bonus turning attempts but someone asked what the problem with DMM was and I attempted to answer as best I could.
Objulen 02-09-06, 09:50 AM	While scrolls, wands, potions, wonderous items, weapon enchantments, rings ect. do allow you to cast spells above what is normally possible the costs and access involved are prohibitive at higher levels and they rarely provide a significant boost. 3rd level scrolls are expensive for characters that cannot normally cast them and it just gets worse from there up. 2nd level scrolls are viable at low levels but are still expensive and only permit a single level boost. DMM Quicken reliably provides a 4 level boost, which is impossible via scrolls without access. I may be in a rare situation here but IIRC I could count on 1 hand the number of times I got access to scrolls above level 4 not to mention that it would have to be permament access to benefeit in the ways you refer to. Even in a home game the 9th level party that burns through a 9th level scrool once an adventuring day will run short on gold pretty quickly. but I do not meen to advocate a position, personally I beilieve that DMM is balanced by itself, I would not presently hazard a guess as to wether it would be balanced when factoring in bonus turning attempts but someone asked what the problem with DMM was and I attempted to answer as best I could. That is a good point, but it is also true that DMM is very one dimensional in what it can do, as opposed to magical items, which actually allow you to cast different spells outside of your normal abilities. DMM:Q let's you take an extra action per round a certain number of times per day, depending on build, but that's all it can do. On the other hand, a character can pack a wand, a few scrolls, etc., and while these may be prohibitivly expensive to achieve at lower levels, they do allow characters who wouldn't normally have access to those resources due to lost caster levels from multiclassing or PrCs to gain them, and it isn't a stretch to gain higher level scrolls once you hit the lvl 10+ curve if you need one.
theliel 02-09-06, 10:18 AM	I have no idea why you are attributing this to me? Ed Sorry, that was a half-thought out lost in translation response. eh-hem; if you restrict (or worse, limit) devine metamagic feats (including those from complete warrior) yet still use the mosnters, traps, etc. that assume that the cleric will have things to do with the turning aside from removing chaff from some encounters, I would cry foul as the core rules contained precious little use for this class ability while the expanded rules allowed the ability to be fully realized. my fault for being unclear.
Prochytes 02-09-06, 12:18 PM	This is just a post on my own experience of DMM (Quicken). My secondary character is built around it, not because I was looking to be (particularly) cheesy, but because he is going for Mystic Theurge and it seemed a reasonably elegant way, at a stroke, to make his Turn attempts do something at higher levels (where being able to turn 3/day as a 3rd level cleric was never going to cut the mustard) and get through more of his enormous spell complement in a day. I am envisaging that this combo will enable him to get off a buff and an offensive spell in the same round a few times per day (3 at 15th level, if my maths is correct). While this is nice, I do not consider it grossly broken, as it does suck up almost all his Feats. I concur with previous posters that what we seem to be facing is a Nightstick problem rather than a DMM (Quicken) one. However, I would not be inordinately peeved if it were decided that the DMM could not raise the effective spell level beyond one which the PC could cast already (i.e., only allowing the Quickening of 0th, 1st, and 2nd level spells if you are only capable of casting 6th level spells normally). This, if I remember rightly (but I could well be wrong), is how the Metamagic Song Feat works. This, however, is an entirely personal view.
Objulen 02-09-06, 12:48 PM	This is just a post on my own experience of DMM (Quicken). My secondary character is built around it, not because I was looking to be (particularly) cheesy, but because he is going for Mystic Theurge and it seemed a reasonably elegant way, at a stroke, to make his Turn attempts do something at higher levels (where being able to turn 3/day as a 3rd level cleric was never going to cut the mustard) and get through more of his enormous spell complement in a day. I am envisaging that this combo will enable him to get off a buff and an offensive spell in the same round a few times per day (3 at 15th level, if my maths is correct). While this is nice, I do not consider it grossly broken, as it does suck up almost all his Feats. I concur with previous posters that what we seem to be facing is a Nightstick problem rather than a DMM (Quicken) one. However, I would not be inordinately peeved if it were decided that the DMM could not raise the effective spell level beyond one which the PC could cast already (i.e., only allowing the Quickening of 0th, 1st, and 2nd level spells if you are only capable of casting 6th level spells normally). This, if I remember rightly (but I could well be wrong), is how the Metamagic Song Feat works. This, however, is an entirely personal view. Actually, Lyric Spell just says that "You can expend daily uses of your bardic music to cast any arcane spell you know and can cast spontaneously." It's not quite clear, but I'd assume that you can cast spells enhanced by metamagic with it, since you technically "know" all of your spells with metamagic, even if you can't cast it yet. However, since you are using bardic music uses equal to the spell's level + 1, that is going to eat them up rather quickly. Compared to DMM, I'd say it's pretty even, since Lyric Spell doesn't use the spell slot, while DMM does. Both can be enhanced by feats via (bards use the Extra Music feat), and would be particularly nice for a Sublime Cord, who learn upto level 9 spells, but get few spells per day.
Prochytes 02-09-06, 02:18 PM	Actually, Lyric Spell just says that "You can expend daily uses of your bardic music to cast any arcane spell you know and can cast spontaneously." It's not quite clear, but I'd assume that you can cast spells enhanced by metamagic with it, since you technically "know" all of your spells with metamagic, even if you can't cast it yet. However, since you are using bardic music uses equal to the spell's level + 1, that is going to eat them up rather quickly. Compared to DMM, I'd say it's pretty even, since Lyric Spell doesn't use the spell slot, while DMM does. Both can be enhanced by feats via (bards use the Extra Music feat), and would be particularly nice for a Sublime Cord, who learn upto level 9 spells, but get few spells per day. Lyric Spell is not the Feat of which I am thinking. The one I mean is called Metamagic Song (vel sim.), works differently, and is in a book I do not have (hence the vagueness).
GreySector 02-09-06, 02:57 PM	Lyric Spell is not the Feat of which I am thinking. The one I mean is called Metamagic Song (vel sim.), works differently, and is in a book I do not have (hence the vagueness). Metamagic Song is from Races of Stone. It requires two other metamagic feats and the bardic music ability. It allows you to spend a number of bardic music uses equal to the level adjustment of a metamagic feat when you cast an arcane spell spontaneously using the spell's normal spell slot. The relevant portion of the feat reads "You cannot use the Metamagic Song feat to add metamagic feats that would make the spell's effective level higher than the highest level of spell that you can cast normally." -Michael Eshleman
Prochytes 02-09-06, 05:26 PM	Metamagic Song is from Races of Stone. It requires two other metamagic feats and the bardic music ability. It allows you to spend a number of bardic music uses equal to the level adjustment of a metamagic feat when you cast an arcane spell spontaneously using the spell's normal spell slot. The relevant portion of the feat reads "You cannot use the Metamagic Song feat to add metamagic feats that would make the spell's effective level higher than the highest level of spell that you can cast normally." -Michael Eshleman That is the one; many thanks.
Objulen 02-09-06, 06:09 PM	That is the one; many thanks. Between that and Lyric Spell, I don't think there's a valid comparison.
Iswald 02-09-06, 10:16 PM	A valid comparison of this with DMM would include the number of bard songs/day a bard has vs the number of turning attempts a cleric has per day.
JohnduBois 02-09-06, 10:27 PM	There's also a VERY distinct power level between bard and cleric spells.
Objulen 02-09-06, 11:27 PM	There's also a VERY distinct power level between bard and cleric spells. This is true, but you can boost your bard spell power with the Sublime Cord PrC.
Iswald 02-10-06, 09:31 AM	It is unlikely to gain access to the item itself, but if you gain access to sanctify relic, then you can take the appropriate item creation feat (such as Craft Magical Arms and Armor) to make your own relics. If the only relics that could ever be available in the game to craft are the ones from CD, then it makes little sense for all but an extremely few characters to take the feat. There are 40 some relics in CD. Of these, they are useful for the followers of 20 to 30 different dieties. Some of those deities are evil. There are 194 deities listed in the dieties doc. Of course, a large number of them are evil or otherwise unsuitable for PCs. On the plus side, the deities in CD with relics are some of the more popular ones. Having a character of the appropriate deity, with the appropriate feats having the correct accesss seems improbable.
Prochytes 02-10-06, 09:44 AM	Sorry; I was obviously unclear. :embarrass I was not suggesting that the fact that Metamagic Song works as it does is any way an ARGUMENT that DMM should THEREFORE be treated the same way. As subsequent posters have noted, there are too many variables for comparison (and high-level bards do get many more bardic music uses per day than a cleric has turn attempts). I merely stated that if that mechanic (the prior existence of which Metamagic Song demonstrates) were to be instituted for DMM, I would be slightly disgruntled (since I thin k that it is fine the way it is), but not climbing up the walls. And that, again, is a personal view. If one were arguing Metamagic Song being the way it is somehow suggests that DMM should THEREFORE follow suit, then Metamagic Song would be a "bad example". But that is not what I said. Apologies again for the ambiguity. :weep:
Objulen 02-10-06, 09:48 AM	If the only relics that could ever be available in the game to craft are the ones from CD, then it makes little sense for all but an extremely few characters to take the feat. There are 40 some relics in CD. Of these, they are useful for the followers of 20 to 30 different dieties. Some of those deities are evil. There are 194 deities listed in the dieties doc. Of course, a large number of them are evil or otherwise unsuitable for PCs. On the plus side, the deities in CD with relics are some of the more popular ones. Having a character of the appropriate deity, with the appropriate feats having the correct accesss seems improbable. While it is true that it's not likely to get access to what you need on the character you need it on, it does make one wonder how often people go "looking" for modules they need. Given the limited use of many relics, it is somewhat are they, and sanctified relic, are so limited. It makes more sense to me to allow clerics to take it (perhaps after going on a module) with the proper level restriction, and perhaps an AR cost. Otherwise, you are quickly reaching a situation where it might as well be restricted, unless one metagames.
Objulen 02-10-06, 09:55 AM	Sorry; I was obviously unclear. I was not suggesting that the fact that Metamagic Song works as it does is any way an ARGUMENT that DMM should THEREFORE be treated the same way. As subsequent posters have noted, there are too many variables for comparison (and high-level bards do get many more bardic music uses per day than a cleric has turn attempts). I merely stated that if that mechanic (the prior existence of which Metamagic Song demonstrates) were to be instituted for DMM, I would be slightly disgruntled (since I thin k that it is fine the way it is), but not climbing up the walls. And that, again, is a personal view. If one were arguing Metamagic Song being the way it is somehow suggests that DMM should THEREFORE follow suit, then Metamagic Song would be a "bad example". But that is not what I said. Apologies again for the ambiguity. I think it's just that you can't ignore Lyric Spell. Metamagic Song isn't as good as Lyric Spell, but given that you can have Lyric Spell, Metamagic Song, Extra Music, and the Sublime Cord PrC, I don't think that it's a valid comparison. It takes more work for a Bard to make a similar build to a cleric, but you eventually get lvl 9 spells (though 2 levels later, if memory serves), even though it is fewer spells per day, you can use the two feats with much more flexibility than DMM could hope to get to make the most of the character, with the same number of skill points per level (or close to it), IIRC the Sublime Cord's skill points per level. You also keep the songs of a 10th level bard, which are probably a bit better than many PrC'ing clerics turning, unless they are becoming a Radiant Servant or something similar.
Prochytes 02-10-06, 10:22 AM	I think it's just that you can't ignore Lyric Spell. I only ignored Lyric Spell in my original posts because that feat was not the one with the "no boosting effective spell level above those you can actually cast" mechanic I wished to illustrate, without addressing the question of whether the application of that mechanic to DMM was actually merited. Lyric Spell is most certainly relevant to the (very cogent) point you are making; it just was not relevant to mine.
redgamer 02-10-06, 11:23 AM	My Pious Templar of Ehlonna would love to get Ehlonna arror relic and as much as I like to think otherwise Pious Templars of Ehlonna are fairly common. I would imaging any mod that features a relic would have the god in the blurb. As such it would make sense for me to ensure I play with the character who follows the right god.
Objulen 02-10-06, 03:21 PM	I only ignored Lyric Spell in my original posts because that feat was not the one with the "no boosting effective spell level above those you can actually cast" mechanic I wished to illustrate, without addressing the question of whether the application of that mechanic to DMM was actually merited. Lyric Spell is most certainly relevant to the (very cogent) point you are making; it just was not relevant to mine. Given that may point is a counterpoint to yours, I'd say there's a little relevence. :)
Prochytes 02-10-06, 05:09 PM	Given that may point is a counterpoint to yours, I'd say there's a little relevence. :) Sorry, I am being dense even by my own standards tonight. 1. I referred to a mechanic I would accept (with annoyance) for rejigging DMM. I did not suggest either that such a rejigging was merited or that it was not. 2. I quoted Metamagic Song as an example of the said mechanic, where a Feat is limited to boosting a spell's effective level up to the normal highest level that that character can cast. 3. Lyric Spell does not use that mechanic. How, then, is Lyric Spell relevant to what I was saying (as opposed to the larger question of whether such a rejigging, by (probably false) analogy with the bardic feat, is merited) ? :confused: From my end, this is as if I had said, "I would be unhappy if there were a limit below your BAB to the number of points of to hit you can transfer to damage with Power Attack, like the cap of +5 there is for transferring points of to hit to AC with Combat Expertise, but I would put up with it", and then had someone say, "but how can you just ignore Elusive Target like that?" Lyric Spell does not use the mechanic I was trying to get across, so I did not mention it. As I said, I am sure that I am just being very stupid here, but I really would appreciate the illumination (if only for my own peace of mind). Unless by "counterpoint" you mean not "refutation" but, in musical vein "something interesting that works on similar lines at the same time", in which case there is no argument here (and your deft musical metaphor, given that we are talking about bards, is then rather stylish :) ).
Objulen 02-10-06, 06:43 PM	Sorry, I am being dense even by my own standards tonight. 1. I referred to a mechanic I would accept (with annoyance) for rejigging DMM. I did not suggest either that such a rejigging was merited or that it was not. 2. I quoted Metamagic Song as an example of the said mechanic, where a Feat is limited to boosting a spell's effective level up to the normal highest level that that character can cast. 3. Lyric Spell does not use that mechanic. How, then, is Lyric Spell relevant to what I was saying (as opposed to the larger question of whether such a rejigging, by (probably false) analogy with the bardic feat, is merited) ? :confused: I see. I was refercing Lyric Spell from the context of total class balance, which makes it relevent, at least in the overall picture of class comparison -- removing features means that you have to re-evaluate the class compared to others. If you are using Metamagic Song as only an example of how you would be happy with a revision, then it doesn't have much to do with what you were saying. It does have something to do with the general argument, and those who might use it as ammunition against DMM (I am of the opinion that the problem is the itemization, not the feat itself). As stated above, given the rather narrow applications of DMM, which can only be used on a single metamagic feat per copy, and requires an entire build to use correctly without broken itemization, as opposed to Lyric Spell, which does not offer any restriction against metamagic feats, can be used to cast any spell without using up spell slots, and enhanced with a feat in all ways similar (in the comparison to DMM) with Extra Turning, I don't see why we would need to change DMM in the first place. The only thing that makes DMM better than Lyric Song for a Sublime Cord (both of which are Core, allowing a Bard full, if delayed compared to other caster classes, spell progression) is that clerics recieve higher level spells sooner, and that turning is less useful for any PrC that doesn't enhance it, since buffs from songs can be useful if there is nothing else better for its catagory, while turning that never effects anything is not useful, so there's less reason to keep turning attempts in reserve. Bards also increase their number of uses of Bardic music per level. In conclusion, consider: is a Sublime Cord with Lyric Song, Metamagic Song, and extra music going to have it worse, better, or an equal advantage compared to a Cleric with DMM?
Prochytes 02-11-06, 09:11 AM	I see. I was refercing Lyric Spell from the context of total class balance, which makes it relevent, at least in the overall picture of class comparison -- removing features means that you have to re-evaluate the class compared to others. That is what I thought you meant. Lyric Spell is certainly relevant to the "overall picture of class comparison". If you are using Metamagic Song as only an example of how you would be happy with a revision, then it doesn't have much to do with what you were saying. Here is the misunderstanding, I think. I mentioned a particular way of tweaking with DMM (not one I actually support), and tried to give an example of the way that tweak would work by reference to a Feat which already worked in an analogous way, thus: "Tweaked" DMM: allows you to burn turn attempts to boost a spell's effective level, but NOT BEYOND THE LEVEL OF SPELL YOU CAN USUALLY CAST. Metamagic Song: allows you to burn bardic music attempts to boost a spell's effective level, but NOT BEYOND THE LEVEL OF SPELL YOU CAN USUALLY CAST. Thus, the "tweaked" DMM would WORK like Metamagic Song, using turn attempts instead of bardic music uses (and of course a raft of other differences, such as the sort of spell you can use it with, limitations on the number of Divine Feats you can use a round, and so on). And I reiterate that I do not myself think this "tweaking" necessary. That is why I quoted Metamagic Song, and I think that it was indeed relevant as an illustration of how the "spell cap" principle works. It does have something to do with the general argument, and those who might use it as ammunition against DMM (I am of the opinion that the problem is the itemization, not the feat itself). Amen to that. I agree with your argument in all points. I was just stressing that my own original point was much more limited (and, frankly, much less interesting).
Objulen 02-11-06, 08:38 PM	That is why I quoted Metamagic Song, and I think that it was indeed relevant as an illustration of how the "spell cap" principle works. Ok, I understand now. The complexity of the point I'm trying to make is getting in the way of my comprehension. :( It's hard to just stand back and not take in all the implications of an argument sometimes. :) But, speaking of the implications of the comparison of Metamagic Song to DMM, given that it would seem (I don't have RS, so I can't say for certain, just on the prerequisites listed above) that Metamagic Song applies to all metamagic feats a bard has, while DMM only applies to a single metamagic feat. If that's true, then DMM has two limitations that Metamagic Song does not -- it must be used with only one metamagic feat per copy, and while clerics have a static base for turn attempts (3 + CHA), a bard has a number of music uses per day equal to her/his level (A Sublime Cord would have 3/4's her/his class level, since that's the most relevent PrC for Metamagic Song, gaining the base music uses from bard 10, the minimum to enter the PrC, as well as 1/2 the PrC's levels, rounded down).
Azerin 02-15-06, 09:06 PM	anyone who fights divine metamagic with all the big access items (ie nightsticks) fails to see its hugest failure... by the time you can afford to be that uber, you are out of the campaign. This is definately a discussion for high level campaign, which isn't out yet.
Objulen 02-16-06, 01:07 PM	anyone who fights divine metamagic with all the big access items (ie nightsticks) fails to see its hugest failure... by the time you can afford to be that uber, you are out of the campaign. This is definately a discussion for high level campaign, which isn't out yet. Nightsticks have a base cost of 7500 gp. If you can craft them, that becomes 4750 gp and 300 xp. If LG follows the DMG for average gold at a specific level, a level 8 cleric has 27,000 gold. A level 12 one has 88,000 gold. As we can see, it's not difficult to afford multiple nightsticks as one goes up in level, especially for crafters, who not only pay less, but also adventure more (thus gaining more gold) due to lost xp. A lvl 10+ crafter with access to Nightsticks can probably average at least 1 per level (1 TU per nightstick), which adds up very fast, causing an exponential increase in the character's ability to use DMM, as opposed what would be possible with standard progression and feats, and you only have to replace on nightstick to make up for an Extra Turning. CHA 16, (5 base), Glory domain (another Extra Turning) Extra Turning and Quicken at level 1, DMM:Q at lvl 3, Extra Turning lvl 6, Craft Rod lvl 9, Extra Turning lvl 12. That's 4 uses of DMM:Q at lvl 12. If we start making nightsticks at lvl 10 at one per level, that gives us 3 Extra Turnings, for a total of 5 base + 4 Extra Turnings + 3 Nightsticks, for a total of 33 Turning attempts, or 6 uses of DMM:Q per day. Without Nightsticks, you only have 21, or 4 attempts. It only gets worse as the character levels. At lvl 15, the character will have another Extra Turning and 3 more Nightsticks (probably more, but we're being conservative with this -- at 4750 gp and 1 TU, a character would probably churn out 2 at level 14 and 15). Not counting CHA boosting equipment, that means we are upto 5 base + 5 Extra Turnings + 6 Nightsticks, for a total of 49 Turning attempts or 9 (almost 10! +2 to CHA from an item and it is 10) uses of DMM:Q per day, as opposed to the character without a Nighstick, who gets 25, or 5 uses of DMM:Q per day -- half of the character without Nightsticks with a +2 CHA item! If the character makes 2 at lvls 12 - 15, we have a total of 56 turning attempts with a +2 CHA item, which translates into 11 DMM:Q's. That's 2 entire spell levels worth of spells. Into high-level play, it will only get worse. A level 20 character with the same progression has 5 base + 6 Extra Turnings + 11 Nightsticks (at this point, however, the character can easily make 3 per level without issue). That translates into 73 turn attempts, or 14 DMM:Q's per day. Without Charisma items (a +4 CHA item gives 75 turning attempts, for a total of 15 DMM:Q's). Without Nightsticks, we have only 29 turn attempts, or 31 with a +4 CHA item, which gives us 6 DMM:Q's. If the character made 3 at lvls 17 - 20, we have an extra 8 Nighsticks, for 107 turn attempts, or 21 DMM:Q's. At that point, the character can DMM:Q every single spell above lvl 5 that he/she has. So yes, while the potential for it to get really out of hand is in high-level play, it is very abusable at lower levels.
ezreal2001 02-16-06, 04:47 PM	Nightsticks have a base cost of 7500 gp. If you can craft them, that becomes 4750 gp and 300 xp. Into high-level play, it will only get worse. A level 20 character with the same progression has 5 base + 6 Extra Turnings + 11 Nightsticks (at this point, however, the character can easily make 3 per level without issue). That translates into 73 turn attempts, or 14 DMM:Q's per day. Without Charisma items (a +4 CHA item gives 75 turning attempts, for a total of 15 DMM:Q's). Without Nightsticks, we have only 29 turn attempts, or 31 with a +4 CHA item, which gives us 6 DMM:Q's. If the character made 3 at lvls 17 - 20, we have an extra 8 Nighsticks, for 107 turn attempts, or 21 DMM:Q's. At that point, the character can DMM:Q every single spell above lvl 5 that he/she has. So yes, while the potential for it to get really out of hand is in high-level play, it is very abusable at lower levels. Definte case for, if not an out right ban on Night sticks, a campaign rule that a PC can only gain at most 4 turns a day regardless of how many night sticks they own - which is how I intend on handling them untill I see an explicit erata to the contary.
CaiasWard 02-17-06, 01:32 PM	Definte case for, if not an out right ban on Night sticks, a campaign rule that a PC can only gain at most 4 turns a day regardless of how many night sticks they own - which is how I intend on handling them untill I see an explicit erata to the contary. 1) Will you be doing the same thing with Metamagic Rods? If my cleric has two lesser extend rods, can I only use one in the day? 2) You are making a pretty arbitrary ruling that doesn't actually take the description of Nightsticks into account and is actually not supported by the base requirements of the item in question (Extra Turning) 3) could you list your RPGA number and name, so that people will know to play at or avoid your table if they so choose? I know that your interpretation of the item in question is pretty out there based on a critical reading of the item description. Thanks Caias Ward 841542
JohnduBois 02-17-06, 02:04 PM	Here is how I would like to answer this question: 1. Metamagic rods have a slightly different wording than nightsticks. where the rods say, "you may use this feat three times a day when you are holding the rod", the nightstick says, "you have four additional turning attempts." The language is slightly, but significantly, different. 2. To resolve the issue regarding the "four additional turning attempts" language, I use the FAQ question regarding Charisma changes and turning. The cleric ability seems to compare "attempts per day" vs "attempts used", and return with a result of "attempts left". Example: Cleric has 10 base turning attempts per day (3 + CHA 16 + 4 for Extra Turning). He gets a nightstick. "Attempts per day" = 14. Let's say he blows a lot of turning attempts with DMM and DSP, and uses 13. He puts the nightstick away, and wants to turn again. He has used 13 turn attempts out of his 10 per day, so he can't. He then draws another nightstick. How many turn attempts does he have left for the day? Not 5, as though a nightstick was a charged item. 1. 3 (base) + 3 (Cha bonus) + 4 (Extra Turning) + 4 (nightstick) - 13 (used attempts). This number will not go up unless you rule that two nightsticks can be wielded at the same time, in which case the greatest number possible is 18. Unfortunately, all of the above is based on one assumption - metamagic rods must be held in hand to be used. Sadly, the text of nightsticks seems to deny this. I think this is clarified somewhere, but I don't know where. Does such a ruling exist?
CaiasWard 02-17-06, 03:14 PM	Here is how I would like to answer this question: 1. Metamagic rods have a slightly different wording than nightsticks. where the rods say, "you may use this feat three times a day when you are holding the rod", the nightstick says, "you have four additional turning attempts." The language is slightly, but significantly, different. 2. To resolve the issue regarding the "four additional turning attempts" language, I use the FAQ question regarding Charisma changes and turning. The cleric ability seems to compare "attempts per day" vs "attempts used", and return with a result of "attempts left". Example: Cleric has 10 base turning attempts per day (3 + CHA 16 + 4 for Extra Turning). He gets a nightstick. "Attempts per day" = 14. Let's say he blows a lot of turning attempts with DMM and DSP, and uses 13. He puts the nightstick away, and wants to turn again. He has used 13 turn attempts out of his 10 per day, so he can't. He then draws another nightstick. How many turn attempts does he have left for the day? Not 5, as though a nightstick was a charged item. 1. 3 (base) + 3 (Cha bonus) + 4 (Extra Turning) + 4 (nightstick) - 13 (used attempts). This number will not go up unless you rule that two nightsticks can be wielded at the same time, in which case the greatest number possible is 18. Unfortunately, all of the above is based on one assumption - metamagic rods must be held in hand to be used. Sadly, the text of nightsticks seems to deny this. I think this is clarified somewhere, but I don't know where. Does such a ruling exist? This is an inappropriate comparison, since the change in Charisma is shift in an Enhancement Bonus. The extra turning from the nightstick isn't even labeled as a bonus, let alone a named bonus. They are divergent enough concepts that the the ruling on a stat affecting a calculated value can't really be considered in the argument. If the Nightstick stated "gain +8 enhancement bonus to charisma for purposes of turning", this FAQ ruling would apply. As written, Nightsticks should be considered an item with 4 charges useable a day, just as a metamagic rod has three charges a day and a pearl of power is an item with one charge a day. You wouldn't deny someone the use of multiple Pearls in the same day, or the use of multiple metamagic rods in the same day. What rule reason can really support denying the use of more than one Nightstick? Caias Ward 841542
Objulen 02-17-06, 05:41 PM	1) Will you be doing the same thing with Metamagic Rods? If my cleric has two lesser extend rods, can I only use one in the day? Given that lesser wands only apply to level 1 - 3 spells, and that a lesser metamagic wand costs of quicken costs 35,000 gp, there's no comparison. Using DMM:Q takes 5 turn attempts per use, and a Nightstick provides four for 7500 gp. A Greater Rod of Metamagic, Quicken, costs 170,000 gp. For the cost of two feats, I can pay 9375 gp (base cost * 1.25) to get an item that is better than one that costs 170,000 gp. It's worse if I take one extra feat to gain craft rod. Then, I'm spending 4687.5 gp and 375 xp for an item that would cost 85,000 gp and 6800 xp to craft. Additionally, nighsticks take no special action to stack -- by the wording mentioned above, they do automatically. Compare this to metamagic rods, which take at least move action to put away and pull out a new one (if you have quick draw). 2) You are making a pretty arbitrary ruling that doesn't actually take the description of Nightsticks into account and is actually not supported by the base requirements of the item in question (Extra Turning) What's to take into account? No rule states that nighsticks don't stack. That's the issue. They're cheap for what you can do with them and they stack.
Paul H 02-17-06, 06:42 PM	Hi Might sound stupid, but what's a Nightstick? Seen specific rulings about uses of Turning when Cha bonuses temp increased - but this might be different if an item grants extra turning attempts. Would have to see specific rules in item description to pass judgement, otherwise would have to consider charged item like my 2 Pearls of Power. Regardless - remember players have to bring all relevant documentation to table for non-PHB/DMG items, complete with their 'access' to items. Without this their just expensive ornaments for social discussion. ;) Cheers Paul H
JohnduBois 02-17-06, 06:55 PM	1. Pearls of Power have a completely different wording, allowing for each pearl to confer the one/day recall. 2. AS WRITTEN, there is nothing preventing nightsticks from stacking, as you can keep them all in a bag and gain all their powers at once. 3. If the book is ever errata's (as I feel it should be) to state that nightsticks must be wielded to confer their power, I think they would behave the same as metamagic rods. If there is a ruling that switching to a new metamagic rod grants the wielder an extra three uses of the rod, I'll accept the same concept for nightsticks. As it is, I don't think swapping out metamagic rods would allow more uses of them either... 4. Metamagic rods and nightsticks are NOT charged items. The DMG and other books are quite explicit about which rods are charged. Rods lacking this description should be assumed to have no charge.
ezreal2001 02-18-06, 03:13 AM	3) could you list your RPGA number and name, so that people will know to play at or avoid your table if they so choose? I know that your interpretation of the item in question is pretty out there based on a critical reading of the item description. Thanks Caias Ward 841542 John Brinsmead 451107 - killing munchkins since 2000 AD
Objulen 02-18-06, 08:30 PM	Hi Might sound stupid, but what's a Nightstick? Seen specific rulings about uses of Turning when Cha bonuses temp increased - but this might be different if an item grants extra turning attempts. Nightsticks grant you four extra turning attempts per day as long as they are on your person. Would have to see specific rules in item description to pass judgement, otherwise would have to consider charged item like my 2 Pearls of Power. "Anyone who possesses the rod and is able to turn or rebuke undead gains four more uses of the ability per day." Regardless - remember players have to bring all relevant documentation to table for non-PHB/DMG items, complete with their 'access' to items. Without this their just expensive ornaments for social discussion. ;) Cheers Paul H True, but then again, my local Books-A-Million is well stocked with Libris Mortis, and a player would be somewhat negligent to leave AR's at home.