Post/Author/DateTime	Post
natural_selection 05-10-07, 01:57 PM	Sorry, I meant "heroics".
TheCobra 05-10-07, 02:00 PM	You mean heroics, right? I think it could be, yes, even though that seems pretty cheesy.
Tempest Stormwind 05-10-07, 02:01 PM	No. Stacking rules say that if the same effect that hits you multiple times in different outcomes, only the most recent one applies. This is also what prevents you from using something like Animal Affinity to boost all six ability scores. I can't access the SRD to provide you with an exact quote.
TheCobra 05-10-07, 02:10 PM	Stacking rules say that if the same effect that hits you multiple times in different outcomes, only the most recent one applies. Ah, so you are one of the people who believes you can't use resist energy to gain resistance to multiple types of energy? Yes, if you play that way, then heroics can only give you one feat. I strongly disagree with that interpretation, so I'll probably have to allow multiple heroics granting multiple feats. I assume this bit from the SRD is your argument: Same Effect with Differing Results The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts. There's no way I can accept that fire resistance makes acid resistance irrelevant or that Cleave makes Power Attack irrelevant.
tarkin 05-10-07, 02:35 PM	I agree with the Cobra. You can have Resist Fire and Resist Acid up at the same time. Similarly, you can use multiple castings of Heroics to get multiple feats. Furthermore, I do not see any real abuse from this. It looks safe to me.
Drachasor 05-10-07, 02:41 PM	I also agree with Tarkin and theCobra. It seems like this is a pretty clear example of "same effect, differing results". There'd be a better case for it not stacking if Heroics granted the target the ability to choose one fighter feat they qualified for. If that was the case, then I don't think it would stack (e.g. each casting provides the same benefit, choice of a feat). As written though, it looks like the caster chooses a feat, and the target must be qualified to have it. I don't see any real abuse issues here. Even for a Gish it is really nice, but not overpowering. If feats were more powerful, then there'd be a problem. -Drachasor
TheCobra 05-10-07, 03:33 PM	It is a little insulting, though. The wizard can now easily duplicate the fighter's main class feature, which is a bunch of fighter feats.
CryoSilver 05-10-07, 03:35 PM	By wasting multiple rounds casting the same spell over and over again?
TheCobra 05-10-07, 03:41 PM	It lasts 10 minutes per level. That could be the entire dungeon crawl.
natural_selection 05-10-07, 03:56 PM	Some of you would henceforth say that with heroics a sorcerer could recast a whole fighter feat tree as long as he meats the prerequisites. Example: A sorcerer could cast heroics in order to get cleave. But beforehand, he needs to cast heroics to get power attack in order to fulfill the prerequisites of cleave. And, in the case the mage has not a strength score of 13 he primarily needs to cast bulls strenght. If that would be possible a mage realy could copy a fighter at level 3 or 4 and even get more fighter feats than the fighter himself at this level.
CantripN 05-10-07, 03:59 PM	Not only do I think it's not legal to use it thus, but I'd never allow it, balance wise. One feat is the most you can get from Heroics, no matter how many times you cast it.
Drachasor 05-10-07, 04:03 PM	Some of you would henceforth say that with heroics a sorcerer could recast a whole fighter feat tree as long as he meats the prerequisites. Example: A sorcerer could cast heroics in order to get cleave. But beforehand, he needs to cast heroics to get power attack in order to fulfill the prerequisites of cleave. And, in the case the mage has not a strength score of 13 he primarily needs to cast bulls strenght. If that would be possible a mage realy could copy a fighter at level 3 or 4 and even get more fighter feats than the fighter himself at this level. Except the mage wouldn't have the BAB, ability scores, hit points, and other non-feat characteristics of the fighter. Also, no armor or weapon proficiencies for the mage either. So he's still strictly inferior at melee. -Drachasor
Drachasor 05-10-07, 04:04 PM	Not only do I think it's not legal to use it thus, but I'd never allow it, balance wise. One feat is the most you can get from Heroics, no matter how many times you cast it. What's the balance problem?
natural_selection 05-10-07, 04:11 PM	Except the mage wouldn't have the BAB, ability scores, hit points, and other non-feat characteristics of the fighter. Also, no armor or weapon proficiencies for the mage either. So he's still strictly inferior at melee. -Drachasor The answer is Battle Sorcerer followed by Abjurant Champion and Eldritch Knight.
CantripN 05-10-07, 04:13 PM	What's the balance problem? Gishes.
TheCobra 05-10-07, 04:22 PM	Gishes are already better than fighters. This just makes it worse. I can't think of a feat that gives +6 or +8 natural armor, as alter self does.
CantripN 05-10-07, 04:27 PM	Gishes are already better than fighters. This just makes it worse. I can't think of a feat that gives +6 or +8 natural armor, as alter self does. Which is part of the reason I ban that spell.
jaelis 05-10-07, 04:49 PM	Not only do I think it's not legal to use it thus, but I'd never allow it, balance wise. One feat is the most you can get from Heroics, no matter how many times you cast it. You've explained why you think it is imbalanced. Why do you think it is not legal?
MerlintheTuna 05-10-07, 05:00 PM	I also agree with Tarkin and theCobra. It seems like this is a pretty clear example of "same effect, differing results".Did you read the clip from the SRD that was posted? It explicitly says that "same effect, different results" means they don't work together. Cobra just pointed out that he doesn't like to accept that. By the books, that's still how it works.Except the mage wouldn't have the BAB, ability scores, hit points, and other non-feat characteristics of the fighter. Also, no armor or weapon proficiencies for the mage either. So he's still strictly inferior at melee.Which is why, with your long-duration buffs up, you can now safely go into Tenser's Transformation. Or, alternatively, Polymorph. Or both, I suppose.
CantripN 05-10-07, 05:04 PM	You've explained why you think it is imbalanced. Why do you think it is not legal? Same reason Tempest does, actually. The effect is getting a feat - "same effect, differing results". It's not that one spell says: Get Dodge. And the other says: Get Combat Reflexes. They both say: Get a Fighter Bonus Feat. You can replace it with another by recasting the spell, but you can't get several feats. I do allow Resist Energy to be cast multiple times, so as to protect from several energy types... Come to think of it, I've only had players do that once when facing a Green and a Red Dragon at once. I'm not sure there is a distinction, actually... I need to think of this one some more. I'm not going to allow a Fighter with a Sorcerer cohort get Exotic Weapon Prof., Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialisation, Melee Weapon Mastery and some more from just several 2nd level spells. One is plenty.
tarkin 05-10-07, 05:08 PM	Did you read the clip from the SRD that was posted? It explicitly says that "same effect, different results" means they don't work together. Cobra just pointed out that he doesn't like to accept that. By the books, that's still how it works.Which is why, with your long-duration buffs up, you can now safely go into Tenser's Transformation. Or, alternatively, Polymorph. Or both, I suppose. No, that is NOT what Cobra said. Cobra and I both stated that we believe you are misinterprating the SRD. We both claim that by the book, same effect, different result means to things like casting Mirror Image twice. We take "Same Effect" to mean IDENTICAL effect, with the only differences being things like duration, or other random variables (such as the number of mirror Images. Both Cobra and I claim that casing Heroics to get a different feat counts as "DIFFERENT EFFECT, DIFFERENT RESULT, SAME SOURCE". There is nothing in the SRD that says Different Effect, Same Source does not stack. --------------- The basic question is, is a 2nd level spell, with a duration less than one hour, worth any single one of the fighter feats. To me, the answer is yes. A 2nd level spell can make you INVISIBLE, that is better than any of the feats. You pretty much have to be stupid to waste a 2nd level spell to get a single feat for only 10 minutes For the Gish to duplicate the Fighter only, he would be need a ton of Preparation time, the ability to start the fight when he wants to, and be willing to burn most of his spells on a single battle. That idea looks like a poor one to base your character build on. It is not overpowered, it is weak.
Drachasor 05-10-07, 05:41 PM	Gishes. You're going to have to do better than that. What does this actually DO for a Gish? I play a Gish, and I don't see myself using this very often. It is a situational spell. If you are fighting a bunch a weak guys, then you might grab cleave (and great cleave). Usually it isn't worth two spells for that, but in the right circumstance it is. If I need more defense, maybe I'd grab Combat Expertise, but again, usually it isn't worth it (since I have other means of defending myself that are more effective). As a gish, you can't get the good fighter feats, because those require fighter levels. So just what feats are we worried about? What feat is going to make the Gish increase much in power? It helps flexibility some, but overall it doesn't change much. IMHO. I can think of half a dozen other 2nd level spells I'd sooner use, and a bunch of other 2nd level spells that are just as good. Heroics doesn't stink, but I don't see how it is all that great. Handy now and then, that's all. Honestly, it sounds cooler than it works in practice. -Drachasor
Drachasor 05-10-07, 05:49 PM	Did you read the clip from the SRD that was posted? It explicitly says that "same effect, different results" means they don't work together. Cobra just pointed out that he doesn't like to accept that. By the books, that's still how it works. Tarkin has the rights of it, I mispoke. The effect isn't the same, just the source is the same. I pointed out an example where the effect would be the same. Also, the "same effect, differing results" line says "usually" and then speaks of how later effects make the previous ones irrelevant. I don't see how that's the case with Heroism. There are other spells that work like this, such as Mirror Image. Energy Resistance is a better example of this. If you have two energy resistances up to the same energy, only the best one actually does anything. The other one is still there, but its effects are irrelevant. Heroics clearly doesn't work like that. So you can either say it is an exception from the "usually" (and a rather obvious one), or that it is a different effect (e.g. different feat granted). Probably the latter is the easier way to go. Which is why, with your long-duration buffs up, you can now safely go into Tenser's Transformation. Or, alternatively, Polymorph. Or both, I suppose. Ok, first look back at what I responded to. That involve a comparison to a level 3 or 4 fighter. So you don't have ANY of those spells. Now again, I can see how the bonus feats can be useful, but I just don't see how it is overpowered. Maybe you can actually give an example of this and how it makes a Gish so much stronger. Personally, I don't see it. What feats are going to superpower a Gish using Polymorph or Tenser's Transformation? Note that any such Gish will take Power Attack as a feat (that's useful so much, and depending on constant casting for it probably isn't a good idea). Beyond Power Attack, is there a really anything that's all that great? Improved Trip and Grapple might sound nice, but you already brought up the fact the Gish could cast Polymorph that is so much better than those feats (and makes them unnecessary, to boot). So do you have a concrete example of a problem, or is this just a general worry of yours? -Drachasor
CantripN 05-10-07, 05:51 PM	I'm okay with the spell. It's quite alright. I just don't approve of using it 10 times to get Dodge, Mobility, Expertise, Spring Attack, Whirlwind Attack, Power Attack, Rapid Blitz and Bounding Assault, Improved Initiative and Quick Reconnoitre. I'm not sure those are all Fighter Bonus Feats, but you get the point.
Drachasor 05-10-07, 05:59 PM	I'm okay with the spell. It's quite alright. I just don't approve of using it 10 times to get Dodge, Mobility, Expertise, Spring Attack, Whirlwind Attack, Power Attack, Rapid Blitz and Bounding Assault, Improved Initiative and Quick Reconnoitre. I'm not sure those are all Fighter Bonus Feats, but you get the point. Using it that much means you either have a wand of it, or are also using higher level spell slots. Also, even with all those feats, I just don't see what the big deal is. Largely you've spent a whole bunch of spells to make you a bit more effective for the first round of combat. You'll still want to stay in place a lot of the time to get full attacks (which are better than the spring attack tree). There might be the rare Gish that wants to dash about, but most Gish can defend themselves very well so it isn't an issue. Also, your example is pretty much a 20th level Gish, given some of those feats, at which point there are a lot of more powerful options, and fighter feats don't generally help those much. Honestly, I think I'd rather use my 2nd level slots on wraith strike (even nerfed) or arcane strike (or similar ability). -Drachasor
MerlintheTuna 05-10-07, 06:02 PM	There is nothing in the SRD that says Different Effect, Same Source does not stack.Let's actually look at that clip from the SRD.The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once.The spell Heroics, if applied to the same recipient more than once, can indeed produce varying effects. It can grant the character Combat Reflexes, Weapon Focus, Improved Critical, Power Attack... whatever. We see the same spell producing different, varying effects on the same recipient. Ergo the section applies to Heroics.Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.Since the conditional clause affects Heroics, we now check the implications. The last spell trumps the others, usually, so we observe only the most recent casting. Previous castings become irrelevant while the most recent one is up, so one could dismiss the most recent Heroics only to have another contingency plan beneath (perhaps losing Cleave but gaining Combat Reflexes). This holds up exactly with precedent -- that of magic items. You can certainly wear 8 magical rings, but only 2 are usable at any given time. Similarly, you can have any number of Heroics or Resist Energies up at one time, but only the most recent one will actually matter.You pretty much have to be stupid to waste a 2nd level spell to get a single feat for only 10 minutes10 minutes PER LEVEL. By the time you can even cast it, you've got it for half an hour, which is likely to be most of a dungeon or series of encounters. By the time you can burn through second level slots with reckless abandon, it's good for well over an hour. And if you're worried even then, it's a great target for the ubiquitous Lesser Rod of Extend.For the Gish to duplicate the Fighter only, he would be need a ton of Preparation time, the ability to start the fight when he wants to, and be willing to burn most of his spells on a single battle.Take a Paladin/Sorcerer gish at 8th level -- that's Paladin 2/Sorcerer 6. Fairly standard, and as of yet without any synergizing classes like Spellsword or EK. That's 5 second level spells, plus 1 from high charisma. An 8th level Fighter has 5 bonus feats. In 5 rounds -- half a minute, mind you -- the gish has that, and it lasts not for 6 minutes, but 60. Adventurers tending towards being seekers rather than hiders, he should be able to narrow his window down enough to benefit from that for many, many battles. Invisibility (which he could still cast once), will help him for a single attack. There's no way for me to say this except that you are completely and utterly wrong.
archcomponent 05-10-07, 06:25 PM	Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.Since the conditional clause affects Heroics, we now check the implications. The last spell trumps the others, usually, so we observe only the most recent casting. People seem to be acting a bit thick on this one, I agree. But there it is, in black and white. The SRD says that usually the last spell trumps the others, that their effects are irrelevent with the final spell lasts. That clearly means that previous castings cease to have any impact while that last spell is in effect. I mean, how else could you possibly interpret that?
Fwib 05-10-07, 07:18 PM	The problem is that the example spell is polymorph - and I suspect that it would be generally agreed that you can usually only have one shape at once. If the example had been resist energy, then it would be a lot clearer. I suggest asking your DM if this rule applies to such things as casting deafness on yourself to cure your blindness....
redraven 05-10-07, 07:42 PM	I mean, how else could you possibly interpret that? Well: "Varying effects" means varying numerical effects, such as Mirror Image creating 1d4 + X number of images. "Usually" means "there are exceptions," of which Heroics can apply. Stacking elemental resistances also comes to mind. "Previous spell effects become irrelevant" does not seem applicable unless one assumes the sort of bizarre scenarios which Fwib brings up in casting Blindness/Deafness to switch one's blindness to deafness instead, or vice versa. I do not see the balance issue, and the legal issue is far from "uninterpretable." Even if one assumes Wand use, that is still costing X amount of gold each time it is cast, in addition to it being at a lower level. Invisibility (which he could still cast once), will help him for a single attack. Or an infinite number of Hide/opposing Spot checks.
archcomponent 05-10-07, 08:25 PM	I do not see the balance issue, and the legal issue is far from "uninterpretable." It really sounds like you are grasping at straws here. I honestly do not see what part of "None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts" is open to an interpretation that allows you to keep the benefits from layers of the same spell. I do not see the balance issue, and the legal issue is far from "uninterpretable." Even if one assumes Wand use, that is still costing X amount of gold each time it is cast, in addition to it being at a lower level. Are you kidding? Just picture a 20th level wizard giving his cleric buddy extended heroics to the point where all his fights are done with even more feats than the fighter has! This is not just about the immense amount of raw power repeated casting grants (giving higher and higher level feats further down chains), but about how this directly goes to absorb the role of the fighter on his own terms. It would be bad enough if it were just the power of the feats, but in short order this literally and directly allows spellcasters to steal the only unique feature of the fighter and make his abilities a subset of their own!
catharz 05-10-07, 09:05 PM	ir·rel·e·vant (ĭ-rĕl'ə-vənt) pronunciation adj. Unrelated to the matter being considered. irrelevantly ir·rel'e·vant·ly adv. SYNONYMS irrelevant, extraneous, immaterial, impertinent. These adjectives mean not pertinent to the subject under consideration: an irrelevant comment; a question extraneous to the discussion; an objection that is immaterial; mentioned several impertinent facts. ANTONYM relevant A second casting of a spell usually renders the first casting irrelevant because the second casting usually duplicates the effects of the first. If the second casting does not duplicate the effects of the first, the first casting is irrelevant because the two castings don't interact. The first casting doesn't do anything to the second casting, and the second casting does nothing to the first. Any exceptions are explicitly spelled out.
TheCobra 05-10-07, 09:40 PM	I don't think casting the spell repeatedly is stupid broken or anything, but I think it's pretty good, mainly because it lasts ten minutes per level. It can get you some neat abilities. Once you have +12 BAB, two castings of heroics gets you Robilar's Gambit. That's awesome. If that's not what you need at the time, get something else. The diversity of options is staggering. The SRD says that usually the last spell trumps the others, that their effects are irrelevent with the final spell lasts. That clearly means that previous castings cease to have any impact while that last spell is in effect. I mean, how else could you possibly interpret that? Because, in the case of resist energy or heroics, the effect is clearly not irrelevant. Also, the heading says, "Same Effect with Differing Results." Fire resistance isn't the same effect as acid resistance. Look, there have been long arguments about this in the past. Some people play it one way, some the other. I think the RAW is fuzzy on the point. I can understand either interpretation. However, I think your interpretation leads to too much silliness. Under that reading, resist energy effectively dispels itself, as does blindness/deafness and bestow curse. "Oh, the fighter with a -4 penalty on just about everything? Quick, curse him again so he just takes a -6 penalty to CHA. He's dull already, at little more won't hurt him." And that's even if the DM doesn't allow custom curses.
Drachasor 05-10-07, 09:45 PM	Are you kidding? Just picture a 20th level wizard giving his cleric buddy extended heroics to the point where all his fights are done with even more feats than the fighter has! This is not just about the immense amount of raw power repeated casting grants (giving higher and higher level feats further down chains), but about how this directly goes to absorb the role of the fighter on his own terms. Ooooh, two 20 level casters can outdo a 20th level fighter...that's so unexpected. -Drachasor
Judging Eagle 05-10-07, 11:28 PM	Ooooh, two 20 level casters can outdo a 20th level fighter...that's so unexpected. -Drachasor Seeing as straight PHB Rangers and/or Rogues have a more than average chance of beating PHB fighters; I'd say it's completely unpossible for two full spell casters working as a team to possibly defeat a single non-spell casting, low-skill point, poor skill-access character. A 20th lvl RoW fighter on the other hand, could give both those casters a run for their money. Mostly b/c they'd have trouble getting the drop on him and he'd be able to delay/stifle their actions in a reasonable manner. Of course, building a lvl 20 RoW fighter isn't pretty, I'd seriously use the RoW barbarian since "I hit it with an axe" is funneh. Of course, the RoW fighter is going to be a lot more interesting, since you can give it combat feat options that you want.
MerlintheTuna 05-10-07, 11:42 PM	Because, in the case of resist energy or heroics, the effect is clearly not irrelevant. Also, the heading says, "Same Effect with Differing Results." Fire resistance isn't the same effect as acid resistance. You're parsing it wrong. The result is fire or acid resistance. The effect itself is Resist Energy. And the rule specifically says that the second casting makes the first casting irrelevant, not that a creature otherwise having both resistances somehow makes one pointless. It specifically says "None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts." They become irrelevant. As in, as long as the second spell is up, we completely ignore the first, just as if we were wearing a Ring of Minor Fire Resistance, Ring of Minor Acid Resistance, and Ring of Minor Cold Resistance. You could get any two, but not all three. Turning this around, what would you consider to be the "same effect with differing results?" Right now I think this is more of an issue of a poorly worded heading than anything else -- the text is pretty clear.
NoldorForce 05-10-07, 11:54 PM	"Usually" means "there are exceptions," of which Heroics can apply. Stacking elemental resistances also comes to mind.And this is why things are unclear - the text uses this imprecise word. I do not see any grave problem with casting Heroics multiple times - more potent stuff can be done with other spells. I suspect that (in line with some of the other posters above) this particular clause in the text is intended to deal with situations that could not function otherwise - two instances of polymorph, or other such stuff.
archcomponent 05-11-07, 12:10 AM	Seeing as straight PHB Rangers and/or Rogues have a more than average chance of beating PHB fighters; I'd say it's completely unpossible for two full spell casters working as a team to possibly defeat a single non-spell casting, low-skill point, poor skill-access character. That is just about the dumbest and least genuine argumentation tactic that I have ever heard. I talked about one character using an insignifigant fraction of his resources placed on another character where they would best make use. You saw a reference to two spellcasters working together and used a bit of genious slight-of-hand to swap in the idea of two spellcasters working against a fighter using whatever features they had at their disposal. Congrats. Using the same demented logic, how about we aggregate an entire party into the effectiveness of each class? Then we cannot possibly compare them and everyone wins! Good job, there. Unless, in your mind, anyone acting ever is anything less than a whole party working together. In which case, I have pity because apparently you have been playing D&D alone. In which case I cede this discussion out of pity.
Judging Eagle 05-11-07, 12:21 AM	No, I was being facetious. Unless, being facetious is a genuine argumentative tactic? I think that your obsession on demented things has weakend your grasp on the simpler things in life, like a good joke. In any case, I never stated anything about one class replacing any other or any other classes. Each class should have gameplay niches that only it can declare it's stomping grounds. Also, every class should be balanced against the monsters that they'll face at a level. When the lvl 11 fighter can't take on a Hezrou or a Stone Golem or a Hamatula, then things are wrong with the fighter. Why? b/c at lvl 11, the party could very well face 1 such CR 11 monster per party member. In fact, three times every two levels every adventurer could expect to face such a challenge.
Nezkrul 05-11-07, 02:30 AM	I'm not going to allow a Fighter with a Sorcerer cohort get Exotic Weapon Prof., Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialisation, Melee Weapon Mastery and some more from just several 2nd level spells. One is plenty. sounds like your real problem is the leadership feat, not this spell. might want to think about that too.
Dheran 05-11-07, 09:36 AM	And the rule specifically says that the second casting makes the first casting irrelevant, not that a creature otherwise having both resistances somehow makes one pointless. You're making this up. The second casting doesn't "make" the first irrelevant, and the word make isn't used in the rules for "Same Effect with Differing Results". The example is that of Polymorph applied multiple times. The reason the first casting becomes irrelevant for Polymorph is that a single creature can only have one form at a time. It specifically says "None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts." Yes, because of the one form at a time limitation. The fact that the previous castings become irrelevant for Polymorph doesn't constitute a restriction in the RAW that's applicable to all spells. Very pointedly, your interpretation would allow offensive uses of Resist Energy. Say someone has acid resistance 20 up and is wading across an acid stream. An enemy could cast Resist Energy to bestow cold resistance 30, thus wiping out their acid resistance. Ludicrous! The MerlintheTuna interpretation also makes the Saving Throw: Fortitude negates (harmless) Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless) part of the Energy Resistance description impossible, by forcibly negating the (harmless) specifications. Having your useful energy resistance wiped out by a useless later casting of the same spell certainly isn't irrelevant. Turning this around, what would you consider to be the "same effect with differing results?" Any spell where there can intrinsically be only a single outcome. Polymorph is the example given in the book. You can also add Misdirection, Sculpt Sound, Secret Page, and a bunch of other Illusion and Transmutation spells where the target is a single creature or object. Just as a creature can only have one form, a page in a book can only have one appearance. The last one wins.
tarkin 05-11-07, 11:33 AM	I am sorry Merlinthetuna, but you are losing it. Same effect is SAME effect. casting Mirror Image twice is the standard example of someone getting the Same effect. ------- I continue to state that Heroics is a not an overpowered spell, as compared to other 2nd level spells. If anything it is on the week side. Any multiple casting 'abuse' builds you guys think of is weak compared to using other 2nd level spells multiple times: Mirror Image Bull Strength Alter Self Protection From Arrows Resist Energy Blur Bear's Endurance Cat's Grace Invisibility Or can you really name 9 fighter feats, all of which are better than the above abilities? Heroics might have been abusive if they gave it a longer duration. With the weak duration, the spell is safe.
wonlee76 05-11-07, 11:38 AM	I'd like to point out that multiple castings of heroics has one critical weakness to it. A targeted Dispel Magic gets you multiple rolls to determine which spells are dispelled. More spells in effect, higher chance of something being dispelled. If you use Heroics to develop a feat chain, knocking one of the links out of the chain negates the upper tier feats since you essentially lost the pre-req to the feat. All in all, I don't think multiple castings of heroics is overpowered. Even with its decent duration, dispel magic is a common enough tactic that the whole heroics to gain awesome feat chains isn't all that great when the percentages are in favor of knocking out a few of those spells.
redraven 05-11-07, 01:28 PM	It really sounds like you are grasping at straws here. I honestly do not see what part of "None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts" is open to an interpretation that allows you to keep the benefits from layers of the same spell. Grasping at straws? What line of text in the first post I have made on this thread implies that I am "grasping at straws"? Not that it is particularlly relevant, since you are clearly the only one grasping at anything. The part of the "irrelevant" description that is open to interpretation is this part: Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others. Or perhaps you are claiming that the word "usually" cannot possibly be interpreted to mean there are exceptions to whatever follows it in a sentence? In that case, I would suggest that you usually are out of your mind. Are you kidding? Just picture a 20th level wizard giving his cleric buddy extended heroics to the point where all his fights are done with even more feats than the fighter has! This is not just about the immense amount of raw power repeated casting grants (giving higher and higher level feats further down chains), but about how this directly goes to absorb the role of the fighter on his own terms. It would be bad enough if it were just the power of the feats, but in short order this literally and directly allows spellcasters to steal the only unique feature of the fighter and make his abilities a subset of their own! What is your point? You do not seem to be arguing about balance but rather making general statements about the role of magic in D&D. The Fighter in a party is not the sum of his/her feats, the Fighter is a character archetype that performs a specific role, such as a Tank or whatever. If there is already a Fighter-Tank in the party and the wizard is expending all these resources per day to turn the Cleric into a Tank too, then that is a resource management and player management problem (unless they need another Tank or something), not something wrong with the system itself. I mean, what if the Wizard and Cleric were in a party without a Fighter? Your argument collapses. Balance is not keeping all the classes analogous. Balance is making sure Level 2 Spell A is not so far more powerful/versatile/whatever that no one would conceivably take Level 2 Spell B. Heroics is not that powerful, as all the uber Fighter feats require levels of Fighter to take, as has been pointed out before. Which is to say nothing about having that cleric have the ability or other prerequisites. As also has been pointed out, a huge feat tree with Heroics and ability buffs makes your Cleric just a huge paper tiger that a single Dispel Magic can bring crashing down. You're parsing it wrong. The result is fire or acid resistance. The effect itself is Resist Energy. Or perhaps you are parsing it wrong. Spells have effects, but are not effects in of themselves (unless they were the effect of other spells, or something equally convoluted). The effect of Resist Energy is Energy Resistance Fire X, Acid X, etc. The varying result is the amount of energy resistance (and duration), which is a function of the level of the wizard. To claim otherwise, again, is to say I can cure blindness by casting Blindness/Deafness and switching it to Deafness, changing curses around with Bestow Curse, and equally ridiculous scenarios which have already been described by other posters.
AllisterH 05-11-07, 01:49 PM	The duration is 10 minutes/level. Most adventuring parties determine when and where they fight so yes, Heroics is useless if the party is ambushed but other than that.... More importantly, it is a 2nd level spells, so really, for a 10th level mage, how many scrolls of this can you make and it wouldn;t be a drain on his resources. Still, this does step on the toes of the fighter but then again, wizards have ALWAYS been stepping on the toes of the non-spellcasting classes.
Muktar 05-11-07, 02:00 PM	Usually is put in there because they didn't want to create a position where a spell says something but the rule in the book says something else. MerlintheTuna is correct on how the spells are read and your mirror image example falls into the category. Mirror image is same spell/same effect/different result(possibly). So, when you run out of the first set of mirror images or the spell ends, the second will pop up unless the time ran out on it also. Spell: Heroics Effect: Temporarily Granting Bonus Fighter Feat Result: The bonus fighter feat. Spell: Mirror Image Effect: Several Illusionary duplicates of you pop into being Result: 1d4(+lvl adj) figments
TheCobra 05-11-07, 02:02 PM	Personally, I don't really like the idea of multiple feats with heroics. It's not going to break the game, but it is insulting to fighters. It does make Gishes better. That said, I'm rather have that in my game than deafness curing blindness and other such silliness. It's certainly not as bad as wraithstrike, another second-level spell.
Muktar 05-11-07, 02:12 PM	Overall though, we need some clear definitions on what effects are. Only half of the spells actually has the category effect in the spell listing. I said what I said above because on the spells that have effect listed, they only speak about the spell in general terms and then the result in specific terms.
Drachasor 05-11-07, 02:14 PM	Usually is put in there because they didn't want to create a position where a spell says something but the rule in the book says something else. MerlintheTuna is correct on how the spells are read and your mirror image example falls into the category. Mirror image is same spell/same effect/different result(possibly). So, when you run out of the first set of mirror images or the spell ends, the second will pop up unless the time ran out on it also. Actually, I think Mirror Image is probably best represented by "same effect, differing strengths". If you cast it twice you get the higher number of images, if all the images of one are destroyed, then all the images of both are destroyed. Polymorph and Secret Page are better spells for the "same effect, different results" stacking rule. A thing only has one form at a time, so a second casting replaces the effect of the first. It doesn't dispel the first, but the first is CLEARLY irrelevant while the second is going on. Heroics doesn't work like EITHER of these sorts of spells. It is more like Energy Resistance against different energies. All the different results should work independently. Beyond that it doesn't look like anyone has been able to provide an actual example of the spell being broken with stacking. I've only seen knee-jerk "OMG, a bunch of fighter feats!" reactions. *sigh* -Drachasor
TheCobra 05-11-07, 02:31 PM	I've only seen knee-jerk "OMG, a bunch of fighter feats!" reactions. *sigh* It's not really going to be broken, because fighter feats aren't broken. Still, getting Robilar's Gambit for two second-level slots is pretty sweet. Especially when you can use draconic polymorph to shift into something with good DEX.
tarkin 05-11-07, 03:44 PM	Robilar's Gambit requires BAB 12. Considering how high a level you have to be before that use becomes viable, I don't consider it 'sweet'. Honestly, if you liked Robilar's gambit that much, you should have taken it with the minimum of 4 other feats you had by that level.
TheCobra 05-11-07, 04:47 PM	With heroics, you don't need to make that kind of feat investment to benefit from Robilar's Gambit. If you like going nuts with attacks of opportunity today, it doesn't cost you anything tomorrow.
elgamor 05-11-07, 05:29 PM	sorry to go a little off course here but could anyone tell me what book heroics can be found in? or perhaps just post the full text for the actual spell? even if it dont stack it sounds usefull for one of my char's. thanks
tarkin 05-11-07, 05:35 PM	With heroics, you don't need to make that kind of feat investment to benefit from Robilar's Gambit. If you like going nuts with attacks of opportunity today, it doesn't cost you anything tomorrow. But the feat itself is not that great by itself. To really make Robilar's Gambit (From Player's Handbook II) pay off, you want other things, such as DR, or the feat Double Hit, or the epic feat Sneak Attack of Oppourtinity. It rarely makes sense to accept +4 to hit and +4 to damage against you, unless you have other things to really help out your AoOs.
archcomponent 05-11-07, 05:58 PM	But the feat itself is not that great by itself. Oh, sure. To make it work you would need something that either boosted your attacks of opportunity or transformed the attacks of opponents into missing in a way that does not use AC. Something like mirror image or displacement. But I do not see how a caster or gish could ever find these rare and hard to get abilities. Please. The part of the "irrelevant" description that is open to interpretation is this part: Yes, it is quite clear that your take on the rules rely on dicing up sentances and recombining them to give spellcasters the most amount of power possible. But in the end, you are just ignoring the fact that the previous spell "effects become irrelevant." Whatever twisted logic you use, if the previous spells do not become irrelevant you are just cheating. sorry to go a little off course here but could anyone tell me what book heroics can be found in? The pile of brokenness that is the spell compendium. Same book as wraithstrike. Surprise surprise. Hell, they will get greater mirror image for use with robilar's gambit so they can foil the attack as an immediate action and counterattack.
TheCobra 05-11-07, 06:22 PM	Whatever twisted logic you use, if the previous spells do not become irrelevant you are just cheating. So, in your game, does deafness cure blindness? Tell me.
Drachasor 05-11-07, 08:22 PM	Same book as wraithstrike. Surprise surprise. Wraithstrike is an excellent example of a broken spell. Any gish that uses melee attacks of any sort will want it above any other 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or even 5th level spell easily. In games where it is allowed as written, it is absolutely, devastatingly powerful. Heroics isn't broken. Gish will often like to have it, but it doesn't significantly increase the capability of a Gish. It's nice in the right situations, if you know a particular fighter feat will be handy. Often there are other equally nice or effective spells, and even more effective ones out there. Feats just aren't that powerful. As a Gish, for instance, I'd generally choose Bull's Strength over Heroics for 2nd level spells. I'd also prefer Blur or Mirror Image, heck even invisibility is much, much more useful for day to day activities. Heroics is quite situational. Again, if you think heroics is broken, then give an example of how it is broken. Make a rough sketch of a character (fighter/wizard/eldritch knight), pick a level, and show how using heroics is so powerful compared to other options they have. If you can't do that, then you are just shouting out a poorly formed opinion. -Drachasor
redraven 05-12-07, 03:38 AM	Yes, it is quite clear that your take on the rules rely on dicing up sentances and recombining them to give spellcasters the most amount of power possible. But in the end, you are just ignoring the fact that the previous spell "effects become irrelevant." Whatever twisted logic you use, if the previous spells do not become irrelevant you are just cheating. Oh, yes, I usually "cheat" at D&D (whatever that means). :rolleyes: How exactly am I dicing sentences? The two sentences in question are sequential and codependent. I am dicing and/or twisting nothing! When something usually happens, that means it does not happen all the time. You, however, seem to be using a nonstandard definition of the word "usually" with it meaning "always and forever and not open for interpretation." I am going to take your unwavering stance on the matter as an implicit agreement that a mage can change Blindness to Deafness, switch an enemy's disadvantageous energy resistance, change a Bestow Curse to something more benign, and all other manner of similar ridiculousness by casting the same spell over again. I am also going to take your stance as implicit agreement that there is nothing wrong, balance-wise, with getting Fighter feats with multiple spells since you have yet to argue at all why it is a more powerful effect than anything else a wizard could do.
Nezkrul 05-12-07, 06:31 AM	Personally, I don't really like the idea of multiple feats with heroics. It's not going to break the game, but it is insulting to fighters. It does make Gishes better. So why isn't your fighter playing a gish if they are just plain better than fighters? See, this is the problem you people keep addressing: it makes gishes more powerful than fighters. Well, DUH! Gishes have always been better than just straight fighters. No it does not make the straight wizard step on the toes of the fighter. The straight wizard still has poor base attack, 1d4 hd, poor fortitude and reflex saves, no armor, and low physical ability scores. So what if the wizard has whirlwind attack, what's the point of rolling all those attack rolls when you need 20's to hit?
Drachasor 05-12-07, 04:26 PM	With heroics, you don't need to make that kind of feat investment to benefit from Robilar's Gambit. If you like going nuts with attacks of opportunity today, it doesn't cost you anything tomorrow. I'd rather go with Repelling Shield (Complete Mage). 3rd level, works just like the Shield Spell (so shorter duration than Heroics, 1 min/level). However, anyone that attacks you (they don't have to hit) must make a reflex save or be pushed back 5 feet. That give you an AoO on them AND can break up a full attack at higher levels (it has to happen twice in the same round since the bad guy can still take a 5 foot step). Sure, that's a level higher, but it is so much better than anything Heroics can do for you as far as AoO go. All you need is combat reflexes to make really good use of it. Of course, since a Gish can cast Enlarge Person on himself, combat reflexes is a good idea anyhow. Of course, there are other spells out there that would make combat reflexes not as necessary in many cases. Wall of Fire + Repelling Shield can be nasty if you are holding a pass, for instance. In short, Heroics is nice and it is useful. The problem is, it isn't a must-have for a gish. There are a lot of other things a Gish can do that are just flat-out better than a bonus feat. I stand by my position that Heroics is situationally useful, and even then it isn't overpowering. The real problem is the fighter is so incredibly weak, because he has no class abilities besides feats, and feats are weak compared to many 2nd level spells (sometimes 1st level ones too). If feats scaled with level, then the fighter would be better and stacking heroics would probably be too powerful at higher levels. Feats don't scale though. If fighters eventually got some chameleon-like bonus feats (that they could switch out for other feats on whim), then there'd be no complaints at all. In the end, heroics isn't broken or overpowered, but it bothers people because fighters are underpowered. That said, it doesn't let you get fighter-only feats without actually fighter levels. -Drachasor PS. If you are a Jade Phoenix Mage or you have a ToB guy in your party, then Heroics might be too powerful. It is certainly quite good then, since you can grab a 1 to 3 martial study feats and get maneuvers you wouldn't normally have. High-level maneuvers are often better than feats.
Iver Gearsham 05-12-07, 05:22 PM	At high levels (as others have rightly pointed out) where you might get entire feat chains by using the spell there is the risk of Targeted Dispell Magic and render your spell chain useless. Also there is 5th lvl Reciprocal Gyre at higher levels so stacking on ten or more spells just makes you vulnerable till you can cast 7th lvl Spell Turning and for a Gish thats a long time. Have you looked at the matierial component? That your not going too Eshew Materials away, pieces of a 15th lvl fighter's armor/weapon that was used in a battle. I like it for picking an EW feat for a time, or Rapid Shot getting Improved Unarmed Strike and show off on touch attacks for spells.
Drachasor 05-12-07, 06:54 PM	Have you looked at the matierial component? That your not going too Eshew Materials away, pieces of a 15th lvl fighter's armor/weapon that was used in a battle. No cost is listed, so the material component has a negligible price. It might sound add, but a lot of material components are this way. Heck, there are spells with dragon scale parts in them like this. If no GP amount is listed, then a component bag does the job. -Drachasor
Squirrelloid 05-12-07, 11:20 PM	I'm still waiting to hear if any of the "no multiple heroics stacking" people tell us if deafness cures blindness (both from the blindness/deafness spell). If they can't consistently hold their position in all situations, its clearly wrong, since its based on that rule always holding. Then its just a question of where the line for "usually" should be drawn. The "yes multiple heroics" people have drawn the clearest discriminating line.
Part-Human2 05-12-07, 11:38 PM	Q: Who picks the Fighter Bonus feat that the Heroics feat grants? 1) If the Target picks it then each casting does has same effect (i.e. grants a Fighter Bonus Feat) and it shouldn't stack. 2) If the Caster chooses the feat than it can be argued that each casting grants a different effect (i.e. a different feat each time).
CantripN 05-13-07, 03:46 AM	Q: Who picks the Fighter Bonus feat that the Heroics feat grants? 1) If the Target picks it then each casting does has same effect (i.e. grants a Fighter Bonus Feat) and it shouldn't stack. 2) If the Caster chooses the feat than it can be argued that each casting grants a different effect (i.e. a different feat each time). I've always used option no. 1. The Wizard has no idea what Robilar's Gambit or Whirlwind Attack are, while the Fighter does.
groveborn 05-13-07, 07:14 AM	Page 171 PHB, "Combining Magical Effects" Spells or magical effects usually work as described, no matter how many other spells or magical effects happen to be operating in the same area or on the same recipient. Except in special cases... This is not a special case because there are no rules that clearly restrict same source/different effects. This means that multiple effects from the same source, provided they are different effects, stack with one another. Casting Blindness/Deafness twice makes a blind, deaf thing. Casting Bestow Curse six times can reduce each stat by 6 You can gain multiple feats by Heroics, though the cost is stupidly high (not in GP, just in time and spell slots) Good luck people.
Muktar 05-13-07, 10:31 AM	For Blindness/Deafness it is different. If it had an effect line it would say, "Target in range becomes blind or deaf" instead of heroics saying, "Target in range gains a fighter feat." The effect of Heroics is the gaining of the fighter feat, the result is the name of the fighter feat. Therefore, same spell/same effect. While Blindness/Deafness has a choice of two effects.