"I will hold onto four Holy items (I"m Evil) which gives me eight negative levels so I qualify as 8 HD when I cast Haunting Shift so I can become a Haunting prescence and become Invincible!"
I.e. he's 16th level, gains 8 temporary negative levels, and thinks he can be affected by a spell that only works on stuff with less then 9 Hit Dice.
Someone posted the ruling and description of negative levels here, where it was pointed out that negative levels are negative levels, they don't change your actual Hit Die. Being permanently level drained is the only thing that does that.
I've seen the quotes and the rulings, but my search and quote fu tends to sucketh, especially without all my books handy. Could I get a hand here?
And yes, he's going by the one ruling in the MM as his source, ignoring later clarificiations, convinced he's found THE way to win.
Some help, please, if you've the time.
==Aelryinth
It doesn't say "treated as a level lower for the purpose of being affected by spells or effects with a maximum level such as Sleep."
A creature takes the following penalties for each negative level it has gained:
* -1 effective level (whenever the creature’s level is used in a die roll or calculation, reduce it by one for each negative level).
(Sarnath'd)
Said character would count as 8th level for a die roll or calculation based on level.
It doesn't say "treated as a level lower for the purpose of being affected by spells or effects with a maximum level such as Sleep."
Oh, very good. keep them coming! Wasn't there a FAQ or something about the issue, based around Enervation, from the Rules COmpendium (a book that, due to funds, I do not own.)
I think, ZeroSum, that the key part of the SRD description is, "if the save is failed, the negative level goes away, but the creature's level is also reduced by one." That rather plainly indicates that the creature's level is not reduced by the negative level...only for purposes of a die roll or calculation based on level.
Neither of which applies to Haunt Shift.
===Aelryinth
when god and batman team up thread
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1025704
----
You can always say no, for doing veil of undeath, plus haunt shift, and holy arrows, requires a lot of metagaming knowledge to pull that combo off. What are the chances in the game that the character would actually know X, Y and Z based off knowledge checks to pull this off?
this argument you are probably referring to was hashed out in the
when god and batman team up thread
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1025704
----
You can always say no, for doing veil of undeath, plus haunt shift, and holy arrows, requires a lot of metagaming knowledge to pull that combo off. What are the chances in the game that the character would actually know X, Y and Z based off knowledge checks to pull this off?
Also, holy arrows are made in lots of 50, so you'd have to be holding 200 of them for the negative levels (otherwise, an evil creature with 4 stuck in it would have 8 negative levels, yes?)
Thanks for the reference.
===Aelryinth
RAI I agree are most clearly that this combo should not work.
By the way, what does Haunting Shift do and where's it from? SpC?
His shtick is to get his 'effective HD' below 9 hD, then bounce back up to his full level. Once he does that, he can suddenly 'animate object' his thing even if it's a solid slab of, say, obdurium.
What he does is think he can cast spells thru this thing he is animating. So he makes it out of obdurium, somehow...or if not, out of a wall of iron for 'free', uses Fabricate and spells to craft/shape it to whatever he wants....Enhances it, Hardens it, and then applies Magical treatment to it, thinking that magical treatment is going to buff the enhanced hardness.
So he's thinking he's going to get a body with Hardness of 60-100, be untouchable and invincible, and have a body that he can use just like his own, except it's invincible.
I'm like, no...first of all the Magical treatment isn't going to work that way, because to be seamless order of operations has to not matter, and second of all the spell doesn't work that way, and third of all negative levels don't work that way.
All of which he is wailing and gnashing his teeth about.
Eh!
===Aelryinth
Okay, let's go over the actual situation in question.
The idea is that a 12th level evil Wizard who is treated as undead for purposes of spells (two spells in the SpC do this) wants to use Haunt Shift on himself, but Haunt Shift only works on undead with 8HD or less, so he has to count as being lower HD for purposes of the spell.
He holds four Holy Arrows, each of which according to the DMG "bestows one negative level on any evil creature attempting to weild it" which "cannot be overcome in any way" until he drops them, so now he has 12 levels but 4 negative levels. Now we use this:
"Negative Levels
An affected opponent takes a –1 penalty on all skill checks and ability checks, attack rolls, and saving throws, and loses 5 hit points and one effective level or Hit Die (whenever level is used in a die roll or calculation) for each negative level."
Since he now has 4 less hit dice by the rule I just stated, and thus has 8 effective hit dice, and he's a legal target for Haunt Shift (he'll need to use a scroll to now cast the spell).
Clear?
JaronK
His shtick is to get his 'effective HD' below 9 hD, then bounce back up to his full level. Once he does that, he can suddenly 'animate object' his thing even if it's a solid slab of, say, obdurium.
This is correct.
What he does is think he can cast spells thru this thing he is animating. So he makes it out of obdurium, somehow...or if not, out of a wall of iron for 'free', uses Fabricate and spells to craft/shape it to whatever he wants....Enhances it, Hardens it, and then applies Magical treatment to it, thinking that magical treatment is going to buff the enhanced hardness.
So he's thinking he's going to get a body with Hardness of 60-100, be untouchable and invincible, and have a body that he can use just like his own, except it's invincible.
I'm like, no...first of all the Magical treatment isn't going to work that way, because to be seamless order of operations has to not matter, and second of all the spell doesn't work that way, and third of all negative levels don't work that way.
The specific order of spells cast is the following:
First, obtain some Obdurium. Stronghold Builder's Guidebook says you can buy a wall of the stuff 10'X20'X6" for 6kgp (but note that raw materials for that would be 2kgp, as raw materials always cost a third of the actual price). So, buy some Obdurium that way.
Now, cast Magecraft on yourself to make sure you know what you're doing, and use Fabricate to create a Dwarvencraft Quality body. Basically, you're making an Obdurium statue of yourself (though you can make it look however you want or make it whatever size is appropriate).
Now cast Harden after getting your caster level up to 20, making the statue have a hardness of 42 (30 base + 2 Dwarvencraft + 10 Harden)
Now cast Augment Object, which doubles the hardness of the statue.
Now do the trick to Haunt Shift yourself into the body.
The order of spells is very clear here... Augment Object is the last spell applied, so it doubles the hardness of the object at that time, which at that point is 42.
All of which he is wailing and gnashing his teeth about.
Eh!
===Aelryinth
I was "wailing" about the fact that you refused to do any research of your own and insisted on ignoring the rules while simultaneously refusing to actually read those rules.
JaronK
So you don't actually *lose* levels/HD. You are still y level/HD. You *effective* level does go down, but that in no way impacts your *actual* level. If you are a 12 HD monster and you get hit for 3 negative levels, you are *still* a 12 HD monster. You are just a 12HD monster with 3 negative levels, and if you get another 9 levels, you drop dead.
Thus, what is proposed does not work.
The actual wording from the item itself:
"This negative level never results in actual level loss..."
Well, what does that mean? What's the difference between "actual level loss" and "effective level loss"? I would have to say that since the text RAW says it never results in actual level loss that the item has a specific quality that makes certain you do not actually lose any hit dice - so you still have 12 HD, you just have a negative status effect on you.
Otherwise, what's the point of the Holy entry stating there is no actual level loss?
The second thing you can focus on is the fact that it says "the negative level" and "this negative level" and "one negative level"therefore, Holy weapons can only impart a maximum of one total negative level no matter how many you wield.
"Bestows one negative level" has no true RAW behind it. We must modify it to words that the RAW does use, namely, "Grants a penalty of one negative level." THEREFORE, negative penalties of the same type from different sources DO NOT STACK just like (positive) bonuses of the same type from different sources also DO NOT STACK.
Those are my 2 cp Aelryinth, hope it helps.
First off, the point of a Holy weapon stating that there is no "actual level loss" is that 24 hours after gaining a negative level, you normally would have to make a Fortitude save or have it be converted to a decrease in your actual level. Holy weapons and their brethren have this clause to assign penalties to folks who aren't supposed to be using them without the possibility of permanently screwing them with level loss. So a Paladin 10 with an Unholy weapon would have an effective level of 9 but no chance of actually going down to 9th level; his twin brother who was just hit by a wight would have the same effective level and a chance to actually lose his most recent level (going down to 9th level).
Second, negative levels aren't penalties at all. They do grant penalties (which implicitly stack), but are not penalties themselves. "Penalty", like "bonus", has a strict definition in D&D (a negative modifier to a die roll, or implicitly a negative modifier to some numerical attribute - eg, a Strength penalty).
Third, even if negative levels were penalties, they don't have a type listed, so they'd fall under the rule about stacking unnamed modifiers (everything stacks unless it's from the same source).
Fourth, negative levels do implicitly stack considering that the text on them talks about penalties for each negative level gained.
Fifth, negative levels from the same source implicitly stack considering that several effects (Enervation, vampire's Energy Drain, etc.) give out multiple negative levels per shot. Enervation itself backs this up by saying so.
The rules for negative levels are the same as that used for subdual damage (non-lethal damage). You add upwards, and when x = y (i.e., subdual damage = current hp, or negative level = HD), you drop.
So you don't actually *lose* levels/HD. You are still y level/HD. You *effective* level does go down, but that in no way impacts your *actual* level. If you are a 12 HD monster and you get hit for 3 negative levels, you are *still* a 12 HD monster. You are just a 12HD monster with 3 negative levels, and if you get another 9 levels, you drop dead.
Thus, what is proposed does not work.
It says you are treated as having the reduced number of HD for purposes of effects related to level or HD. Are you claiming the Haunt Shift spell's targetting restriction based on HD is not an effect related to HD? Again, see the reference I quoted on the topic.
JaronK
It says you are treated as having the reduced number of HD for purposes of effects related to level or HD. Are you claiming the Haunt Shift spell's targetting restriction based on HD is not an effect related to HD? Again, see the reference I quoted on the topic.
JaronK
there is no calculation going on in the spell. there is only a restriction, which you are trying to circumvent.
Is caster level important to the spell? No.
is there a variable result to the spell, perhaps based on caster level? No.
No variable device, no variable dmg, area, result. The only variable is the duration, which is the only thing your caster level would affect.
the restriction of the spell NEVER CHANGES. Thus, it is not a variable, and is not affected at all. It is an absolute target, and by the wording of negative levels, your actual level never changes with negative levels applied. It's straight out of the SRD and got quoted above.
and your Magical treatment/augment object won't work because Order of Operations will now interfere with it if you 'upgrade' the enhancements/hardness levels of it. Spells have to remain consistent at all times.
Consider that 'upgrading' the enhancement bonus from +4 to +5 would actually drop your treated objects hardness by 6 points, as suddenly it would go from +4x2 to 'merely' +5...and +5 grants 10 hardness, not the 16 currently coming from being Enhanced.
Likewise, if you suddenly cast a level 22 Hardness on your toy of a body, it would override the level 20...and the hardness would drop by 9 pts since the higher level overrode the lesser, and the bonus is only +11, not +20, since your 'doubling' didn't affect it.
Your system is thus totally non-sensical because of these timing issues. The only way to unequivocally apply it, is just like with metamagic feats...they all have to apply equally and come to the same result all the time. This is especially true when dealing with permanent changes and magical effects.
They all have to work on base hardness or the system falls down. You can't have timing issues with stuff like this, or it just sets up rules abuse.
====Aelryinth
This is correct.
The specific order of spells cast is the following:
First, obtain some Obdurium. Stronghold Builder's Guidebook says you can buy a wall of the stuff 10'X20'X6" for 6kgp (but note that raw materials for that would be 2kgp, as raw materials always cost a third of the actual price). So, buy some Obdurium that way.
Now, cast Magecraft on yourself to make sure you know what you're doing, and use Fabricate to create a Dwarvencraft Quality body. Basically, you're making an Obdurium statue of yourself (though you can make it look however you want or make it whatever size is appropriate).
Now cast Harden after getting your caster level up to 20, making the statue have a hardness of 42 (30 base + 2 Dwarvencraft + 10 Harden)
Now cast Augment Object, which doubles the hardness of the statue.
Now do the trick to Haunt Shift yourself into the body.
The order of spells is very clear here... Augment Object is the last spell applied, so it doubles the hardness of the object at that time, which at that point is 42.
I was "wailing" about the fact that you refused to do any research of your own and insisted on ignoring the rules while simultaneously refusing to actually read those rules.
JaronK
ANd I wasn't going to thumb thru every post on the char opt boards to confirm for you that this argument had already taken place, and your side had lost.
Someone else remembered where it was and was kind enough to point it out. And then they even pointed out the rules in the SRD which you were brilliant enough to ignore entirely, as they contradicted what you wanted to have happen. I guess I was too trusting that you'd actually read that rule, because it makes it obvious what you want doesn't work, and thought I'd need clarification in a book (rules comp) I don't happen to own ATM...which is why I was asking for some help.
Ergo, wailing was spot on.
And note, I didn't name names. If someone wanted to call you out, that was their problem. I described the problem accurately and if others wanted to comment, that was their call.
But the rules are definitely on my side. Wail away.
===Aelryinth
I have to side with JK here. Calculation is a broad enough word to cover this situation, and it seems to me like you should be able to Enerverate/Sleep someone.
Initeresting, because above someone else just ruled exactly the opposite way. You can't sleep an enervated character...there's no variable levels with the sleep spell, so the absolute limit doesn't shift at all, and the negative level doesn't actually change the monster's/target's HD.
Gonna have to respectfully disagree here. Note that right in the description of Negative levels, if you actually fail a save vs. one, THEN you actually lose stuff. It's very clear on that. Up till then, you just take the specific penalties the spell gives you, no more, no less. And being counted as lower HD for spell restrictions is not listed among the results of the spell.
==Aelryinth
-1 effective level (whenever the creature’s level is used in a die roll or calculation, reduce it by one for each negative level).
and that I would interpret that for this purpose "calculation" means "any time that your HD is checked for an effect".
However, once he puts the arrows down to remedy himself of his negative levels he stops being a valid target and the spell would stop working. I admit that is not anywhere I can think of as far as rules but that just makes sense. I would say that a target of a spell suddenly becoming an invalid target is something that wasn't considered when the rules where written. It's analogous to a spell that only works on creatures of type X ceasing to function if you get Polymorphed into something that is no longer a valid target for the spell, say a non-humanoid. This is just my reading I admit freely, you'd have to ask your DM. I would say it really breaks down to "once someone stops being a valid target for the spell does the spell still function or does it stop working?" In my opinion the spell would still be "working" you just would not be a valid recipient for it's effect. That's my take on the situation.
I would say that JK is right, he would qualify as a valid target for Haunt Shift. However, once he puts the arrows down to remedy himself of his negative levels he stops being a valid target and the spell would stop working. I admit that is not anywhere I can think of as far as rules but that just makes sense. I would say that a target of a spell suddenly becoming an invalid target is something that wasn't considered when the rules where written. It's analogous to a spell that only works on creatures of type X ceasing to function if you get Polymorphed into something that is no longer a valid target for the spell, say a non-humanoid. This is just my reading I admit freely, you'd have to ask your DM. I would say it really breaks down to "once someone stops being a valid target for the spell does the spell still function or does it stop working?" That's my take on the situation.
It is analogous to gaining PrCs and feats. If you lose the pre-requisites, you lose access to the feat or PrC. This has been ruled so by WotC via the Sage, IIRC.
This is basically something that does not and cannot work.
It is analogous to gaining PrCs and feats. If you lose the pre-requisites, you lose access to the feat or PrC. This has been ruled so by WotC via the Sage, IIRC.
This is basically something that does not and cannot work.
Note that the Haunt Shift rules themselves make it clear that it works. It has a bunch of abilities for people level 10+ that are haunting, but you can only cast the spell when they're 8 or lower. Clearly, it's supposed to work just fine. You cast it when you're level 8, then you level up to 10 and get the full abilities.
The Holy Arrow thing just makes the leveling up process a heck of a lot faster.
JaronK
Initeresting, because above someone else just ruled exactly the opposite way. You can't sleep an enervated character...there's no variable levels with the sleep spell, so the absolute limit doesn't shift at all, and the negative level doesn't actually change the monster's/target's HD.
Gonna have to respectfully disagree here. Note that right in the description of Negative levels, if you actually fail a save vs. one, THEN you actually lose stuff. It's very clear on that. Up till then, you just take the specific penalties the spell gives you, no more, no less. And being counted as lower HD for spell restrictions is not listed among the results of the spell.
==Aelryinth
Actually, what's very clear from the part I quoted (which is about negative levels, not lost levels) is that you're simply treated as being lower level for all effects related to level and HD when you have a negative level. That's one of the "specific penalties" listed in the negative level section.
To wit: Here's you "And being counted as lower HD for spell restrictions is not listed among the results of the spell." and here's RAW "loses... one effective level or Hit Die (whenever level is used in a die roll or calculation) for each negative level."
Are you trying to claim that level or hit dice is not used in a calculation of which creatures can be targetted by Haunt Shift?
JaronK
Note that the Haunt Shift rules themselves make it clear that it works. It has a bunch of abilities for people level 10+ that are haunting, but you can only cast the spell when they're 8 or lower. Clearly, it's supposed to work just fine. You cast it when you're level 8, then you level up to 10 and get the full abilities.
The Holy Arrow thing just makes the leveling up process a heck of a lot faster.
JaronK
Which refers to something listed under VARIANT rules.
I suggest that the DM not allow that particular variant rule and stop this bickering here and now.
Which refers to something listed under VARIANT rules.
I suggest that the DM not allow that particular variant rule and stop this bickering here and now.
The spell itself is hardly a varient rule, and in this case there is no DM (it's actually part of a discussion as to whether a Wizard in a duel that has full time to prepare can beat a fully prepared Fighter).
JaronK
-1 effective level (whenever the creature’s level is used in a die roll or calculation, reduce it by one for each negative level).
so the whole thing breaks down to the D&D usage of a single word and whether it covers the case of Sleep and spells that work as it does work on creatures under the influence of negative levels or not. If they do this trick works as I understand it. If the don't then this doesn't work.
there is no calculation going on in the spell.
Yes there is.
Is HD > 8?
That's an equation/calculation.
The spell itself is hardly a varient rule, and in this case there is no DM (it's actually part of a discussion as to whether a Wizard in a duel that has full time to prepare can beat a fully prepared Fighter).
JaronK
Wizards hammer Fighters. There is no ifs or buts about it. Even at level 1, a Fighter has at most a 35% chance vs a well played Wizard (Sleep/Colour Spray).
The spell refers to a variant rule. If the DM says that rule isn't allowed, then you are an idiot to cast it as he is well within his rights to say "nothing happens". If you want to argue, use the real rules, not variant ones, unless they are specifically allowed.
make sure that someone is stronger than him.
im not a rule lawyer, but im pretty sure that would mess up his nice body wouldnt it?
why is it that you didnt just say no? isnt that rule 0 lol
jsut let him do it then have someone cast MDJ on him.
make sure that someone is stronger than him.
im not a rule lawyer, but im pretty sure that would mess up his nice body wouldnt it?
No effect, actually, because Haunt Shift is immediate, not permanent. MDJ fails just like it would if you tried to kill a golem with it.
why is it that you didnt just say no? isnt that rule 0 lol
Because he's not the DM, and this is an arena scenario.
JaronK
Wizards hammer Fighters. There is no ifs or buts about it. Even at level 1, a Fighter has at most a 35% chance vs a well played Wizard (Sleep/Colour Spray).
Well, he's trying to argue on the side that a Fighter can take a Wizard just fine, and then trying to claim that anything that beats a Fighter isn't allowed.
The spell refers to a variant rule. If the DM says that rule isn't allowed, then you are an idiot to cast it as he is well within his rights to say "nothing happens". If you want to argue, use the real rules, not variant ones, unless they are specifically allowed.
Well, no DM involved here. But the spell itself isn't a varient, so I'm not seeing the issue here. If a spell said it suddenly gave you a UA bloodline, you'd get one, even though bloodlines are usually a varient.
JaronK
The spell itself is hardly a varient rule, and in this case there is no DM (it's actually part of a discussion as to whether a Wizard in a duel that has full time to prepare can beat a fully prepared Fighter).
JaronK
Can there be a duel without a DM?
Besides why do you need to resort to questionable rules to beat the fighter if you have full time to prep?
As for the 4 arrows providing 4 negative levels, that just seems odd to me as you buy arrows in groups of 50, are you saying that handling and picking up a quiver of arrows that is magical but unidentified automatically kills you if they're holy and you're evil?
Can there be a duel without a DM?
Besides why do you need to resort to questionable rules to beat the fighter if you have full time to prep?
Oh, I didn't, I just picked one possible tactic off the top of my head. There were a few others (one involving an army of undead efreetis, for example).
As for the 4 arrows providing 4 negative levels, that just seems odd to me as you buy arrows in groups of 50, are you saying that handling and picking up a quiver of arrows that is magical but unidentified automatically kills you if they're holy and you're evil?
Well, yeah, which is an old trick. You can do it with unholy arrows too and I think it should create a bunch of wights. Handy trick for necromancers. Moral of the story: never accept arrows from evil people.
JaronK
JaronK
- A comparison is not a calculation. Other people are free to disagree but this is one of the obstacles that make the whole thing depend on DM fiat. (And yay for mincing words !)
- Whether or not they're tied to a spell, Haunting Presences are a variant rule. If a spell is tied to a variant, that makes the spell optional too rather than making the variant mandatory.
- Isn't Hardening Permanent and not Instantaneous ?
Also, I'm curious as to how the caster will provide the (V/S/M) components for his spells once he is animating an object ?
A creature takes the following penalties for each negative level it has gained:
* -1 on all skill checks and ability checks.
* -1 on attack rolls and saving throws.
* -5 hit points.
* -1 effective level (whenever the creature’s level is used in a die roll or calculation, reduce it by one for each negative level).
* If the victim casts spells, she loses access to one spell as if she had cast her highest-level, currently available spell. (If she has more than one spell at her highest level, she chooses which she loses.) In addition, when she next prepares spells or regains spell slots, she gets one less spell slot at her highest spell level.
Just from reading that, as long as he has only "8" Hit Dice/Levels at the time of casting, it should work, from how the spell is presented here. (I don't have the spell available to read.) Depending on the level of the spell, and levels of the characters involved in the duel (I think it was level 16?), the negative levels might make the caster lose enough spells to lose the ability to cast the spell.
Other than that, well, unless there is a specific ruling, it looks to work. But then, you still have ways around this, so I wouldn't worry too much about it. Cheese works both ways.
EDIT: Just thinking out loud here, but it seems odd that even though Hardness is an object quality, and DR is a creature quality, an animated object still has Hardness, and no DR. I would figure that anything that is a creature (WIS and CHA scores) shouldn't be able to have Hardness, and instead should get DR.
Not a rules thing relevent to this discussion, but something I found odd while reading up on this whole thing.
- A comparison is not a calculation. Other people are free to disagree but this is one of the obstacles that make the whole thing depend on DM fiat. (And yay for mincing words !)
I would say that calculating whether you can target a spell on someone based on their hit dice is a calculation related to hit dice.
- Whether or not they're tied to a spell, Haunting Presences are a variant rule. If a spell is tied to a variant, that makes the spell optional too rather than making the variant mandatory.
Everything is optional, in the end, but the spell isn't a varient at least.
- Isn't Hardening Permanent and not Instantaneous ?
Actually you're right, I was taking his word for it. It's also not limited to 10 as he claimed, having now checked... so it's worse in that MDJ could take out the hardness, but better in that a high caster level can result in REALLY high hardness.
Also, I'm curious as to how the caster will provide the (V/S/M) components for his spells once he is animating an object ?
With the object body of course. It's a statue of himself, after all, and has hands and the like. It's basically just his new body anyway, and he can create it to be able to handle all the somatic bits.
JaronK
A comparison is not a calculation. Other people are free to disagree but this is one of the obstacles that make the whole thing depend on DM fiat. (And yay for mincing words !)
"A calculation is a deliberate process for transforming one or more inputs into one or more results, with variable change."
They'll disagree with you... because you're wrong.
Input: HD
If HD = or < 8: Spell works
If HD > 8: Spell does not work
There are a lot of questionable interpretations here so... .
- A comparison is not a calculation. Other people are free to disagree but this is one of the obstacles that make the whole thing depend on DM fiat. (And yay for mincing words !)
- Whether or not they're tied to a spell, Haunting Presences are a variant rule. If a spell is tied to a variant, that makes the spell optional too rather than making the variant mandatory.
- Isn't Hardening Permanent and not Instantaneous ?
Also, I'm curious as to how the caster will provide the (V/S/M) components for his spells once he is animating an object ?
He can't. He's animating a puppet. It's not his body. It has no power to channel spells or cast spells. He's ANimating an Object. He's insubstantial and it's ALL HE CAN DO.
And he's limited to materializing and has to be level 8 or less to pull it off.
As for the holy arrows shtick, that's just laughable. As interpreted, a good person picking up a quiver of unholy arrows dies instantly. Sticking 4 holy arrows into an evil being gives them -8 levels. (I should be able to wield them by sticking it into myself, therefore sticking them into others should work the same way, yes?)
No. You are reading way too much into the effect.
==+Aelryinth
I would say that calculating whether you can target a spell on someone based on their hit dice is a calculation related to hit dice.
Everything is optional, in the end, but the spell isn't a varient at least.
Actually you're right, I was taking his word for it. It's also not limited to 10 as he claimed, having now checked... so it's worse in that MDJ could take out the hardness, but better in that a high caster level can result in REALLY high hardness.
With the object body of course. It's a statue of himself, after all, and has hands and the like. It's basically just his new body anyway, and he can create it to be able to handle all the somatic bits.
JaronK
I never claimed Hardness was limited to 10...I specifically noted it was cast level/2.
Also, it is NOT HIS BODY. It's an ANIMATED OBJECT. He's a freaking insubstantial haunt manipulating a puppet. Nowhere in the description of the haunting prescence or animated object does it give the object the ability to channel your spells.
===Aelryinth
It doesn't seem so odd here.
Just from reading that, as long as he has only "8" Hit Dice/Levels at the time of casting, it should work, from how the spell is presented here. (I don't have the spell available to read.) Depending on the level of the spell, and levels of the characters involved in the duel (I think it was level 16?), the negative levels might make the caster lose enough spells to lose the ability to cast the spell.
Other than that, well, unless there is a specific ruling, it looks to work. But then, you still have ways around this, so I wouldn't worry too much about it. Cheese works both ways.
EDIT: Just thinking out loud here, but it seems odd that even though Hardness is an object quality, and DR is a creature quality, an animated object still has Hardness, and no DR. I would figure that anything that is a creature (WIS and CHA scores) shouldn't be able to have Hardness, and instead should get DR.
Not a rules thing relevent to this discussion, but something I found odd while reading up on this whole thing.
Casting hte spell is not an issue. There's multiple ways to CAST it. They are irrelevant.
He doesn't qualify as 8 HD is the problem. Thus, the spell can't affect him. His negative levels have nothing to do with being targeted by the spell, they only affect the level he casts it at.
And I agree with you on the DR hardness thing. An Iron Golem is basically a higher level Animated object, and has DR, so why doesn't it have hardness?
===Aelryinth
Well, he's trying to argue on the side that a Fighter can take a Wizard just fine, and then trying to claim that anything that beats a Fighter isn't allowed.
Well, no DM involved here. But the spell itself isn't a varient, so I'm not seeing the issue here. If a spell said it suddenly gave you a UA bloodline, you'd get one, even though bloodlines are usually a varient.
JaronK
Actually, I'm noting that your silly uber spell combo of ownerz the world doesn't work, and that's pretty much it. Read more into it as you like.
===Aelryinth
Yes there is.
Is HD > 8?
That's an equation/calculation.
Sorry, that is a yes/no qualification. There is no equation here. X x Caster level = Y is a calculation/equation. Furthermore, the number 8 is not a caster level dependent variable, and so is beyond the scope of a negative level's influence.
==Aelryinth
D&D Wiki specifically mentions HD ~JK's Weapon of choice.
The SRDsite does mention an effective -1 Level, but does not specifically mention HD. ~Aelryinth's weapon of choice.
Though I'm pretty sure "Effective -1 level" still counts as -1 HD, could be wrong.
Actually, what's very clear from the part I quoted (which is about negative levels, not lost levels) is that you're simply treated as being lower level for all effects related to level and HD when you have a negative level. That's one of the "specific penalties" listed in the negative level section.
To wit: Here's you "And being counted as lower HD for spell restrictions is not listed among the results of the spell." and here's RAW "loses... one effective level or Hit Die (whenever level is used in a die roll or calculation) for each negative level."
Are you trying to claim that level or hit dice is not used in a calculation of which creatures can be targetted by Haunt Shift?
JaronK
There is no die roll or calculation going on. Can you show me a caster level dependent variable for the spell? Yes/no is not a calculation...it's a qualification.
You are also ignoring the fact that right there in the SRD, just a tad bit further down, it states that if your temporary levels become permanent, you lose the negative levels and your level is reset to your level - negative levels...which specifically means your Hit dice/level was still at its original point ahead of time.
You are reading more into the effect then what it gives. Classic wizard exaggeration fallacy.
===Aelryinth
There is no die roll or calculation going on. Can you show me a caster level dependent variable for the spell? Yes/no is not a calculation...it's a qualification.
There is an input (the HD) being processed into one of two outputs (can be cast/can't be cast) based on an equation (HD = or < 8?).
That's a calculation.
the procedure of calculating; determining something by mathematical or logical method
Calculations can be made to have binary outputs very easily. I can express this using boolean equations, which is a "logical method" thus it is a calculation. Based on the definition I would say there isn't a grey area here to bicker about, but that won't stop anything. It all breaks down, like most things, to "what does the DM say". Just because that's how *you* would rule doesn't make it right anymore than me saying this makes me right. The difference is I have evidence to support my claim.
You are also ignoring the fact that right there in the SRD, just a tad bit further down, it states that if your temporary levels become permanent, you lose the negative levels and your level is reset to your level - negative levels...which specifically means your Hit dice/level was still at its original point ahead of time.
And you are ignoring that the levels from Holy can never become permanent, because of the more specific wording of holy on the subject, but are effectively permanent while you are holding the holy weapon.
Just from reading that, as long as he has only "8" Hit Dice/Levels at the time of casting, it should work, from how the spell is presented here. (I don't have the spell available to read.) Depending on the level of the spell, and levels of the characters involved in the duel (I think it was level 16?), the negative levels might make the caster lose enough spells to lose the ability to cast the spell.
The initial level of the character is 12, the OP just had it wrong.
EDIT: Just thinking out loud here, but it seems odd that even though Hardness is an object quality, and DR is a creature quality, an animated object still has Hardness, and no DR. I would figure that anything that is a creature (WIS and CHA scores) shouldn't be able to have Hardness, and instead should get DR.
Not a rules thing relevent to this discussion, but something I found odd while reading up on this whole thing.
Yes, it's quite bizarre really. At the same time, if it wasn't like that, you could animate an object and suddenly it would be easier to destroy that object.
JaronK
A creature takes the following penalties for each negative level it has gained:
* -1 on all skill checks and ability checks.
* -1 on attack rolls and saving throws.
* -5 hit points.
* -1 effective level (whenever the creature’s level is used in a die roll or calculation, reduce it by one for each negative level).
* If the victim casts spells, she loses access to one spell as if she had cast her highest-level, currently available spell. (If she has more than one spell at her highest level, she chooses which she loses.) In addition, when she next prepares spells or regains spell slots, she gets one less spell slot at her highest spell level.
Bolded for emphasis. The spell qualifies you must have 8 or less hit dice to be a valid target.
A negative level gives you a penalty to hit points.
A negative level reduces your effective level by one.
A negative level does not reduce your hit dice by one.
Effective level and hit dice are mutually exclusive terms. If you disagree, provide a reference to a published or otherwise official rule stating that Hit Dice and Effective Level are functionally interchangable terms for D20 calculations. If you cannot, then it is a houserule and not valid for Raw discussions.
As the spell determines a valid target based on Hit Dice and not based on Effective Level, changing your Effective Level will have no effect on your validity as a target.
Is it important to point out you they both seem to be using slightly different sources?
D&D Wiki specifically mentions HD ~JK's Weapon of choice.
The SRDsite does mention an effective -1 Level, but does not specifically mention HD. ~Aelryinth's weapon of choice.
Though I'm pretty sure "Effective -1 level" still counts as -1 HD, could be wrong.
I should mention that the source I used exactly matches the books. I actually told Aelryinth that the SRD lacked that line, but that the primary source (the books) had no such problem, and he jumped on the SRD despite the evidence that it was inaccurate.
JaronK
Bolded for emphasis. The spell qualifies you must have 8 or less hit dice to be a valid target.
A negative level gives you a penalty to hit points.
A negative level reduces your effective level by one.
A negative level does not reduce your hit dice by one.
Effective level and hit dice are mutually exclusive terms. If you disagree, provide a reference to a published or otherwise official rule stating that Hit Dice and Effective Level are functionally interchangable terms for D20 calculations. If you cannot, then it is a houserule and not valid for Raw discussions.
Warlawk: did you read the part where it does lower your Hit Dice by one for all calculations related to hit dice?
An affected opponent takes a –1 penalty on all skill checks and ability checks, attack rolls, and saving throws, and loses 5 hit points and one effective level or Hit Die (whenever level is used in a die roll or calculation) for each negative level.
Bolded for emphasis. Does that count as a reference? It's an exact quote from the books too, I checked (the SRD is missing part of it).
JaronK
There is no die roll or calculation going on. Can you show me a caster level dependent variable for the spell? Yes/no is not a calculation...it's a qualification.
Yes/No is a Boolean Calculation.
You are also ignoring the fact that right there in the SRD, just a tad bit further down, it states that if your temporary levels become permanent, you lose the negative levels and your level is reset to your level - negative levels...which specifically means your Hit dice/level was still at its original point ahead of time.
It says that it's temporarily lowered, and eventually (though not in the case of holy weapons) could be permanently lowered. The books are VERY clear that your hit dice is lowered for any calculation related to hit dice, and this is a boolean calculation.
JaronK
Jaron, wouldn't it just be easier to store 4 levels worth of xp in a thought bottle? Then you can just take them back once you're body is possessed and animated?
You could do that too, but I consider Thought Bottle so broken I wouldn't touch them! Also, Holy Arrows are much cheaper.
JaronK
Warlawk: did you read the part where it does lower your Hit Dice by one for all calculations related to hit dice?
An affected opponent takes a –1 penalty on all skill checks and ability checks, attack rolls, and saving throws, and loses 5 hit points and one effective level or Hit Die (whenever level is used in a die roll or calculation) for each negative level.
Bolded for emphasis. Does that count as a reference? It's an exact quote from the books too, I checked (the SRD is missing part of it).
JaronK
SRD is the official source, the Wiki is not. I never bothered to update to a 3.5 DMG after buying the 3.0 and then having the SRD to reference if I needed to so I cannot verify that.
The official rules as listed per the SRD do not state that. If that is accurate, then there is only one person who can answer this question for certain, the DM. As this is for some forum "arena" event and there is no DM... it would not be a valid entry since it is based on ambiguous rule wording which cannot be verified as valid one way or the other.
SRD is the official source, the Wiki is not. I never bothered to update to a 3.5 DMG after buying the 3.0 and then having the SRD to reference if I needed to so I cannot verify that.
The official rules as listed per the SRD do not state that. If that is accurate, then there is only one person who can answer this question for certain, the DM. As this is for some forum "arena" event and there is no DM... it would not be a valid entry since it is based on ambiguous rule wording which cannot be verified as valid one way or the other.
Please see the books, which are the primary source over the SRD. What I just quoted for you is directly out of the books (MMI, page 308). In this case, the SRD contradicts the books, and should be ignored.
So yes, it can be verified, and I'm telling you that the wiki entry I just gave is a direct quote from page 308 of the Monster Manual.
JaronK
As for the holy arrows shtick, that's just laughable. As interpreted, a good person picking up a quiver of unholy arrows dies instantly. Sticking 4 holy arrows into an evil being gives them -8 levels. (I should be able to wield them by sticking it into myself, therefore sticking them into others should work the same way, yes?
There is so much wrong with this that it doesn't really even deserve a response... but here I am posting one anyway.
1) Ammunition is destroyed immediately after hitting. You never have arrows sticking out of you in D&D.
2) Even if you did, you sure as hell aren't weilding them. I can't believe you actually said that. Is Bob the gnome wielding a boulder if a giant smashes his head with it? *insert "How about no!" bear picture here*
So, to summarize my position:
1) Yes, the Holy arrows/negative levels thing works.
2) However, all the crap about Haunts is entirely optional material. If that is not allowed, then this whole trick is illegal. Just because a spell says it uses optional material, but fails to say that it itself is optional, doesn't mean you automatically get to bring optional material into the DMs game, even if he doesn't want you to. What kind of idiotic argument is that?
exact quote is "-1 effective level (whenever the creature's level is used in a roll or calculation, reduce it by one for each negative level.)"
Which just so happens to be the exact same as the SRD
As this is specifically not energy drain(which would be a special attack of a monster) the DMG would be the primary source, correct me if I'm wrong.
But this essentially means you need to summon something that can drain 4 levels and then it would work, assuming we can all agree that HD<8 counts as a calculation, but as there are many definitions of calculation I'd ere on the side of it works.
To help illustrate my point I have an example. First let us assume that "effective level" and "Hit Dice" are not the same. Let us further assume a wizard and a Kolyarut have an encounter. The Kolyarut goes first and uses enervation on the wizard and hits, what happens? Said wizard takes 1d4 negative levels. Now the wizard decides to respond in kind and uses enervation on the Kolyarut and hits, what happens? Nothing. The Kolyarut does not have any levels so the negative levels have no effect on him. Now do you see why I say that effective levels and hit dice are the same? Here is a second example. Take a standard PC from the PHB, give him 14 class levels. What is his total HD under your ruling that HD≠effective level? 0 because he has no racial hit dice, thus making him a valid target for Haunt Shift regardless of his level. So it would seem that the solution that is the least absurd, ie does not invalidate the usage of a large number of spells on most targets a PC would use them on, says that HD=effective level.
Reading my DMG it lacks the statement on hit dice.
exact quote is "-1 effective level (whenever the creature's level is used in a roll or calculation, reduce it by one for each negative level.)"
Which just so happens to be the exact same as the SRD
Having looked over this, I'd like to point out that the DMG also never talks about hit dice, only class levels. The MM is the only core source that ever even talks about pure hit dice (i.e. non class level hit dice)... and it immediately says level and hit dice are the same thing.
The exact quote from MM on that subject: "A creature's Hit Dice total is also treated as its level for determining how spells affect the creature." That's from page 5, the first time "Hit Dice" ever appears in core when talking about something other than class levels.
So yes, HD and Level is completely interchangeable.
JaronK
Level can mean hit dice, but does HD mean effective character level? That would mean that we'd have to add the creature's level adjustment to its hit dice when calculating if an effect can affect it.
HD = Level. Effective Character Level = (Level or HD) + Level Adjustment. So no, you do not add level adjustment to calculations based on level. ECL is only for determining CRs and such.
JaronK
You could do that too, but I consider Thought Bottle so broken I wouldn't touch them! Also, Holy Arrows are much cheaper.
JaronK
I'd lump this trick right in there with the thought bottle, so you might as well go all out.
I'd lump this trick right in there with the thought bottle, so you might as well go all out.
I dunno. Thought bottles can do so much more. This is purely defensive. It's very strong defensively of course (though watch out for Martial Adepts!) but it's pure defense, and that matters a lot. Thought bottles give you endless wishes.
JaronK
Thought bottles give you endless wishes.
So does a single Candle of Invocation, and it's a lot cheaper. ;)
Just because they can do more, doesn't mean you need them to for the trick to work, and it gets right past all the fuzzy areas of negative levels.
Now we use this:
"Negative Levels
An affected opponent takes a –1 penalty on all skill checks and ability checks, attack rolls, and saving throws, and loses 5 hit points and one effective level or Hit Die (whenever level is used in a die roll or calculation) for each negative level."
Since he now has 4 less hit dice by the rule I just stated, and thus has 8 effective hit dice, and he's a legal target for Haunt Shift (he'll need to use a scroll to now cast the spell).
Clear?
JaronK
Yeah, your entire argument rests on the fact that this WIKI page conveniently, and explicitly, states that HD is used. If you look in the Player's Handbook, the real source, it does not mention anything about Hit Dice.
A negative level is not the same thing as an actual lost level.
And why in the world would you choose to buff up your hardness when there are so much more effective things to do even earlier on?
Yeah, your entire argument rests on the fact that this WIKI page conveniently, and explicitly, states that HD is used. If you look in the Player's Handbook, the real source, it does not mention anything about Hit Dice.
A negative level is not the same thing as an actual lost level.
No, my entire arguement boils down to the MM entries on the subject. The wiki happens to be quoting the Monster Manual.
Furthermore, the Player's Handbook doesn't discuss this in detail. The DMG talks about it, but the DMG never mentions non-class level HD one way or the other. The Monster Manual is the first (and only!) core book to discuss non class level HD... and it says HD and level are interchangeable, both in the definition of hit dice on page 5 and in the definition of negative levels later on (which is in the energy drain section, but talks about negative levels in the general sense).
And why in the world would you choose to buff up your hardness when there are so much more effective things to do even earlier on?
I picked the first thing that popped into my head. I usually play necromancers, so this came up.
The other thing I went with was Planar Binding effretis, killing them, and raising them from the dead... his arguement against that was that there would be consequences for doing that beyond what a normal adventurer has when he runs around killing evil outsiders.
JaronK
So does a single Candle of Invocation, and it's a lot cheaper. ;)
Just because they can do more, doesn't mean you need them to for the trick to work, and it gets right past all the fuzzy areas of negative levels.
Fair enough, it works too.
JaronK
HD = Level. Effective Character Level = (Level or HD) + Level Adjustment. So no, you do not add level adjustment to calculations based on level. ECL is only for determining CRs and such.
Damn, I'm tired. I was trying to say something that if lowering your effective level with negative levels affects your effective HD, then increasing your effective character level with level adjustment would increase your effective HD just the same, but am not sure if it'd work the way I thought it would. I'm not sure how effective level and effective character level work together. Is there something saying that effective character level doesn't affect the effective level of the creature? WotC didn't probably think this through, because if they work the same way, we get a lot of unexpected situations (like Ogres' level adjustment making them immune to the Sleep spell).
I'm so sleepy I could be legally declared to be in a coma, so just ignore me if I'm not making any sense.
Damn, I'm tired. I was trying to say something that if lowering your effective level with negative levels affects your effective HD, then increasing your effective character level with level adjustment would increase your effective HD just the same, but am not sure if it'd work the way I thought it would. I'm not sure how effective level and effective character level work together.
Yeah, that's where you went wrong. Effective level is not the same as effective character level.
Is there something saying that effective character level doesn't affect the effective level of the creature? WotC didn't probably think this through, because if they work the same way, we get a lot of unexpected situations (like Ogres' level adjustment making them immune to the Sleep spell).
Sleep and effects like that work off your level (which is the same as your effective level). CR works off Effective Character Level, which is actually a different term.
I'm so sleepy I could be legally declared to be in a coma, so just ignore me if I'm not making any sense.
No, you're making sense, you're just hung up on two VERY similar terms.
A creature with 3 racial HD and four character levels with a level adjustment of +3 has an effective level of 7 for any effect based on level or hit dice (such as sleep or leadership, or in this case Haunt Shift). He has an effective character level of 10 for experience and CR related purposes. Level Adjustment only matters for CR and Experience.
JaronK
What I'm still confused about, however, is how he's managing to cast spells through an animated object? If I as a human wizard cast animate object on a statue in a normal combat, that does not in any way allow me to cast spells through said statue. It can not replace my somatic components(if it could, I'd use that as a workaround to let me get away with wearing armor), and as far as I'm aware it can't speak either.
Did I miss the part where that was dealt with?
Let him make his body, let him tie his soul to the construct. Let it have a hardness of his choosing. It actually makes the fight EASIER for the fighter.
Both sides have as much time to prepare as they want right?
Great.
Adamantine bypasses all hardness. Why not just use adamantine weapons, ranged or melee w/e would work best for you, and chop his infused golem body to death?
I mean seriously there are plenty of ways to hack a block to pieces when you bypass all hardness.
As a fighter you can use 300+ feet of range + greater invis + something to help with spot/ranged vision. Plug his body full of Adamantine arrows and laugh as it crumbles?
This assumes some cross classing on the fighter so he can do 40+ dmg per arrow at 300+ feet.
As to the body bit, I'm assuming that since it's the Wizard who completely controls the animated body he in fact can cast using the body itself. It can make the necessary somatic gestures, after all (assuming it's built to include appropriate hands, which I was assuming). And it is effectively his body... after all, if that body is destroyed, the Wizard is in theory dead.
JaronK
Adamantine bypasses all hardness. Why not just use adamantine weapons, ranged or melee w/e would work best for you, and chop his infused golem body to death?
Adamantine only bypasses a hardness of 20 or less. This body has a hardness of 84.
I mean seriously there are plenty of ways to hack a block to pieces when you bypass all hardness.
A few martial adept manuevers and rust monsters would be the primary things that do that. Little else works.
So yeah, it's not actually nearly that easy to bypass the hardness of this thing.
JaronK
Hey, JaronK? Expect to see a lot of rust monsters and Stone Dragon users now.
He won't this is just a duel in an arena. And sorry bout that hardness 20 thing I am away from book.
What about shatter? Technically it is an object and it isn't magical (you are bound to it and can move it, you are not part of it).
Shatter = win?
The quoting thing is just to avoid confusion as to who you're responding to.
As to the body bit, I'm assuming that since it's the Wizard who completely controls the animated body he in fact can cast using the body itself. It can make the necessary somatic gestures, after all (assuming it's built to include appropriate hands, which I was assuming). And it is effectively his body... after all, if that body is destroyed, the Wizard is in theory dead.
JaronK
Does the Haunting rules really say blowing the haunted object kills the haunter?
(That's a lot of ''haunt'' in a single phrase.:P )It says the only way to kill it is to force it to materialise through an exorcism, then kill it in a straight fight. Since you're God, how could your foe expect to win?
What about shatter? Technically it is an object and it isn't magical (you are bound to it and can move it, you are not part of it).
Shatter = win?
The weight limit should prevent such tactics.
"A calculation is a deliberate process for transforming one or more inputs into one or more results, with variable change."
They'll disagree with you... because you're wrong.
Input: HD
If HD = or < 8: Spell works
If HD > 8: Spell does not work
Luckily you're here to point out my obvious mistakes.[/sarcasm]
If you consider boolean calculations it works. If you consider arithmetic calculations (+, *, / with decimal numbers basically) it doesn't. Like I said, it's about mincing words.
What I'm still confused about, however, is how he's managing to cast spells through an animated object? If I as a human wizard cast animate object on a statue in a normal combat, that does not in any way allow me to cast spells through said statue. It can not replace my somatic components(if it could, I'd use that as a workaround to let me get away with wearing armor), and as far as I'm aware it can't speak either.
Did I miss the part where that was dealt with?
You didn't miss anything - it's getting hand-waved.
He won't this is just a duel in an arena. And sorry bout that hardness 20 thing I am away from book.
What about shatter? Technically it is an object and it isn't magical (you are bound to it and can move it, you are not part of it).
Shatter = win?
Actually, technically it's a construct that's damaged like an object (it's treated as an Animated Object, so it's a construct).
If this were in real play, yes, I would absolutely be defending against those threats... flight handles Warblades and Swordsages (you can't Stone Dragon on the ground) and Crusaders become your primary threat. Rust Monsters are a total pain of course but a Wizard should have little trouble dealing with those.
As to whether killing the body kills you... well, you wouldn't have any body to haunt, and Haunt Shift is instantaneous, so it's not like the spell ends. You're either dead or you have no way to effect the world anymore and are just an insubstancial spirit that can't do anything, so it's as close to dead as anything else.
@Omen: I can't think of any other calculations based on HD that they could be talking about. All of them say something like "If your HD is in this range, spell does this. If it's in another range, spell does that." I mean, sometimes that range is based on your caster level, but mostly it's just a straight set thing.
JaronK
The idea is that a 12th level evil Wizard who is treated as undead for purposes of spells (two spells in the SpC do this) wants to use Haunt Shift on himself, but Haunt Shift only works on undead with 8HD or less, so he has to count as being lower HD for purposes of the spell.
He holds four Holy Arrows, each of which according to the DMG "bestows one negative level on any evil creature attempting to weild it" which "cannot be overcome in any way" until he drops them, so now he has 12 levels but 4 negative levels.
Here's a rules lawyer solution to that. The negative levels do not stack. They are unnamed penalties from the same source. :D
Also note that he must "attempt to wield" them. He might wield two different holy weapons to get two negative levels, but unless he has more than two arms, he can't wield more.
And if he's wielding two weapons, he can't cast Haunt Shift. It has somatic component.
Here's a rules lawyer solution to that. The negative levels do not stack. They are unnamed penalties from the same source. :D
They aren't penalties, and besides they implicitly (some things give out multiple negative levels at once) and explicitly (Enervation says so) stack.
Also note that he must "attempt to wield" them. He might wield two different holy weapons to get two negative levels, but unless he has more than two arms, he can't wield more.
And if he's wielding two weapons, he can't cast Haunt Shift. It has somatic component.
Now that's a more legitimate concern with things. Though combining Girallon's Blessing with Arms of Plenty (each of which gives two extra arms) isn't too difficult. Unless Haunt Shift has a long casting time; Arms of Plenty lasts for mere rounds per level.
Here's a rules lawyer solution to that. The negative levels do not stack. They are unnamed penalties from the same source. :D
You mgiht want to look at the fact that negative levels always stack.
Also note that he must "attempt to wield" them. He might wield two different holy weapons to get two negative levels, but unless he has more than two arms, he can't wield more.
2: to handle (as a tool) especially effectively If he's handling it, he's wielding it.
JaronK
@Graah: More than two arms you say? Girallon's Blessing problem solved.
So he wields four weapons and can't cast Haunt Shift because of somatic component. ;) Needs Rod of Metamagic, Still Spell? ...except it's just the one that doesn't exist. (And assuming metamagic rods do not need to be wielded when used...)
Girallon's blessing adds yet another splatbook (SC) to choose spells from, so we assume DM allows everything from all WotC books and all these spells are available in his campaign. It does seem so.
You mgiht want to look at the fact that negative levels always stack.
I might, just tell me where it is.
2: to handle (as a tool) especially effectively If he's handling it, he's wielding it.
So Merriam-Webster is now a D&D rulebook?
I might, just tell me where it is.
Enervate seems to have no problem with it... and do you think when you get level drained by an undead beastie that only the first level counts and the rest get overwritten?
So Merriam-Webster is now a D&D rulebook?
Wield isn't defined in D&D, so one assumes it follows the dictionary definition.
JaronK
Enervate seems to have no problem with it... and do you think when you get level drained by an undead beastie that only the first level counts and the rest get overwritten?
Energy drain spell and energy drain powers of creatures are not items like holy arrows. Unnamed bonuses - and penalties - from the same source (item) do not stack. So, which rule says "negative levels always stack"?
Wield isn't defined in D&D, so one assumes it follows the dictionary definition.
I can almost see the incredible optimizations using the trick of wielding 50 different magic arrows off-hand, each one with interesting enchantments. :D I don't think I have seen this trick on CO board yet.
Anyway, I already found a different solution. The wizard could wear an unholy mithral buckler in one of his hands. At this point, the haunt shift -trick -wizard just begins to look so silly that I doubt if it is worth it.
- Holding them (most weapons)
- Wearing them (gauntlets)
- Being them (natural attacks)
- Holding them in your mouth (mouthpick weapons)
- Tying them in your hair (braid blade)
- Gluing them to your hand (weapon graft)
- Duct taping them to your armor (armor spikes)
- Duct taping them to your shield (shield spikes)
- Duct taping them to your boots (boot blade)
- Duct taping them to your kazoo (instrument blade)
- Duct taping them to a shield that happens to be next to you (animated spiked shield)
- Putting a braid of hair with a knife attached in your mouth (mouthpick braid blade)
- Putting your own body parts, including possibly your mouth, in your mouth (mouthpick natural attacks -- yes, there are ways to do this)
Here's a rules lawyer solution to that. The negative levels do not stack. They are unnamed penalties from the same source. :D
They aren't penalties, and besides they implicitly (some things give out multiple negative levels at once) and explicitly (Enervation says so) stack.Also note that he must "attempt to wield" them. He might wield two different holy weapons to get two negative levels, but unless he has more than two arms, he can't wield more.
And if he's wielding two weapons, he can't cast Haunt Shift. It has somatic component.
Now that's a more legitimate concern with things. Though combining Girallon's Blessing with Arms of Plenty (each of which gives two extra arms) isn't too difficult. Unless Haunt Shift has a long casting time; Arms of Plenty lasts for mere rounds per level.
More precisely, here's the text of Enervation.
Enervation
Necromancy
Level: Sor/Wiz 4
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Effect: Ray of negative energy
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: Yes
You point your finger and utter the incantation, releasing a black ray of crackling negative energy that suppresses the life force of any living creature it strikes. You must make a ranged touch attack to hit. If the attack succeeds, the subject gains 1d4 negative levels.
If the subject has at least as many negative levels as HD, it dies. Each negative level gives a creature a -1 penalty on attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, ability checks, and effective level (for determining the power, duration, DC, and other details of spells or special abilities).
Additionally, a spellcaster loses one spell or spell slot from his or her highest available level. Negative levels stack.
Assuming the subject survives, it regains lost levels after a number of hours equal to your caster level (maximum 15 hours). Usually, negative levels have a chance of permanently draining the victim’s levels, but the negative levels from enervation don’t last long enough to do so.
An undead creature struck by the ray gains 1d4
Energy drain spell and energy drain powers of creatures are not items like holy arrows. Unnamed bonuses - and penalties - from the same source (item) do not stack. So, which rule says "negative levels always stack"?
Further to this: multiple copies of the same effect from the same source generally don't stack (e.g. two rays of enfeeblement). There is a general exception for Instantaneous effects - Enervation and a monster's energy drain attack fall into this category, and that is why they stack with themselves. It's not nearly as clear that the negative levels from (un)holy weapons are instantaneous-duration effects, since they go away when you drop the weapon.
I agree that negative levels reduce your HD for the purpose of determining whether or not HD-dependent spells affect you - I think the MM is the primary source for determining the effect of negative levels on creatures with HD not gained from class levels.
What spell are you using to qualify as undead, btw?
So how many levels does it take before you're unable to kill yourself with an unlimited supply of misaligned weapons?
Quite a while -- I forgot things like gluing a drum with a knife duct-taped to it that can only be played while being held in your mouth to your hand.
Further to this: multiple copies of the same effect from the same source generally don't stack (e.g. two rays of enfeeblement). There is a general exception for Instantaneous effects - Enervation and a monster's energy drain attack fall into this category, and that is why they stack with themselves. It's not nearly as clear that the negative levels from (un)holy weapons are instantaneous-duration effects, since they go away when you drop the weapon.
I think the further addition from the Holy Weapon text about how you can't avoid the negative levels in any way also indicates that you can't dodge them by, for example, claiming they can't stack.
What spell are you using to qualify as undead, btw?
There are two in the Spell Compendium. One is called IIRC Shades of Undeath. Both explicitly say that you count as undead for the purposes of spells (which is great with the Vile Death spell!).
JaronK
As to the body bit, I'm assuming that since it's the Wizard who completely controls the animated body he in fact can cast using the body itself. It can make the necessary somatic gestures, after all (assuming it's built to include appropriate hands, which I was assuming). And it is effectively his body... after all, if that body is destroyed, the Wizard is in theory dead.
Oh no you don't. You made your bed, now you've got to sleep in it. You're the one who has to stick so closely to the RAW to get this trick to work in the first place.
You're making one too many assumptions here. By the rules, you can only cast magic through your body, and through anything that explicitly says you can cast through them(familiars, etc.). Nowhere is it said that the haunted object is your new 'body'. Indeed, you yourself are relying on Animate Object: an effect that does not make any exceptions to the rules in casting. So you would die without the object. Big whoop. It's still not your body, unless the rules say it is so.
To "assume" otherwise, as you do, is to appeal to the reason of the DM, in which case you aren't talking RAW anymore.
Either you find a workaround or find solid support from the rules that you can cast through your haunted object. Otherwise, your idea is dead in the water with turning your wizard into a glorified golem at best, a mere ghost at worst.
Oh no you don't. You made your bed, now you've got to sleep in it. You're the one who has to stick so closely to the RAW to get this trick to work in the first place.
Eh? I'm trying to stick closely to RAW the whole time, including here.
You're making one too many assumptions here. By the rules, you can only cast magic through your body, and through anything that explicitly says you can cast through them(familiars, etc.). Nowhere is it said that the haunted object is your new 'body'. Indeed, you yourself are relying on Animate Object: an effect that does not make any exceptions to the rules in casting. So you would die without the object. Big whoop. It's still not your body, unless the rules say it is so.
The rules don't have a definition for what is "your body" but the body that your spirit is currently animating seems like a pretty valid definition in D&D. It's not like you have another body at the time. I would assume it works just like Magic Jar (the only other such possession spell I know of) which does let you cast spells through the body you've possessed.
To "assume" otherwise, as you do, is to appeal to the reason of the DM, in which case you aren't talking RAW anymore.
I assume as much because similar examples in RAW allow it and nothing in the spell explicitly prevents it.
Either you find a workaround or find solid support from the rules that you can cast through your haunted object. Otherwise, your idea is dead in the water with turning your wizard into a glorified golem at best, a mere ghost at worst.
So, does Magic Jar count as enough precidence for you? Or would you prefer to use some other example of possession (I don't have the book for the Fiend of Possession PrC but that might be valid to check as well).
JaronK
The rules don't have a definition for what is "your body" but the body that your spirit is currently animating seems like a pretty valid definition in D&D. It's not like you have another body at the time. I would assume it works just like Magic Jar (the only other such possession spell I know of) which does let you cast spells through the body you've possessed.
So, does Magic Jar count as enough precidence for you? Or would you prefer to use some other example of possession (I don't have the book for the Fiend of Possession PrC but that might be valid to check as well).
JaronK
I do not have the rules for the Haunt Shift spell or Haunts. However, what I have gathered from this thread is that you are tied to an object. Then you want to use animate object to make your object "body" mobile and functional.
You say that you are "possessing" this body and thus can use it to cast spells as you would your original body.
The animate object spells creates and animated object from the Monster Manual. An Animated Object from the Monster Manual is a Construct. Constructs are immune to mind influencing effects.
You cannot take control of an animated object with a possession effect.
The rules don't have a definition for what is "your body" but the body that your spirit is currently animating seems like a pretty valid definition in D&D. It's not like you have another body at the time. I would assume it works just like Magic Jar (the only other such possession spell I know of) which does let you cast spells through the body you've possessed.
I assume as much because similar examples in RAW allow it and nothing in the spell explicitly prevents it.
So, does Magic Jar count as enough precidence for you? Or would you prefer to use some other example of possession (I don't have the book for the Fiend of Possession PrC but that might be valid to check as well).
As Warlawk said, that's not a correct correlation. Animate Object, the key to your trick, does NOT function like a Magic Jar by any stretch of imagination. For it to replicate possession, it would have to state that it does so. Otherwise, you are simply a ghost hanging out, using a bit of magic to cause an object to come to life under your control. Possession is a different thing, and there are specific magic items and effects that cause it. If Animate Object could be used to possess an item, it would make that stipulation, or the description of haunting would do so. Likewise, if haunting an item were meant to be equivalent to a possession, it would say so in the rules. I don't have Libris Mortis, so I can't exactly reference the Haunt Shift rules myself. However, due to the fact that you haven't cited the haunting special rules to support your 'possession' theory, I assume that they don't say it.
Remember, precedent and similarity are not rules, they are tools of interpretation. If you want us to buy it, you either rely on a subjective interpretation, or you have a rule that says you can. Memory Jar is not Animate Object, and Animate Object does not replicate a Memory Jar until you find a rule that says they do.
And to add a further argument on logic:
1. You argue that you can cast through the body using Animate Object, because having no other means of action, your character 'might as well' be possessing the object. In other words, you argued that the end result of the spell is the same as Memory Jar, except you don't leave a body or a jar behind.
2. If your character were NOT haunting the object, I think we can all agree that animating it would not count as possession.
3. Therefore, the reason it works, according to you, is not because of Animate Object, but because otherwise your mage can't do anything else(except command a golem body to smack things, of course).
4. So the trick works because otherwise it doesn't work? That's a logical fallacy, circular reasoning.
Add this to Warlawk's point about being unable to possess an animated object.
Finally, a question about Haunt Shift I may have missed: is Animate Object an innate ability of the haunting character, or do you have to cast it as a spell?
Is it important to point out you they both seem to be using slightly different sources?
D&D Wiki specifically mentions HD ~JK's Weapon of choice.
The SRDsite does mention an effective -1 Level, but does not specifically mention HD. ~Aelryinth's weapon of choice.
Though I'm pretty sure "Effective -1 level" still counts as -1 HD, could be wrong.
I'm not discriminating between HD and levels.
I'm drawing the line the SRD does between permanent and temporary level loss.
Jaron's trying to argue that their definition of calculation and equations includes hard limits which don't involve any calculating (boolean? Please. It's a hard limit. There's no variable to insert here.) He's inferring that as long as he can justify something being a calculation, now, he can expand the definition of what negative levels do to allow anything, including this trick to temporarily qualify as a target for the spell.
I'm just looking at it as written, and seeing a high level character with negative levels. He's still a high level character. When those negative levels make the 'leap' to permanent ones, then he's a low level character. He's hand-waving the whole issue so he can pull off this combo.
Nice add-ini on the animated object, it's a point he's been consistently ignoring, probably because it's another major weak spot.
Also, if a Haunting Prescence is tied to an object and the object is destroyed, then the prescence is destroyed...right there, Chapter One, Liber Mortis.
A Prescence bound to an area or something that couldn't be destroyed, can only be destroyed by being forced to manifest physically, which means via exorcism.
While insubstantial, a Prescence can't do anything but animate objects in the area it is haunting, or the one it is tied to.
And as for the wieldiing holy items, stuff, I'll use Tsu~'s list and sovereign glue them to the body of the bad guy? Throw unholy sling bullets at them with touch attacks and 'duct tape' them to it's hide. Wielding them, right? Who cares about the damage, a dozen of these just clinging to it, and that's 24 negative levels.
And 'effectively permanent' while wielding it is permanent negative levels, not negative levels that have been turned to permanent level loss.
===Aelryinth
I'm not discriminating between HD and levels.
I'm drawing the line the SRD does between permanent and temporary level loss.
Jaron's trying to argue that their definition of calculation and equations includes hard limits which don't involve any calculating (boolean? Please. It's a hard limit. There's no variable to insert here.) He's inferring that as long as he can justify something being a calculation, now, he can expand the definition of what negative levels do to allow anything, including this trick to temporarily qualify as a target for the spell.
First off, let me say I agree with JK and others about the HD thing. You keep referring to the SRD as a superior source, but any rule stated in the core 3 is preferred over the SRD. The Monster Manual is the source of the HD=Levels thing. Ignore that at your own risk.
That leaves a simple logical point that has already been raised:
1. HD=Level was important enough that they decided to write it in the MM, meaning they likely knew of effects that depend on that fact.
2. All spells I know of that specifically mention HD(especially in the years before the SpC) use it merely as a qualifier: "if it's greater than this HD," etc.
3. Therefore, it is likely that the 'calculations' being referred to are those already in existence: Sleep, Holy Word, etc.
Next, the word 'boolean' is confusing people. Mathmatically, X>Y is a calculation.
Finally:
cal·cu·la·tion Audio Help /ˌkælkyəˈleɪʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kal-kyuh-ley-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the act or process of calculating; computation.
2. the result or product of calculating: His calculations agree with ours.
3. an estimate based on the known facts; forecast: Her calculation of the building costs proved quite accurate.
4. forethought; prior or careful planning.
5. scheming selfishness.
(emphasis mine)
Now don't get upset, Aelryinth, because I fear you may still get your way:
While insubstantial, a Prescence can't do anything but animate objects in the area it is haunting, or the one it is tied to.
If you can find us a statement in the book that states that explicitly, the argument may well be over. It means not only that this is not a possession(thus bringing my previous arguments into effect), but it also means he can not cast spells. Period.
If the rule says the haunting presence can only animate objects, then it can not do any of the other things that are required to cast spells, because it is specifically limited.
If you can find us a statement in the book that states that explicitly, the argument may well be over. It means not only that this is not a possession(thus bringing my previous arguments into effect), but it also means he can not cast spells. Period.
If the rule says the haunting presence can only animate objects, then it can not do any of the other things that are required to cast spells, because it is specifically limited.
That the Animated Object is a construct and therefor can't be possessed isn't really the issue. I'm arguing that the statement that the Wizard is animating the object is functionally identical to possession... he has completely control over the body just as Magic Jar gives complete control over the body. In ever other case where a spirit has complete control over a body that spirit can use spells and mental abilities native to the spirit (and not those native to the body). Haunt Shift gives the body specific rules (via Animate Objects, it gives them specific scores in strength, hitpoints, dexterity, and so on) but never gives specific rules for how the spirit's control of the body functions... as such, I am forced to default to other similar situations to see what happens there and apply those rules here. And in all such similar situations where a spirit uses a body as its own like this, it is allowed to cast spells and take mental actions (assuming the body is physically capable of using the somatic components), ergo I think that works just as well here.
If we don't treat the body as the Wizard's body and treat the Wizard's spirit as a seperate entity, then if the Wizard is a Shadowcraft Mage (and thus able to cast shadow spells silent and stilled for free assuming he took Arcane Thesis: Silent Image) he can cast all day long from his intangible state, could he not? And thus he would be able to have his body attacking while his spirit casts spells. That could be even more brutal than before... but I don't think it's accurate, because I believe the body he's haunting through is in fact his body for all purposes.
JaronK
That the Animated Object is a construct and therefor can't be possessed isn't really the issue. I'm arguing that the statement that the Wizard is animating the object is functionally identical to possession... he has completely control over the body just as Magic Jar gives complete control over the body. In ever other case where a spirit has complete control over a body that spirit can use spells and mental abilities native to the spirit (and not those native to the body). Haunt Shift gives the body specific rules (via Animate Objects, it gives them specific scores in strength, hitpoints, dexterity, and so on) but never gives specific rules for how the spirit's control of the body functions... as such, I am forced to default to other similar situations to see what happens there and apply those rules here. And in all such similar situations where a spirit uses a body as its own like this, it is allowed to cast spells and take mental actions (assuming the body is physically capable of using the somatic components), ergo I think that works just as well here.
If we don't treat the body as the Wizard's body and treat the Wizard's spirit as a seperate entity, then if the Wizard is a Shadowcraft Mage (and thus able to cast shadow spells silent and stilled for free assuming he took Arcane Thesis: Silent Image) he can cast all day long from his intangible state, could he not? And thus he would be able to have his body attacking while his spirit casts spells. That could be even more brutal than before... but I don't think it's accurate, because I believe the body he's haunting through is in fact his body for all purposes.
JaronK
What you think has no bearing on what the rules state. The rules apparently do not state that you possess the body, or that it is now "your body". They simply state that you can animate the body.
When any mage casts animate object they take complete control of that object. They cannot cast spells using that body however even though they completely control it. The rules for Haunts do not explicitly state that you can cast spells through your animated "body".
No spellcasting through an animated object.
Poltergeist is what I think he may be referring to in controlling it, this states that an object with moving parts can be used. Specific examples given, crossbow can draw and fire itself, but not load or aim, wagon can steer itself toward someone and roll in that direction, etc.
Undead with 10+HD and 17 or more charisma can do this with objects that don't have moving parts, which are then treated as animated objects. But can never do this with something that would have a higher CR than the undead haunting presence.
So it is rather safe to say that you are a presence, a part of an object, but this doesn't allow you to cast spells through it as that isn't a function of the original object. Though you can animate the object and then become corporeal, but this is a rather poor way to get a thing that will almost assuredly get ignored.
It also brings up the question of what such an items CR would be.
What you think has no bearing on what the rules state. The rules apparently do not state that you possess the body, or that it is now "your body". They simply state that you can animate the body.
When any mage casts animate object they take complete control of that object. They cannot cast spells using that body however even though they completely control it. The rules for Haunts do not explicitly state that you can cast spells through your animated "body".
No spellcasting through an animated object.
The rules don't state anything about what happens to your casting, so one has to use similar situations.
When a normal mage casts Animate Object, that object now has no intelligence and acts on his orders. That's very different from the Mage having complete control of the object.
JaronK
I'm much more interested in the Animate Object spellcasting debate. It seems you'd need Still Spell, Silent Spell, and Eschew Materials for any spell you want to cast, by RAW.
Undead with 10+HD and 17 or more charisma can do this with objects that don't have moving parts, which are then treated as animated objects. But can never do this with something that would have a higher CR than the undead haunting presence.
This is the usage I'm refering to.
So it is rather safe to say that you are a presence, a part of an object, but this doesn't allow you to cast spells through it as that isn't a function of the original object. Though you can animate the object and then become corporeal, but this is a rather poor way to get a thing that will almost assuredly get ignored.
If you're part of it, and it's part of you (otherwise destroying it wouldn't destroy you), and it's a body... isn't it your body?
It also brings up the question of what such an items CR would be.
The CR of the items is just based on size, and it's found in the Animate Objects rules.
Finally, a question about Haunt Shift I may have missed: is Animate Object an innate ability of the haunting character, or do you have to cast it as a spell?
You don't actually cast Animate Object. It's just that the way you can move your body is the same as the Animate Object rules. You "can actually force an object with no moving parts to animate (see Animated Objects, page 13 of the Monster Manual) based on the object's size." It's an innate ability of the Haunting Presence, not actually a spell. In fact, the spell is never refered to, only the Animated Objects from the Monster Manual.
So yeah, it's not like a normal mage casting a spell that causes an object to follow his orders. Rather, the mage's spirit animates a body which follows the rules of an Animated Object for purposes of what the body is.
JaronK
There are two possibilities that a haunting spirit can do, Impermanent home and Poltergeist. Impermanent home means the caster returns to incorporeal or corporeal form near the object it haunts, and in doing so can be killed, but can also cast spells. Essentially HD times per week the caster can return to being a caster for up to HD minutes.
Poltergeist is what I think he may be referring to in controlling it, this states that an object with moving parts can be used. Specific examples given, crossbow can draw and fire itself, but not load or aim, wagon can steer itself toward someone and roll in that direction, etc.
Undead with 10+HD and 17 or more charisma can do this with objects that don't have moving parts, which are then treated as animated objects. But can never do this with something that would have a higher CR than the undead haunting presence.
Oh look, the rules DO in fact say when you can cast spells. You can cast spells by using the first ability.
The second ability lets you animate objects.
The first ability specifies that you can cast spells. This sets precedent. If you can cast spells the ability will list it. This has been established.
The second ability does not state you can cast spells, so you cannot.
The rules don't state anything about what happens to your casting, so one has to use similar situations.
When a normal mage casts Animate Object, that object now has no intelligence and acts on his orders. That's very different from the Mage having complete control of the object.
JaronK
The rules DO establish when and how you can cast spells as shown above.
***t you make up because it sounds good to you and the rules, are NOT one and the same.
EDIT: Animated Object per the MM do not list any ability to perform somatic or verbal components, so they cannot. Just another point to be made.
Oh look, the rules DO in fact say when you can cast spells. You can cast spells by using the first ability.
The second ability lets you animate objects.
The first ability specifies that you can cast spells. This sets precedent. If you can cast spells the ability will list it. This has been established.
The second ability does not state you can cast spells, so you cannot.
Um, the first ability doesn't actually say you can cast spells. It does say you can "take any actions normal for an undead of its kind. It can attack, take damage, and be destroyed" but that's about it. You act like it explicitly says it can cast spells, but it doesn't say that. Spells are never mentioned at all.
The rules DO establish when and how you can cast spells as shown above.
Um... they don't? Seriously, can you please read the material instead of assuming what it says?
***t you make up because it sounds good to you and the rules, are NOT one and the same.
And what you make up without reading them at all isn't rules either. Please read the source material instead of assuming.
EDIT: Animated Object per the MM do not list any ability to perform somatic or verbal components, so they cannot. Just another point to be made.
But the Animated Object rules are only for the motions it's allowed to do with the body and the rules for damaging/destroying it. Nothing about what mental actions he can take or what class abilities he can use is given in the Haunt Shift rules, nor are you refered to Animated Objects for those rules. Now, the fact that you can move those objects in any way you want would strongly suggest the ability to perform somatic components, should those objects be shaped with actual hands.
JaronK
No matter what the presence is tied to, it is still an intangible presence. It is not 'possessing' the item in question, just effecting it with an ability. You do not become a statue, you become an intangible presence that is tied to the statue.
So, you'd need to stick to Verbal spells, or find a way to bypass the Somatic and Touch components. You'd also be stuck without Touch spells, and any Personal spells you cast will not effect the object you are tied to.
Well, as a Presence, there is nothing stopping him from casting spells. He just needs to be able to provide the components. Any Sentient Haunting Presence can speak, so he has Verbal covered. Somatic, Focus, and Material aren't going to work as the character is not directly interacting with it.
No matter what the presence is tied to, it is still an intangible presence. It is not 'possessing' the item in question, just effecting it with an ability. You do not become a statue, you become an intangible presence that is tied to the statue.
So, you'd need to stick to Verbal spells, or find a way to bypass the Somatic and Touch components. You'd also be stuck without Touch spells, and any Personal spells you cast will not effect the object you are tied to.
Dang, that's far nastier. A Shadowcraft Mage doesn't generally need Somatic components (or verbal, really), and Eschew Materials handles the rest. You'd be totally impossible to hurt as long as you didn't manifest, and could blast away with impunity.
Dear god, that's insanity. And if the other bit isn't your body and is just controlled like Animate Objects, then it's even better... your body can attack away while you cast as an invincible intangible spirit. Every once in a while you could manifest to cast long term buffs and such, then vanish again.
JaronK
Dang, that's far nastier. A Shadowcraft Mage doesn't generally need Somatic components (or verbal, really), and Eschew Materials handles the rest. You'd be totally impossible to hurt as long as you didn't manifest, and could blast away with impunity.
Dear god, that's insanity. And if the other bit isn't your body and is just controlled like Animate Objects, then it's even better... your body can attack away while you cast as an invincible intangible spirit. Every once in a while you could manifest to cast long term buffs and such, then vanish again.
JaronK
I do believe it would recquire your concentration to keep the body moving, going by the wording of Haunting Presence. It's not 100% clear, though, as it's an ill-defined ability that is based off a Monster Manual entry instead of a spell or some such. Honestly, the whole thing smacks of a "DM Tool" that shouldn't be allowed into Player hands, as it hasn't been considered by the developer as an option for players. Then again, 90% of the threads on this board seem to be based on or include such options ^.^
Of course, a well prepared exorcist that has researched you just needs to talk near you for 10 consecutive rounds to force you to manifest, and continue talking to keep your manifested. There are any number of ways to keep his physical self free from harm and trap your body nearby for that duration. One good Turn Undead later, and your character is a fine powder.
Neat idea, though.
As an intangible sentient haunting you can cast spells, though without still spell on all of them you can't perform gestures, and you're incapable of using somatic components or foci.
Using the poltergeist the creature is treated as an animated object, not your body. Destroying the item you're haunting doesn't destroy you.
That is how I see things, but I could be wrong though I don't think I am.
EDIT: Just to add, it seems you're limiting your mobility a lot and people could simply avoid you.
Using the poltergeist the creature is treated as an animated object, not your body. Destroying the item you're haunting doesn't destroy you.
Incorrect.
In fact, a haunting presence is tied to an object or location, and only upon the destruction of the object or location is it dispelled.
Destroying the item he is tied to is, in fact, the only way to kill him without making him manifest in a Corporeal or Incorporeal form.
It seems, JaronK, that this would be possible but not accomplish your goals.
U
And what you make up without reading them at all isn't rules either. Please read the source material instead of assuming.
Don't have it, as I have stated repeatedly in this thread. I am working from what has been stated in this thread.
Nowhere have you provided ANY actual rule that states you can cast in any way shape or form aside from when you manifest. Everything else is just flimsy crap you made up based on unrelated abilities such as possession. The idea is trash and uses abilities and functions not sanctioned for player use.
A perfectly reasonable ruling is that Haunts are not a playable race. You become one and you become and NPC, losing the "duel". This whole idea is a joke and smacks of the worst kind of cheese.
Don't have it, as I have stated repeatedly in this thread. I am working from what has been stated in this thread.
You know, these are actually REALLY complex rules. The spell links to a full page description elsewhere in the book which itself links to the Monster Manual. Without being able to read it you're not going to have decent information on the topic, and you're not going to be able to actually read things and find out what's actually said. I mean, in this post alone you call Hauntings a "race" which they're not, and you assume that you can't cast while insubstancial, which the rules don't in fact say. You further assume the abilities aren't sanctioned for player use, despite the fact that Haunt Shift is listed as a spell on the Sorcerer/Wizard list and is thus clearly available for players to use.
Nowhere have you provided ANY actual rule that states you can cast in any way shape or form aside from when you manifest. Everything else is just flimsy crap you made up based on unrelated abilities such as possession. The idea is trash and uses abilities and functions not sanctioned for player use.
If you want to play it like that, no quoted rule says you can't cast just fine while insubstancial. It's even mentioned that you can speak just fine, and nothing says you can't gesture (you're insubstancial, but since you can speak there's evidently something there). In fact, manifesting just lets you attack others and be attacked... in other words, it lets you interact physically with your environment. Nothing says you can't gesture just fine before that (though getting material components would be tough, obviously). Heck, it doesn't say your gear doesn't go with you (in fact if anything it implies that it does) so perhaps you've even got material components to and can cast while being impossible to effect.
A perfectly reasonable ruling is that Haunts are not a playable race. You become one and you become and NPC, losing the "duel". This whole idea is a joke and smacks of the worst kind of cheese.
That's rediculous. It's a listed spell that any spellcaster can cast. It's also not a race.
JaronK
No matter what the presence is tied to, it is still an intangible presence. It is not 'possessing' the item in question, just effecting it with an ability. You do not become a statue, you become an intangible presence that is tied to the statue.
This is what I was getting at. It's not your body, it's an object under your control. Well said.
Dang, that's far nastier. A Shadowcraft Mage doesn't generally need Somatic components (or verbal, really), and Eschew Materials handles the rest. You'd be totally impossible to hurt as long as you didn't manifest, and could blast away with impunity.
And that, my friends, is what we call a workaround
This would seem to be a method to protect your precious shadowcraft mage from harm. The weakness to exorcism is a necessary evil: everyone has weaknesses, no? It takes an ascended character to be safe from everything, after all. Besides, the whole argument is based on a duel between a fighter and a mage, not an exorcist and a mage.
I suggest posting up a build to make this possible. That way you'll get help in case more workarounds are necessary.
[edit]If Warlawk turns out to be right, though, that would make my previous statements wrong. We'll see.
The initial ability, impermanent home, allows you to become corporeal and do anything you could otherwise do, this obviously includes spellcasting.
As an intangible sentient haunting you can cast spells, though without still spell on all of them you can't perform gestures, and you're incapable of using somatic components or foci.
I don't think you're haunt shifted naked. In theory, your gear should all shift with you (and also be on you when you manifest). As such, there's only the question of somatic components... but it never says you don't have a body to do that with, only that you can't touch anything or be touched or whatever. So... yikes.
Using the poltergeist the creature is treated as an animated object, not your body. Destroying the item you're haunting doesn't destroy you.
It does dispel the haunting.
That is how I see things, but I could be wrong though I don't think I am.
The rules on this are not clear, that's for certain.
EDIT: Just to add, it seems you're limiting your mobility a lot and people could simply avoid you.
Manifest and throw a Greater Floating Disk under the haunted object. Now you can fly it around! The duration is plenty for the job.
JaronK
And that, my friends, is what we call a workaround
This would seem to be a method to protect your precious shadowcraft mage from harm. The weakness to exorcism is a necessary evil: everyone has weaknesses, no? It takes an ascended character to be safe from everything, after all. Besides, the whole argument is based on a duel between a fighter and a mage, not an exorcist and a mage.
Also, have you seen how long it takes to exorcise something? If my SCM can't kill you in 10 full rounds, he deserves to get destroyed. Frankly, I'd think Martial Adepts attacking the body would be the primary danger, not exorcism. Heck, the body can fight just fine on its own. You can even do thinks like casting Permanent Shrink Item and Permanent Invisibility (it's an object when you're not poltergisting it) on it, so you can shrink it away to fine size if you so desire and leave it permanently invisible while it floats about on a Greater Floating Disk. That would even make it pretty darn silent, as it's not moving (only the disk is). Yikes.
I suggest posting up a build to make this possible. That way you'll get help in case more workarounds are necessary.
I'd just go with a standard Shadowcraft Mage who doesn't ban necromancy. Probably drop Evocation and Enchantment.
[edit]If Warlawk turns out to be right, though, that would make my previous statements wrong. We'll see.
Well, he doesn't have the book, so he's just guessing anyway.
JaronK
If you want to play it like that, no quoted rule says you can't cast just fine while insubstancial. It's even mentioned that you can speak just fine, and nothing says you can't gesture (you're insubstancial, but since you can speak there's evidently something there). In fact, manifesting just lets you attack others and be attacked... in other words, it lets you interact physically with your environment. Nothing says you can't gesture just fine before that (though getting material components would be tough, obviously). Heck, it doesn't say your gear doesn't go with you (in fact if anything it implies that it does) so perhaps you've even got material components to and can cast while being impossible to effect.
Have to disagree completely here. You can't fulfill a component without something to fulfill that component with. You have a voice, that voice isn't tied to anything else. You have nothing to gesture with. You can no more complete the Somatic components than a Wizard that has been Polymorphed into a Bear.
As to the items, Haunt Shift doesn't deal with items. The items would stay right where they were. With no body left to support them, they'd simply fall to the ground.
You can cast spells. You can fulfill Verbal components. You have a basis to work from. Seems your biggest hurdle at this point is Somatic components, Material components, and mobility. Mobility isn't tough, multiple legs would give you speed: 40.
Well, he doesn't have the book, so he's just guessing anyway.
JaronK
Kind of like you? The rules don't say I can't do this... so I guess I can? Saying that you're reaching does not begin to describe the level of ridiculousness of this.
The poltergeist ability as listed in this thread lets you take control of an animated object. Take control of, with an effect similar to Animate Object for the more powerful ability. This in no way grants you the ability to cast spells through that object. There is no rule supporting this or implicating that you can use this body to cast spells. Even without the entire text in front of me, this concept is easy to grasp.
If you can or cannot cast spells while incorporeal is an entirely different discussion.
Kind of like you? The rules don't say I can't do this... so I guess I can? Saying that you're reaching does not begin to describe the level of ridiculousness of this.
The poltergeist ability as listed in this thread lets you take control of an animated object. Take control of, with an effect similar to Animate Object for the more powerful ability. This in no way grants you the ability to cast spells through that object. There is no rule supporting this or implicating that you can use this body to cast spells. Even without the entire text in front of me, this concept is easy to grasp.
If you can or cannot cast spells while incorporeal is an entirely different discussion.
Hold on there. First, this is the same kind of ridiculousness that comes up on these boards all the time. But second, he seems to have conceded the point of casting with the body anyway, as he's already contemplating the potential of the Shadowcraft mage.
So what about casting spells while incorporeal? Can you do it? I think so, but what do the rules say? If not, that's a problem. If allowed, he just has to use workarounds(like the SCM) to bypass the missing components.
Now, not to get even more cheesy here(okay, who am I kidding, this is going to be cheesy), but what are the possibilities of using the Vow of Poverty? Is Haunt shift necessarily an evil spell? What about the spell that makes you count as undead? Using unholy arrows instead of holy ones would let you meet the requirements of Haunt shift and the Vow at the same time. This would also get around the possibility of leaving your equipment behind...
Have to disagree completely here. You can't fulfill a component without something to fulfill that component with. You have a voice, that voice isn't tied to anything else. You have nothing to gesture with. You can no more complete the Somatic components than a Wizard that has been Polymorphed into a Bear.
As to the items, Haunt Shift doesn't deal with items. The items would stay right where they were. With no body left to support them, they'd simply fall to the ground.
You can cast spells. You can fulfill Verbal components. You have a basis to work from. Seems your biggest hurdle at this point is Somatic components, Material components, and mobility. Mobility isn't tough, multiple legs would give you speed: 40.
Well, the rules of Haunt Shift say nothing one way or the other about gear or whether you have a form to work with (though obviously it would be an insubstancial form) but I get the feeling you're not supposed to manifest stark naked, you know? So it seems like the gear should come along.
But really, SCM solves everything. You don't need somatic or material components, and mobility is easily solved with a Greater Floating Disk (Haunt Shift won't let you increase your mobility beyond your base amount, and is instead limited by both your natural form and your haunting form, whichever is slower).
JaronK
So what about casting spells while incorporeal? Can you do it? I think so, but what do the rules say? If not, that's a problem. If allowed, he just has to use workarounds(like the SCM) to bypass the missing components.
The rules say nothing one way or another about it. They mention that you can speak while insubstancial, and that you're aware of anything within 60' of what you haunt, and that you're part of the haunted object. They also say you can't be turned, rebuked, or destroyed while insubstancial, plus that your normal vulnerabilities no longer apply. Later, it says you have to manifest if you want to physically attack or be attacked. Nothing on the topic of spells, so by RAW you can still cast the same as always since you had that ability and it was never taken away.
Now, not to get even more cheesy here(okay, who am I kidding, this is going to be cheesy), but what are the possibilities of using the Vow of Poverty? Is Haunt shift necessarily an evil spell? What about the spell that makes you count as undead? Using unholy arrows instead of holy ones would let you meet the requirements of Haunt shift and the Vow at the same time. This would also get around the possibility of leaving your equipment behind...
Heh. Very sneaky. No, Haunt Shift is not evil. Kiss of the Vampyre (level 7) does the trick and isn't evil either. Shroud of Undeath (level 2) also isn't evil. So yeah, theoretically you could pull this one off, though it doesn't matter much (your invincible anyway, only the bonus to Int would matter).
Something else to consider: cast touch spells through your familiar. Improved Familiar would be wise of course, and later on using PAO to turn it into something more durable would be well advised. Heck, use Shroud of Undeath on your familiar and PAO the little sucker into a Ghostly Visage that can hide inside your golem-like body.
JaronK
Kind of like you? The rules don't say I can't do this... so I guess I can? Saying that you're reaching does not begin to describe the level of ridiculousness of this.
No, I'm actually reading the rules and trying to interpret them. You're reading second hand summaries of the rules and assuming you know more about them.
The poltergeist ability as listed in this thread lets you take control of an animated object. Take control of, with an effect similar to Animate Object for the more powerful ability. This in no way grants you the ability to cast spells through that object. There is no rule supporting this or implicating that you can use this body to cast spells. Even without the entire text in front of me, this concept is easy to grasp.
This is what I mean about guessing. Are you aware that A) it doesn't say the effect is similar to Animate Object, and in fact never references that spell at all and B) the haunting presence rules say you are now a part of that object?
If you can or cannot cast spells while incorporeal is an entirely different discussion.
Also, the spell doesn't make you incorporeal. Incorporeal has its own rules.
JaronK
I don't think you're haunt shifted naked. In theory, your gear should all shift with you (and also be on you when you manifest). As such, there's only the question of somatic components... but it never says you don't have a body to do that with, only that you can't touch anything or be touched or whatever. So... yikes.
I disagree. To be able to use a Material component, you have to be able to physically manipulate the material component. You can do this with the same hand that you fulfill the Somatic component.
I do not think you keep your gear. The spell and Presence were designed with undead in mind, they all have natural offensive abilities.
So what about casting spells while incorporeal? Can you do it? I think so, but what do the rules say? If not, that's a problem. If allowed, he just has to use workarounds(like the SCM) to bypass the missing components.
It does not specifically disallow spellcasting. The only things stopping you are the normal limitations on spellcasting.
Also, you are not incorporeal. You literally do not exist except as a 'presence'.
Haunt is even worse. You don't have anything to manifest. You just exist, which means no spells with somatic components work (you don't have the hands to wave around), anything with verbal components also is out (you can't speak), and anything with a material component is also out (you can't touch them).
Basically, Jaronk just jayanked himself.
Haunt is even worse. You don't have anything to manifest. You just exist, which means no spells with somatic components work (you don't have the hands to wave around), anything with verbal components also is out (you can't speak), and anything with a material component is also out (you can't touch them).
We already covered these. Haunting Presences do have a voice and can speak, as long as they are sentient. Verbal components are in. Somatic and Material/Focus components are out.
We already covered these. Haunting Presences do have a voice and can speak, as long as they are sentient. Verbal components are in. Somatic and Material/Focus components are out.
I am doubtful on the sentience part of the qualifier... ;)
Taking the Ghost as a starting point, you are basically on the Ethereal Plane all the time. You can't affect the Material Plane at all unless you manifest. Even when you are manifested, you cannot use many of your usual spells. For example, ALL touch spells do not work.
Haunt is even worse. You don't have anything to manifest. You just exist, which means no spells with somatic components work (you don't have the hands to wave around), anything with verbal components also is out (you can't speak), and anything with a material component is also out (you can't touch them).
Basically, Jaronk just jayanked himself.
Touch spells work fine... with your familiar to deliver them (turning him into a Ghostly Visage seems very smart to me for this purpose. And again, Shadowcraft Mages can cast the bulk of their spells without needing somatic or material components.
Furthermore... you explicitly can speak ("the haunting presence of a sentient undead can always chose to speak to nearby creatures, usually in a whispery or incoherant voice that seems to come from the air"). Also, claiming "You don't have anything to manifest" is very strange since you explicitly have the ability to manifest.
So... are you also just making assumptions and failing to read the source material like Warlawk is?
JaronK
Touch spells work fine... with your familiar to deliver them (turning him into a Ghostly Visage seems very smart to me for this purpose. And again, Shadowcraft Mages can cast the bulk of their spells without needing somatic or material components.
Furthermore... you explicitly can speak ("the haunting presence of a sentient undead can always chose to speak to nearby creatures, usually in a whispery or incoherant voice that seems to come from the air"). Also, claiming "You don't have anything to manifest" is very strange since you explicitly have the ability to manifest.
So... are you also just making assumptions and failing to read the source material like Warlawk is?
JaronK
Ghostly Visage is incorporeal. They cannot do touch attacks. End of story.
Ghostly Visage is incorporeal. They cannot do touch attacks. End of story.
Okay, I want you to open up the book they're in (Fiend Folio, right near the end) and go to their entry. Look at their attacks. Look at what they can do with that attack. Then come back and tell us all what it says, specifically whether they can make touch attacks and can target material creatures with them.
If you don't have fiend folio, consider looking in the Monster Manual at the Shadow, and look at that (incorporeal) creature's attacks.
Then check page 310 of the Monster Manual and look at the Incorporeal Subtype, and look for where it says you can't make touch attacks if you're incorporeal. If you can't find that, try reading the second to last paragraph on the topic (on page 311) regarding incorporeal creatures and attacks.
Then come back and finish your story, because I think the ending of your story needs work.
JaronK
Okay, I want you to open up the book they're in (Fiend Folio, right near the end) and go to their entry. Look at their attacks. Look at what they can do with that attack. Then come back and tell us all what it says, specifically whether they can make touch attacks and can target material creatures with them.
If you don't have fiend folio, consider looking in the Monster Manual at the Shadow, and look at that (incorporeal) creature's attacks.
Then check page 310 of the Monster Manual and look at the Incorporeal Subtype, and look for where it says you can't make touch attacks if you're incorporeal. If you can't find that, try reading the second to last paragraph on the topic (on page 311) regarding incorporeal creatures and attacks.
Then come back and finish your story, because I think the ending of your story needs work.
JaronK
Touch spells cannot be used when incorporeal. Touch attacks are something else altogether.
Touch spells cannot be used when incorporeal. Touch attacks are something else altogether.
You just claimed they can't make touch attacks, which was clearly false. Instead of admitting as much, you invent a new false thing.
Please state a source for the claim "touch spells cannot be used when incorporeal."
JaronK
You just claimed they can't make touch attacks, which was clearly false. Instead of admitting as much, you invent a new false thing.
Please state a source for the claim "touch spells cannot be used when incorporeal."
JaronK
Ghost entry under Manisfestation.
Anyway, it really does seem like this works with shadowcraft mage quite well. As for items, and other things. I would be on the side of them not coming with which would make VoP much more appealing, though I don't recall the rules on VoP so I don't know how handling the arrows would interact with the vow.
Ghost entry under Manisfestation.
That's the ghost's own rules. You'll need to find something in the "Incorporeal Subtype" rules or the "Ghostly Visage" rules or maybe the "Familiar" rules that states that a Ghostly Visage cannot deliver touch spells with its incorporeal touch attack. Otherwise, it follows all the standard rules, which include that touch attacks from a Familiar can be used to deliver touch range spells from its master and that Ghostly Visages can deliver incorporeal touch attacks.
JaronK
I don't recall the rules on VoP so I don't know how handling the arrows would interact with the vow.
Indeed, that is a problem. Vow of Poverty specifically states you can not even borrow magic items. So for the Vow of Poverty to apply, you would need to come up with another source of negative levels...maybe have a friend use a Wand of Enervation on you repeatedly?
As far as usefulness of the Vow of Poverty: you get bonus exalted feats, enhancement bonuses to attack(rays, anyone?), mind shielding, and True Seeing at level 18. This is all in addition to some great bonuses in case you ever ARE forced to manifest. The more experienced Shadowcraft Mage guys could tell you better than I whether all that would be worth spending two feats on, however.
That's the ghost's own rules. You'll need to find something in the "Incorporeal Subtype" rules or the "Ghostly Visage" rules or maybe the "Familiar" rules that states that a Ghostly Visage cannot deliver touch spells with its incorporeal touch attack. Otherwise, it follows all the standard rules, which include that touch attacks from a Familiar can be used to deliver touch range spells from its master and that Ghostly Visages can deliver incorporeal touch attacks.
JaronK
What did I say earlier about starting points?
What did I say earlier about starting points?
At this point, you've said a lot of clearly made up stuff that directly opposes the rules.
"Ghostly Visage is incorporeal. They cannot do touch attacks. End of story."
"Haunt is even worse. You don't have anything to manifest."
"anything with verbal components also is out (you can't speak)"
Now you're trying to pull a fast one by claiming that rules found only in the Ghost entry concerning when ghosts can cast spells apply to the Ghostly Visage and when it can deliver touch spells via familiar abilities. The Ghost is a completely different monster found in a completely different book with completely different rules. Seriously, if you want to be taken seriously, show a good source for your claim that incorporeal creatures can't deliver touch spells, or just forget it, because right now I'm convinced that everything you're saying simply has no basis in the rules whatsoever.
JaronK
Indeed, that is a problem. Vow of Poverty specifically states you can not even borrow magic items. So for the Vow of Poverty to apply, you would need to come up with another source of negative levels...maybe have a friend use a Wand of Enervation on you repeatedly?
Follow it with restoration, yeah. Not a big issue.
As far as usefulness of the Vow of Poverty: you get bonus exalted feats, enhancement bonuses to attack(rays, anyone?), mind shielding, and True Seeing at level 18. This is all in addition to some great bonuses in case you ever ARE forced to manifest. The more experienced Shadowcraft Mage guys could tell you better than I whether all that would be worth spending two feats on, however.
If you're not allowed to use gear, possibly, but I'd point out that without VoP you can put gear on the body. Also, there's the question of whether the body itself counts as gear. You could summon a Stone body free, but it's still a possession... though at the same time, as per the Libris Mortis rules you're part of it (which was the rule I was using to say "it's your body for all purposes").
Either way, your spells while insubstantial would be stronger with VoP if you're not allowed to have gear while insubstantial. But it actually might be worthwhile to better equip the body... for example, with something like Dwarven Stone Armour. Rust Monsters are a serious danger, after all.
JaronK
It is commonly accepted that a well prepared wizard will absolutely destroy an equal level fighter if he has any clue how to play.
Yet, JaronK came into this "duel" and immediately sought to find cheese loopholes that any sane DM would never allow to happen in game to try and win this contest. It speaks volumes.
I know that it can talk, but it specifically states that it speaks in a "whispery or incoherent voice". If it is incoherent is that suffecient enough to actually cast a spell - which needs to be have verbal componenets spoken clearly in order for it to work?
I am willing to agree that the presence can cast but it would have to do so in a clearly mental capacity, such as by having all spells be silent spells with no other somatic, or physical requirements, so I agree that Illusion magic is the way to go here.
Also I would have to agree that once you become a presence you do not take with you nor can you physically manipulate items. You would have to manifest as either corporeal or incorporeal to do either.
Also, as per the ruling about whether or not the animated body would be your body - try reading the animated object entries on pages 13 and 14 of the monster manual again. At no time in either the description of haunting presence or animated object does it say you inhabit the object, but that you can "force it to animate". None of the actions that an animated object can be commanded to do include spell casting.
I know that it can talk, but it specifically states that it speaks in a "whispery or incoherent voice". If it is incoherent is that suffecient enough to actually cast a spell - which needs to be have verbal componenets spoken clearly in order for it to work?
From the Haunting Presence variant rule:
No matter the way the haunting presence makes itself felt, the haunting presence of a sentient undead can always choose to speak to nearby creatures, usually in a whispery or incoherent voice that seems to come from the air.
"Usually" means that whispery and incoherent are not the only ways a Haunting Presence can speak.
Regardless of the legality of the question at hand I have one final thought on this whole thread.
It is commonly accepted that a well prepared wizard will absolutely destroy an equal level fighter if he has any clue how to play.
Yet, JaronK came into this "duel" and immediately sought to find cheese loopholes that any sane DM would never allow to happen in game to try and win this contest. It speaks volumes.
+3
(some have been previously posted)
#1 In fact, a haunting presence is tied to an object or location, and only upon the destruction of the object or location is it dispelled.
Please note, you can not swap between haunting an area and an object, you are tied to one or the other permanently upon the completion of the spell. This means that at ALL TIMES your 'golem' is considered to be possesed (assuming the CO-OP boards agree you can do that etc.).
#2 An undead may haunt a discrete object of at least Tiny size and no larger than Huge size.
This means that if you ever change the size of the object out of that range you are unable to possess it.
#3 Unattended magic items receive a saving throw as if a spell was being cast upon the item (DC 10 + 1/2 the undead’s HD + the undead’s Cha modifier).
If you cast spells on your item and it is considered to be magical (or imbued with magic) you may need to cast this haunt shift multiple times...
#4 No matter the way the haunting presence makes itself felt, the haunting presence of a sentient undead can always choose to speak to nearby creatures, usually in a whispery [b]OR[\b] incoherent voice that seems to come from the air.
This of course means that you CAN speak, and it is clear and legible words if you so desire.
#5 A haunting presence becomes a part of the object or location haunted. Haunting presences are always aware of what is going on around the object that they haunt. They can see and hear up to 60 feet away (but do not gain blindsight).
Sadly this makes your entire argument 100% pointless. You can never increase the range of your vision because it is clearly stated in the spell, as is the limitation of the vision.
This means that in your duel you simply lose. Anyone who wants to kill you must simply keep further than 60' away from you at all times. Also one last point since I am 100% sure you will look for ways to increase your movement speed.
#6 If an object has parts that move, such as a wagon, a clock, or a crossbow, a haunting presence can control the object’s movement, though the object will move no faster than the undead itself could move in its normal form.
That means you can never increase your speed beyond your original movement speed.
So any ranged based physical class that keeps well out of range from you and has an equal or better movement speed will kill you. It might take some time, but you will be unable to do anything about it, and you can never see them, ever.
Yes I have the book yes this is all directly from the book, basically #5 and #6 make this entire argument/theory pointless.
As one final note~
#7 An undead presence haunting an object or an area can sometimes become more than a presence,
actually taking corporeal or incorporeal form a number of times per week equal to the undead’s Hit Dice (that
includes haunting presences that manifest “physically” as incorporeal undead).
This is an ability of the option you are not choosing. This means that if you are without the ability to manifest physically you are not even considered to be incorporal. I wonder what that does make you? If you are NOT corporal, and you are NOT incorporal... what are you?
#7: If you are not corporeal, or incorporeal, you are a presence. There, but without form.
#6 Good catch on the speed issue. Nothing preventing a Great Disk floating his obelisk around, but at least you can't easily get a ridiculous speed by Haunting a wagon.
#5 I always thought this would be a sticking point, just couldn't really express it. Being unable to target anything you can't see would be a serious liability for a Wizard.
Regardless of the legality of the question at hand I have one final thought on this whole thread.
It is commonly accepted that a well prepared wizard will absolutely destroy an equal level fighter if he has any clue how to play.
Yet, JaronK came into this "duel" and immediately sought to find cheese loopholes that any sane DM would never allow to happen in game to try and win this contest. It speaks volumes.
Actually, you're once again making unfounded assumptions based on incomplete information, this time making a subtle personal attack due to the fact that you've gotten slammed for, well, making unfounded assumptions based on incomplete information.
In this particular case, someone simply made the statement that a well prepared Fighter (specifically, one knowing he was about to take on this particular Wizard) was always a match for a well prepared Wizard. I responded by saying that in a dual while a Wizard could know from knowing about the Fighter pretty much exactly what he'd do, the Fighter had no way of guessing what the Wizard might come up with as attacks, and then listed a few unusual ones... the Haunt Shift Trick, or a horde of Animate Dread Warrior Efrettis being two random examples I came up with, simply because I'm right now playing a necromancer.
And then the OP of this thread came on and made a series of false statements about the rules (most of which he repeated here, despite my giving him exact sources and quotes). I corrected him and told him to read the source material (which he had not) and come back to the debate when he was actually informed on the topic, since it wasn't the first time he'd just made up rules wholesale. His response was to come here instead of looking anything up on his own.
So yeah, this is not a case of me trying to be cheesy in a duel. This is a case of me coming up with a few weird and unusual examples of tactics a Wizard might come up with in a duel that would be very difficult to prepare for without knowing what tactic the Wizard was going to use (since any Wizard could do any of them, assuming he didn't ban the schools used).
JaronK
This is an ability of the option you are not choosing. This means that if you are without the ability to manifest physically you are not even considered to be incorporal. I wonder what that does make you? If you are NOT corporal, and you are NOT incorporal... what are you?
Useless would be the first answer I can think of. Ineffectual, would be the second. "Can be safely ignored" would be the third.
So yeah, this is not a case of me trying to be cheesy in a duel. This is a case of me coming up with a few weird and unusual examples of tactics a Wizard might come up with in a duel that would be very difficult to prepare for without knowing what tactic the Wizard was going to use (since any Wizard could do any of them, assuming he didn't ban the schools used).
JaronK
Using Holy Arrows to gain negative levels in order to become a valid target for a spell that uses a variant rule, and then trying argue for negative levels lowering actual HD, and then... for pages and pages and pages... is not cheesy...
I just got off of my 7th straight 12 hour shift, but I am going to try to add some things to this debate that will provide clarity.
(some have been previously posted)
#1 In fact, a haunting presence is tied to an object or location, and only upon the destruction of the object or location is it dispelled.
Please note, you can not swap between haunting an area and an object, you are tied to one or the other permanently upon the completion of the spell. This means that at ALL TIMES your 'golem' is considered to be possesed (assuming the CO-OP boards agree you can do that etc.).
Yes, this is why I considered it to be his body.
Note also that the haunted object (I won't say Golem because that has it's own rules) is never animated as via Animate Objects despite claims to the contrary in this thread. In fact, the only reference to Animated Objects (the MM entry, not the spell) is in reference to how the haunted object can be moved... specifically, that you can move it with nonexistant joints like an Animated Object. As such, claiming it's anything like the Animated Objects spell is pointless... only the physical characteristics of how it moves are based on Animated Objects, though obviously the hardness rules still apply (it's an object). I extrapolated that the hit points, AC, and physical stats were likely the same (after all, if it moves like an animated object that would include how strong it is and how dexterous and things like that) but none of this is explicitly stated. Combined with the fact that it says you are now a part of this object, that makes me think that the object is your body... hence my earlier assertion that you could cast spells with it.
#2 An undead may haunt a discrete object of at least Tiny size and no larger than Huge size.
This means that if you ever change the size of the object out of that range you are unable to possess it.
Luckily, the Shrink Item thing lets you go from Huge to Tiny if you so desire. That said, I see great use for shrinking it to fine even without being able to haunt it... you can still transport it on a Greater Floating Disk, and it will be very hard to spot that way (since you can have both it and the disk be invisible, and it's diminuative.
That said, I hadn't considered that point until this moment.
#3 Unattended magic items receive a saving throw as if a spell was being cast upon the item (DC 10 + 1/2 the undead’s HD + the undead’s Cha modifier).
If you cast spells on your item and it is considered to be magical (or imbued with magic) you may need to cast this haunt shift multiple times...
Not a huge issue, I suspect, especially since you need a Charisma of at least 17 to pull this off anyway. Even magic items are unlikely to make this save... even after you make them Dwarvencraft Quality. And if the spell fails, so be it, make a new scroll and cast it tomorrow.
That said, I don't believe an item with a permanent spell on it counts as a magic item.
#4 No matter the way the haunting presence makes itself felt, the haunting presence of a sentient undead can always choose to speak to nearby creatures, usually in a whispery [b]OR[\b] incoherent voice that seems to come from the air.
This of course means that you CAN speak, and it is clear and legible words if you so desire.
Certainly.
#5 A haunting presence becomes a part of the object or location haunted. Haunting presences are always aware of what is going on around the object that they haunt. They can see and hear up to 60 feet away (but do not gain blindsight).
Sadly this makes your entire argument 100% pointless. You can never increase the range of your vision because it is clearly stated in the spell, as is the limitation of the vision.
This means that in your duel you simply lose. Anyone who wants to kill you must simply keep further than 60' away from you at all times. Also one last point since I am 100% sure you will look for ways to increase your movement speed.
A level of Mindbender would be very wise here, allowing for 100 foot mindsight, and thus mostly curing thus particular problem. Permanent Rary's Telepathic Bond with your familiar for guidance would also help greatly, as that would let you at least know the location of enemies (enough for many spells).
#6 If an object has parts that move, such as a wagon, a clock, or a crossbow, a haunting presence can control the object’s movement, though the object will move no faster than the undead itself could move in its normal form.
That means you can never increase your speed beyond your original movement speed.
I stated this explicitly in this thread. To quote myself in fact: "(Haunt Shift won't let you increase your mobility beyond your base amount, and is instead limited by both your natural form and your haunting form, whichever is slower)." That said, that's only your natural movement speed. What stops you from equipping your haunted object (which is also a construct evidently) with movement boosting items? I mean, nothing in the rules seems to prevent this, and as a humanoid statue the magic items all have slots to go in.
So any ranged based physical class that keeps well out of range from you and has an equal or better movement speed will kill you. It might take some time, but you will be unable to do anything about it, and you can never see them, ever.
Again, there are other ways to see. And other ways to kill without seeing (such as making minions with the same trick, or Animate Dread Warrior minions, or whatever).
Yes I have the book yes this is all directly from the book, basically #5 and #6 make this entire argument/theory pointless.
Only if you're being horridly uncreative.
#7 An undead presence haunting an object or an area can sometimes become more than a presence,
actually taking corporeal or incorporeal form a number of times per week equal to the undead’s Hit Dice (that
includes haunting presences that manifest “physically” as incorporeal undead).
This is an ability of the option you are not choosing. This means that if you are without the ability to manifest physically you are not even considered to be incorporal. I wonder what that does make you? If you are NOT corporal, and you are NOT incorporal... what are you?
You're... a presence. Note you always have the ability to manifest physically if you're doing this trick (you'd need to be 5HD or under for that to be an issue). You're listed as insubstancial, and being unable to be attacked or to physically attack. But it's not "the option I'm not choosing" since anyone with enough HD gets both options.
JaronK
Using Holy Arrows to gain negative levels in order to become a valid target for a spell that uses a variant rule, and then trying argue for negative levels lowering actual HD, and then... for pages and pages and pages... is not cheesy...
Better than making up rules wholesale. Should I quote you again doing that?
Meanwhile, are you actually trying to argue against negative levels lowering actual HD for purposes of any calculation related to spells? It's been proven over and over now. Crack open MM (remember, that's the one with the incorporeal rules you might still want to read) and look up what it says about negative levels. Also, look up what it says about hit dice, in the first place where it defines hit dice.
JaronK
Though I agree it is possible.
Using this as a form of attack that would be used by any wizard is an extremely disingenuous statement because you make a large number of blanket assumptions about the knowledge of said wizard that, frankly requires metagaming. While attacks can come in any number of clever ways this falls in the realm of the wizard actually knowing the game rules, rather than just being a person inside of a world, albeit an extremely smart person.
Though I agree it is possible.
It's an attack that any Wizard can do, and knowledge of how spells work would be Spellcraft, something most Wizards have plenty of (and it's Int based). I'm not sure about the effects of the Holy enchantment... would that be Knowledge Religeon? Either way, Wizards are all about knowledge, so I consider it pretty fair for a Wizard (or Archivist) to pull a stunt like this that mostly just requires great knowledge of spells.
I'd agree with you if someone pulled this stunt with a Sorcerer.
JaronK
#1 The entry specifically states that the object will NOT move more than the base speed of the presence that is posessing it.
I think the confusion you are creating is that you feel that by making your object be a statue that it suddenly has item slots. The spell does refer to the animated object in the MM because that is essentially what you have, but with a twist.
How many animated objects actually have item slots? And even if they are ruled to, the spell is very specific in that the speed of the object is limited to your previous movement speed. As a DM under no circumstance would I allow that speed to be increased because of RAW. You can not get any more specific than that.
#2 You said you would turn the statue to be diminutive... Once it is diminutive you can no longer possess it.
As a minor problem that removes all somatic components from spells (Assuming the construct can provide them). How would you make it large again?
Second of all though... You become a part of the object that is haunted. That is direct text from the except in question. That means you have a choice when you FIRST because a Haunt. You can either Haunt a location OR an Object. You can't change that after the decision has been made. I want to make sure that you and I are clear on this point.
Otherwise the Haunt is actually 100% invulnerable. When the construct would be about to die you would just say, oh my, I am now haunting this area instead... Then when they start the process to exorcise you, you haunt an unattended arrow and slink off, or out of the area of the spell... That's not part of the RAI, and probably not part of the RAW either.
So lets continue on with that, that means that at creating you choose object, since you want to be in this statue. So you are PART of that statue, forever. If you make that statue Diminutive it is no longer a valid object for you to haunt, and that means you die. Why do you die? Because the object you are tied to, you can no longer be tied to. Also no where does it state that the object gest your saving throws etc. So anyone could merely shrink or enlarge that object to push it outside your haunt range and you would have no anchor to the real world anymore, and as such would be effectively dead.
And yes you are correct that due to you having more than 5 HD you can choose between Poltergeist and Impermanent Home, however you can NOT change your initial choice of Area or Object. Once again, as soon as you choose one you are stuck in it forever.
So if you choose to become corporal, or incorporal you can do so, but you appear beside your Construct, and if you choose not to, you can instead move your construct.
For instance, you could become corporal and cast spells on your construct to buff it, and then fade back and Poltergeist it to smash face.
Or you could become corporal to see past the 60' limitation that your Construct has, find out who is shooting you from afar and move in that direction or stay corporal to try and cast spells at them.
However I would like to bring the first line of Poltergeist back into this discussion.
~If an object has parts that move, such as a wagon, a clock, or a crossbow, a haunting presence can control the object’s movement~
How does your Construct have moving parts? Does each finger have a control system built into it to that allows them to articulate? Do the knees? The elbows? The ankles? You see the object has to already be able to move in the motions that you desire. This is because your original statement that it is NOT an animated object (straight from the MM) was correct. As such it does not gain the supernatural/extraordinary ability to move, the object must already posses it from its creation.
So you need to make a construct that is not a statue, but rather a statue with already moving parts for this trick to work.
If you believe me to be incorrect please re-read the examples that follow the except I snipped. You will see that it is a wagon that moves down the street, not the clock, the clock can merely move the hands on it's face, oh and that crossbow can only fire, it can not re-load, that means it can't even pull it's own drawstring back. It can merely release a pre-loaded mechanism that existed in the object before it was haunted.
Creating a fully function construct that has perfect articulation... We can't even do that with today's technology and a large portion of society is fascinated with Robots... How the hell is a dwarven mason (or someone who has equal skill) going to be able to?
Better than making up rules wholesale. Should I quote you again doing that?
Meanwhile, are you actually trying to argue against negative levels lowering actual HD for purposes of any calculation related to spells? It's been proven over and over now. Crack open MM (remember, that's the one with the incorporeal rules you might still want to read) and look up what it says about negative levels. Also, look up what it says about hit dice, in the first place where it defines hit dice.
JaronK
So you are now admitting you were being cheesy? Jeez! Make up your mind!
So you are now admitting you were being cheesy? Jeez! Make up your mind!
I fully admit it's a cheesy trick. It is, however, legal, and that was the point in the first place.
And when we're discussing rules, using rules in cheesy ways is FAR better than making them up completely and passing it off as actual rules, which you've done at least 4 times in this thread alone. Especially when the context is "what a Wizard could theoretically do in a dual that a Fighter couldn't plan for."
Curtis: Yes, that was mentioned many times. Luckily, this is talking about Wizard vs Fighter, not Wizard vs Martial Adept. Furthermore, only one of those adepts (the Crusader) can do that while flying, and nothing stops this Wizard from making his body fly. Rust Monsters are the other danger.
The hitpoints of the object aren't great... IIRC they're doubled by the Harden spell, so a medium object would have around 80 hitpoints. Not great, to be sure, but unless you can get around that hardness it barely matters.
JaronK
A few things in reply to Jaron.
#1 The entry specifically states that the object will NOT move more than the base speed of the presence that is posessing it.
I think the confusion you are creating is that you feel that by making your object be a statue that it suddenly has item slots. The spell does refer to the animated object in the MM because that is essentially what you have, but with a twist.
How many animated objects actually have item slots? And even if they are ruled to, the spell is very specific in that the speed of the object is limited to your previous movement speed. As a DM under no circumstance would I allow that speed to be increased because of RAW. You can not get any more specific than that.
Any creature that has the appropriately shaped bits has item slots, and this is a big reason why I chose to make the statue humanoid. So that's not an issue.
Also, the speed of a creature is just a statistic which can be increased normally. This is saying your base speed is your own or the object's, whichever is slower. That's all. Nothing says you can't increase the creature's base speed after that point... it's just that you can't haunt shift a wagon and suddenly have an 80ft speed.
#2 You said you would turn the statue to be diminutive... Once it is diminutive you can no longer possess it.
As a minor problem that removes all somatic components from spells (Assuming the construct can provide them). How would you make it large again?
I was using Permanent Shrink Item, so it shrinks and grows at will. The is taking advantage of the fact that it's technically an object, especially before being haunted (cast the spell before then, because while you control it it's a construct). So, yeah, problem solved here. I fully acknowledge that it seems you cannot cast with the statue while it's less than tiny, even if you could when it's bigger (a debatable point, I know).
Second of all though... You become a part of the object that is haunted. That is direct text from the except in question. That means you have a choice when you FIRST because a Haunt. You can either Haunt a location OR an Object. You can't change that after the decision has been made. I want to make sure that you and I are clear on this point.
Yeah. I know. I wouldn't ever want to haunt a location, as you'd be stuck there! My belief is that the object you haunt is your new body... the only way to change this would be to manifest and recast Haunt Shift (which should overwrite the old Haunt Shift just as a new Heroics overwrites the old).
Otherwise the Haunt is actually 100% invulnerable. When the construct would be about to die you would just say, oh my, I am now haunting this area instead... Then when they start the process to exorcise you, you haunt an unattended arrow and slink off, or out of the area of the spell... That's not part of the RAI, and probably not part of the RAW either.
Yeah, you can't do that. Nothing in RAW suggests something like that. When you cast the spell, you have to pick both a person to turn into the haunting and a target to be haunted. Now, you should be able to manifest before the object is destoyed, which would leave you at least functional for Hit Dice Rounds. You might even be safe that way, since the Haunt Shift is dispelled at that point and you're already corporeal. But you're naked at this point and vulnerable, and evidently standing next to someone who's strong enough to blow up your super mecha body, and that's a bad place to be. Also, if gear doesn't shift with you, you're very literally naked, and probably unbuffed. Most Wizards are not happy in this situation, though a Contingency "if my Object is destroyed, Haunt Shift me into the nearest legal target" might help a little.
So lets continue on with that, that means that at creating you choose object, since you want to be in this statue. So you are PART of that statue, forever. If you make that statue Diminutive it is no longer a valid object for you to haunt, and that means you die. Why do you die? Because the object you are tied to, you can no longer be tied to. Also no where does it state that the object gest your saving throws etc. So anyone could merely shrink or enlarge that object to push it outside your haunt range and you would have no anchor to the real world anymore, and as such would be effectively dead.
I'm not sure I buy that, mostly because spells that become invalid later don't go away. I'd suggest you're just insubstancial and unable to actually do anything you can't already do while insubstancial until you get your body back. Of course, as a Shadowcraft Mage you can actually cast a lot of spells like this (though not Haunt Shift, so watch out!).
Saving throws could at least be improved by Dwarvencrafting and IIRC Augment Object, though I think it's pretty logical to call it an attended object. You are very much attending it.
Furthermore, I think it's a construct once you're actually haunting it (at least, it is whenever you're using Polterguist with it).
And yes you are correct that due to you having more than 5 HD you can choose between Poltergeist and Impermanent Home, however you can NOT change your initial choice of Area or Object. Once again, as soon as you choose one you are stuck in it forever.
Yes yes, I've assumed as much from the beginning.
So if you choose to become corporal, or incorporal you can do so, but you appear beside your Construct, and if you choose not to, you can instead move your construct.
Actually I think you can do both at once, conceivably. It never says otherwise, IIRC (but it might).
For instance, you could become corporal and cast spells on your construct to buff it, and then fade back and Poltergeist it to smash face.
Yes, though I think using a familiar to do that would be better.
Or you could become corporal to see past the 60' limitation that your Construct has, find out who is shooting you from afar and move in that direction or stay corporal to try and cast spells at them.
Again, I think familiars are better here if you can protect them (you could put them inside the object looking out from little eyeholes! But be careful with the shrink item thing while you do this). But yes, this works too.
However I would like to bring the first line of Poltergeist back into this discussion.
~If an object has parts that move, such as a wagon, a clock, or a crossbow, a haunting presence can control the object’s movement~
How does your Construct have moving parts? Does each finger have a control system built into it to that allows them to articulate? Do the knees? The elbows? The ankles? You see the object has to already be able to move in the motions that you desire. This is because your original statement that it is NOT an animated object (straight from the MM) was correct. As such it does not gain the supernatural/extraordinary ability to move, the object must already posses it from its creation.
Keep reading. The 10HD version of this makes it clear you can move things that don't have moving parts. So it's just a nice little statue. What it gains is very specifically the Animated Object ability to move without moving parts.
If you believe me to be incorrect please re-read the examples that follow the except I snipped. You will see that it is a wagon that moves down the street, not the clock, the clock can merely move the hands on it's face, oh and that crossbow can only fire, it can not re-load, that means it can't even pull it's own drawstring back. It can merely release a pre-loaded mechanism that existed in the object before it was haunted.
Yes yes, that's the <10HD version. Read up on the 10+HD version. You'll quickly realized why I said you need to get back up above 10 HD rapidly for my trick to work. Because otherwise, the limitations you just stated are indeed correct, and that would SUCK.
JaronK
Did you even bother to read his explanation of events? The claim was made that a prepared fighter will always beat a prepared wizard. Besides being preposterous, it was a challenge of absolutism. The original claim is that there are no types of wizard that can not be countered by a fighter. JaronK's response is to disprove the point by presenting counter-examples. Some of those are cheesier than others, but if he can come up with even one, the pro-fighter claim is incorrect. JK tried to present several possibilities that would leave fighters royally screwed.
Again: this was not a proposal of a wizard/fighter duel. It was an absolute claim on the part of one person that JK countered with examples of where the claim was false. His Haunt Shift proposal, which doesn't seem to have met with close scrutiny before, was likely just an idea he'd been floating around and thought: "hey yeah, and this one would screw a fighter too, so that means this guy is wrong!"
#5 A haunting presence becomes a part of the object or location haunted. Haunting presences are always aware of what is going on around the object that they haunt. They can see and hear up to 60 feet away (but do not gain blindsight).
Sadly this makes your entire argument 100% pointless. You can never increase the range of your vision because it is clearly stated in the spell, as is the limitation of the vision.
This means that in your duel you simply lose. Anyone who wants to kill you must simply keep further than 60' away from you at all times. Also one last point since I am 100% sure you will look for ways to increase your movement speed.
#6 If an object has parts that move, such as a wagon, a clock, or a crossbow, a haunting presence can control the object’s movement, though the object will move no faster than the undead itself could move in its normal form.
That means you can never increase your speed beyond your original movement speed.
So any ranged based physical class that keeps well out of range from you and has an equal or better movement speed will kill you. It might take some time, but you will be unable to do anything about it, and you can never see them, ever.
Yes I have the book yes this is all directly from the book, basically #5 and #6 make this entire argument/theory pointless.
To address three points:
1. The vision problem. Indeed, it will take some divination magic or other clever tricks to get around that. It's doable though, which is the point.
2. The movement problem. The words you quote, as I read them, don't mean what you say they do:
If an object has parts that move, such as a wagon, a clock, or a crossbow, a haunting presence can control the object’s movement, though the object will move no faster than the undead itself could move in its normal form.
You state that it will NEVER move faster. Your quote says no such thing. It is making a statement about basic movement, to make sure people realize that a wheeled wagon, although smooth in its travel, wouldn't move terribly fast. Second, if the undead's movement speed were buffed in its normal form, it would be faster. We can then assume that the haunted item itself would move faster if buffed, because it would then be moving no faster than the undead would be in the same conditions. There is no statement of exclusivity, as you claim, and the word "never" is never used, nor are any of its synonyms.
3. Echoing JK's point, it takes creativity to get around these problems, but it's possible.
Before I get into a couple points, I'd like to say to those criticizing JaronK personally:
Did you even bother to read his explanation of events? The claim was made that a prepared fighter will always beat a prepared wizard. Besides being preposterous, it was a challenge of absolutism. The original claim is that there are no types of wizard that can not be countered by a fighter. JaronK's response is to disprove the point by presenting counter-examples. Some of those are cheesier than others, but if he can come up with even one, the pro-fighter claim is incorrect. JK tried to present several possibilities that would leave fighters royally screwed.
Again: this was not a proposal of a wizard/fighter duel. It was an absolute claim on the part of one person that JK countered with examples of where the claim was false. His Haunt Shift proposal, which doesn't seem to have met with close scrutiny before, was likely just an idea he'd been floating around and thought: "hey yeah, and this one would screw a fighter too, so that means this guy is wrong!"
Specifically, in this situation the poster claimed that if both sides were well prepared knowing they'd fight the other, the Fighter would easily be a match for the Wizard. My counter example was that while the Wizard could know the Fighter's tactics, the Fighter couldn't possibly counter the Wizard's Tactics because of how varied those tactics could be.
Possible tactics I listed included the Haunt Shift trick as above, as well as legions of outsiders via Animate Dread Warrior, some of those same legions also haunt shifted, Mindrape/Love's Pain (use the former on some random commoner to make him believe he loves the Fighter, then use Love's Pain to kill the Fighter with no save and no SR for the Fighter (the commoner gets to save) from continents away), Shapechanging into a Dire Tortoise to go in the surprise round and then use Greater Celerity, Timestop, and other tricks to have multiple rounds to go before the Fighter can even roll initiative, and so on.
The Haunt Shift trick is just one such tactic, but the overall point was that you can't possibly defend against all the myriad ways a Wizard has to flatten you that are each totally different and each completely devastating. Now, I happen to like the Haunt Shift trick, because in a real game I'm planning to use it on the party Paladin of Tyranny/Hexblade who's starting to fall behind in power compared to the rest of us due to it being a low magic game (and I'm basically rebalancing him by pimping him). It'll be more sane, since my character is a Dread Necromancer who can't cast Hardening or Augment Object or Shrink Item or Invisibility or Permenancy. Furthermore, I okayed it in advance with my DM and as such I'm still trying to figure out how all the rules work with it (because let's face it, there are plenty of holes). Knowing whether the body counts as "your body" is critical because it will effect whether that player will in fact be able to cast spells (he's eventually PrCing into Ur Priest) and whether his paladin of tyranny aura works off the body.
But again, it's not going to be cheesy in that game because I'm okaying it in advance and not sending up the hardness to insane levels. But I still would like to figure out the rules correctly, and having people come in and just yell "it doesn't work because of made up rule X" is really unhelpful. I keep having to recheck the rules to find that so and so just made up something like "incorporeal creatures can't make touch attacks."
JaronK
Would a someone useing a sundering weapon get the extra +1d6?
2d6+2d6+1d6+1d6 + 2d6+6d6+1d6+1d6 + 2d6+12d6+1d6+1d6=32d6
This is useing a punishing stance, a sundering great sword, and the three mountian hammer strikes. And that is not inclueding str or other feats that could add to the damage. A fighter could do this useing only three or four feats and a martial srcipt. If the fighter took the dragon wing feat then he can fly at the cost of two or three feats.
If you cannot use ToB then you have stack the deck in the wizards favor.
So can the wizard do the trick with just core, if not then ToB should be ok as well.Curtis
As for knowledge handling how the wizard knows how to do this, this is something I don't really agree on, because in my opinion it seems as though it requires the wizard to have meta gaming knowledge of the exact quantifiable nature of hit dice, negative levels, and other mechanical game concepts. But then that is my opinion, and I don't know the RAW on exactly what a Knowledge check can get you.
As for the absolutism, of a fighter being able to fight any wizard given sufficient knowledge is rather absurd as in this case sufficient knowledge would mean knowing the exact spells the wizard has prepared for the day.
As for knowledge handling how the wizard knows how to do this, this is something I don't really agree on, because in my opinion it seems as though it requires the wizard to have meta gaming knowledge of the exact quantifiable nature of hit dice, negative levels, and other mechanical game concepts. But then that is my opinion, and I don't know the RAW on exactly what a Knowledge check can get you.
Think about it this way: game mechanics have effects on the real world...measurable effects. In many cases, a wizard or cleric has no choice but to use some measure of knowledge about those things in order to cast spells: it's silly to say a wizard has to cast Sleep on a guy because he has no idea that it won't work due to low HD: the rule has a real effect on the way the wizard's spells work, so his spellcraft knowledge likely includes knowing about how tough or experienced something has to be to be immune to Sleep.
Indeed, a true necromancer(the kind of guy who plays around with undead and experiments with new forms--remember those? They are always a pain to hunt down) would likely have experimented with his favorite necromancy spells, testing their limits. In the case of haunt shift, for example, he would likely have come a very fine-tuned understanding of it. For us, that means HD raised and lowered. For him, that means a creature with sufficient life energy can not be Haunt Shifted, and would need to have some of that life energy sucked out...which, according to his experiments, actually works. Then he comes up with the idea of doing it to himself, which is a wholly understandable idea when dealing with an evil genius: they do this sort of thing all the time.
Is a fighter metagaming when he decides to first attack the guy who likely has a better attack rating than the others? No, he is using a multitude of real-life cues that a game can not feasibly re-create. Instead, the game uses rules to approximate what would be happening if this were real.
Before I get into a couple points, I'd like to say to those criticizing JaronK personally:
Did you even bother to read his explanation of events? The claim was made that a prepared fighter will always beat a prepared wizard. Besides being preposterous, it was a challenge of absolutism. The original claim is that there are no types of wizard that can not be countered by a fighter. JaronK's response is to disprove the point by presenting counter-examples. Some of those are cheesier than others, but if he can come up with even one, the pro-fighter claim is incorrect. JK tried to present several possibilities that would leave fighters royally screwed.
That's because his initial premise is false, I didn't bring dueling into this, and I didn't do anything with the Fighter claim. He claimed this trick would make him invincible to fighters. Not only does it not work outright, even if it DID work, it doesn't make them invulnerable.
So, where's the problem here with not only shooting down something that doesn't work in results, but in execution? I can just see them at WoTC when they wrote up 'calculations or equations' thinking "Yeah, and instead of calling these hard limits and caps on spells, we all know they are Boolean Equations and so will all our players!'
Sheesh. At least be conservative if you want to defend your cheese.
Again: this was not a proposal of a wizard/fighter duel. It was an absolute claim on the part of one person that JK countered with examples of where the claim was false. His Haunt Shift proposal, which doesn't seem to have met with close scrutiny before, was likely just an idea he'd been floating around and thought: "hey yeah, and this one would screw a fighter too, so that means this guy is wrong!"
Ah, assuming again. Classic wizard defender strategy. If it doesn't say I can't do it, then I can assume it lets me!
To address three points:
1. The vision problem. Indeed, it will take some divination magic or other clever tricks to get around that. It's doable though, which is the point.
2. The movement problem. The words you quote, as I read them, don't mean what you say they do:
You state that it will NEVER move faster. Your quote says no such thing. It is making a statement about basic movement, to make sure people realize that a wheeled wagon, although smooth in its travel, wouldn't move terribly fast. Second, if the undead's movement speed were buffed in its normal form, it would be faster. We can then assume that the haunted item itself would move faster if buffed, because it would then be moving no faster than the undead would be in the same conditions. There is no statement of exclusivity, as you claim, and the word "never" is never used, nor are any of its synonyms.
3. Echoing JK's point, it takes creativity to get around these problems, but it's possible.
I'm not even sure if you get somatic components. I envision your 'voice' as akin to ventriloquism...you do not, after all, have a throat, lungs, or speaking apparatus...you are just making the words sound off, which is not spellcasting. Just as this statue/rock/slab of metal is not your body, I wouldnl't let you get around the insubstantiality of being a prescence by letting this ghostly whisper thing be your voice. After all, if that works, just Eschew Material Comps, still spell, silent spell, and you can cast without a voice at all....which also goes against the whole idea of insubstantiality. How exactly are you casting if you've no substance?
But, because it doesn't say no, he's assuming it's automatically 'yes'. Classic wizard strategy for spell permissiveness.
===Aelryinth
#1 Vision problem as long as you are poltergeisting the statue.
#2 Movement speed problem for the statue.
#3 Size limitations of the statue: tiny to Huge (IIRC)
The text does state that due to your HD you can do either Polter OR Imp Home. This in no way makes it sound like you can do both simultaneously.
If you were able to do both at the same time you could be corporal and use the statue to cast all somatic components. In effect you would have 2 bodies at the exact same time.
Also when the spell is cast it is VERY specific that you are PART of the object or area you selected.
It is also very specific that if your object is destroyed you are also destroyed.
It does not state that if you are corporal and your object is destroyed that you somehow live, or do so for x rounds. It only states that undead who are resistant to death may not immediately die if they are corporal etc. and goes on to give examples.
To me then it is quite clear that you can swap from statue to corporal, but not do both at the same time. It is also clear that when the statue is destroyed you are also destroyed, regardless if you are corporal or not.
I guess the only similarity I could draw would be that the statue is your magic jar and if it is destoryed.... byebye. But in the case of the haunt you can also be slain while corporal (special limitation of the spell).
As for using a familiar with this build.... to be honest I would be pretty concerned about doing that. It would be insanely easier to kill that familiar from straight up dmg or save or die spells vs killing the statue I would think. However that being said I have never been a fan of the super familiar idea so maybe the familiar could be made very strong.
Some final notes.
I did read on about the 10+ HD thing and you are correct Jaron, it would not need to be articulate due to that factor. However I do have a question about the series of events then.
#1 You lower your HD to qualify for the spell to be cast on you by holding some holy items.
#2 The spell is cast on you and you INSTANTLY become a haunting presence.
#3 You are now well, unable to effect the world because you aren't even incorporal... So you would have to become corporal to drop those holy items. After you drop the items your HD go back to normal, but would that immediately effect your haunting abilities? I mean if a ghost (NPC) was haunting something and managed to kill some adventurers would it level up and then have better haunting powers, IE those of the >10 HD powers? Just curious if dropping those arrows would work in that regard.
Please note I do not actually care if this works out or is a total disaster in the end. I just want to make sure nothing was overlooked and everything is run by the rules.
Someone should take the time to find out what the CR would be for this object if it were to be animated though, because if it has a higher CR than your HD when you revert then you can not animate it. That would be a problem.
That's because his initial premise is false, I didn't bring dueling into this, and I didn't do anything with the Fighter claim. He claimed this trick would make him invincible to fighters.
You're not the only one criticizing JK personally. Most of the others making personal attacks on him are assuming this is some sort of duel situation...which it is not.
Also, why are you taking this so personally? Your attitude is one of "oh my gosh, how DARE you suggest this?!" In fact, this is the sort of thing that happens all the time. Did you get outraged when Khan proposed Pun-Pun? Did you get upset when Arcane Disciple was first paired with Shadowcraft Mage? How about the DMM cheese? Did you get upset and say "omg, how dare you suggest this is possible!" It's a reasonable proposition, if the rules work, and whatever you say it's obviously NOT clearly false, given how long and heated this debate has been, with many smart CO-boarders pitching in on either side.
Not only does it not work outright, even if it DID work, it doesn't make them invulnerable.
The point that they are not invulnerable has been recently noted in this thread, by JaronK himself(due to the ToB effects). As far as it working, we're in the process of dealing with the things that get in the way.
So, where's the problem here with not only shooting down something that doesn't work in results, but in execution? I can just see them at WoTC when they wrote up 'calculations or equations' thinking "Yeah, and instead of calling these hard limits and caps on spells, we all know they are Boolean Equations and so will all our players!'
Sheesh. At least be conservative if you want to defend your cheese.
Several respected CO-boarders have already weighed in on JK's side...how conservative do you want us to be? It's cheese, and no one's pretending it's not. Quit complaining about it being cheesy...so is DMM:Persist, but it still gets airtime.
Additionally, I already replied to the "Boolean" myth. It was a mistake to use the word in the first place, as the word 'calculation' can be more easily applied directly. "Is x>y?" is still a calculation.
Ah, assuming again. Classic wizard defender strategy. If it doesn't say I can't do it, then I can assume it lets me!
A. This is an unwarranted and false statement.
B. The point you are replying to is actually not a rules point, it is a logic one. I may not be the best rules lawyer around, but I do know the rules of logic and debate very well. I will give an example from my high school debate years:
In the topic "When in conflict, the United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts," there is an absolute statement given that suggests a rule without exception. If I were assigned to debate against this, I would(and did) argue that if I could present sufficient exceptions to this 'rule,' then the statement would be false, and thereby I would win the round.
Likewise, JK responded to the absolute statement that a prepared fighter will always beat a prepared wizard by presenting several exceptions to the absolute rule being proposed. It doesn't matter that they were cheesy, they were still counter-examples.
So, I will say this again then leave it: I was not making the assumptions nor rules statements you ascribe to me. It is clear you didn't bother to figure out what I was trying to say, and I find it offensive you would jump to such a conclusion, then reply to it in such a condescending manner.
At the beginning of this thread I was against JK's idea, but as he provided more rules support, and showed himself willing to use workarounds to get around the other obstacles, I have become more favorable to it. I have not, at ANY point in this discussion, been of the mind or inclination to say "it works because it doesn't say you can't." Far from it, I have been only accepting an aspect of this idea when the rules are in support of its possibility(even if it's not terribly usable in an average game).
I'm not even sure if you get somatic components. I envision your 'voice' as akin to ventriloquism...you do not, after all, have a throat, lungs, or speaking apparatus...you are just making the words sound off, which is not spellcasting. Just as this statue/rock/slab of metal is not your body, I wouldnl't let you get around the insubstantiality of being a prescence by letting this ghostly whisper thing be your voice.
A. I, and it would seem JaronK has adopted this position as well, have both adopted the attitude of using still spell or spells without somatic components, instead of arguing about casting through the statue. Not only you, but others continue to bring up this point, but it is now a non-issue.
B. You are making the same mistake that JK did earlier with his "this is my body" argument. The rules do not say "this is ventriloquism," they do not say "the presence can simulate his voice." Instead, they say that the presence can speak, and the voice is usually of a certain quality.
After all, if that works, just Eschew Material Comps, still spell, silent spell, and you can cast without a voice at all....which also goes against the whole idea of insubstantiality. How exactly are you casting if you've no substance?
1. How does that go against the whole idea of insubstantiality? Where are you reading the rule that this is the idea? How are you getting away with accusing others of assuming something is true just because the rules don't say it isn't, when you yourself appear to be making similar assumptions?
2. How are you thinking if you have no substance? How are you existing if you have no substance? How do you have sufficient energy to become corporeal, if you have no substance? Answer those questions, and maybe we could better tell you how an insubstantial being can cast spells. Indeed, is there a rule that says you must have substance to cast spells? Where in the body is magical energy located, then? In the brain? What part? How do you know, and where are the rules for it?
Aelryinth, do you realize that you are insulting others by making attacks on their 'assumptions' while you commit the same crime? Please be more civil in your posts. "With that same judgment with which ye judge..."
But, because it doesn't say no, he's assuming it's automatically 'yes'. Classic wizard strategy for spell permissiveness.
Again, quit calling the kettle black, o thou Pot.
Casting when you are insubstantial seems like a no to me, because you are not on any plane and can not be directly effected (even though your body can be destroyed); as such how would you directly effect others? You are simply insubstantial and so everything you do/are can not affect others.
Casting while manifesting as incorporal or corporal is 100% OK of course.
Casting while in the body of the statue...
1 - Well you can make a verbal component with no problem because regardless of being substantial or insubstantial you can speak, the text clearly states that.
2 - You are currently poltergeisting something on the material plane and as such I would consider you to be substantial/able to affect and be affected by those on that plane (through the statue). This would also mean that casting can be interrupted via damage to the statue of course, or must be cast defensively.
3 - Somatic components are the only part I am personally hung up on. I mean you are willing the object to move, and the object does not have the power to cast, you do. So are you actually providing the somatic components, or is the statue? And if the statue is, because you are possessing it, does that provide enough basis for it to give you somatic components? Still spell would 100% solve this with no questions of course, but is it needed?
Obviously if you are manifesting corporal/incorporal you can not have 2 bodies at the same time and as such only you could cast and not the statue (which would actually be inert due to a lack of possession).
But regardless of how you choose to currently manifest, corporal/incorporal/insubstantial/poltergeist you are part of that statue...
So if you are always a part of it, and can not cast from it when corporal/incorproal/insubstantial... the only difference between those forms and the last is of course possession (or a form thereof).
Once again to me it would not matter if the statue can provide somatic components or not, while in poltergiest of it, it seems clear that you would be able to cast from it.
I have had almost no experience with possession in my games and as such I have not really read up on it, nor am I able to properly provide a parallel to the Haunting version. Could someone provide that so we can decide if the statue can provide somatic components?
Bob the BSF: "OK! Wait! my hands are full with my Greatsword. No-no! Got it."
Casper: "Wave it like this, then throw it out with a sweep."
Bob: "OK. Umm... is the Ogre supposed to get that bat s*** in the face like that? He looks kinda p***sed. OWWWWW!!!!!"
Casper: "Bob? Bob? What is happening? I can't see you. Bob???"
Casper the Ghostly Wizard: "Hey, Bob, time to pull out my spell components."
Bob the BSF: "OK! Wait! my hands are full with my Greatsword. No-no! Got it."
Casper: "Wave it like this, then throw it out with a sweep."
Bob: "OK. Umm... is the Ogre supposed to get that bat s*** in the face like that? He looks kinda p***sed. OWWWWW!!!!!"
Casper: "Bob? Bob? What is happening? I can't see you. Bob???"
See and this is exactly what I pictured, and why I am struggling with it. Sadly D&D doesn't always follow real life logic. So is there a solid answer to this?
On the other hand this example uses Bob the BSF who has the ability for independent speech, or at least thought. That would cause problems. The construct does not have that capability. It is simply NOT an animated object. It can NOT act on its own. It can ONLY act while possesed via poltergeist.
It would be funny to see it drop a weapon/shield to cast a spell though.
See and this is exactly what I pictured, and why I am struggling with it. Sadly D&D doesn't always follow real life logic. So is there a solid answer to this?
On the other hand this example uses Bob the BSF who has the ability for independent speech, or at least thought. That would cause problems. The construct does not have that capability. It is simply NOT an animated object. It can NOT act on its own. It can ONLY act while possesed via poltergeist.
It would be funny to see it drop a weapon/shield to cast a spell though.
This might be a better example, then:
Jar-Jar the Wizard: "Oh rats! Illithid's got me in a grapple! Hey-You, my trusty Shield Guardian! Pull out x and y spell components."
Hey-You the Shield Guardian: "I comply."
Jar-Jar: "Good. I will now cast z spell using the spell components in Hey-You's hands. Waa-lah! Fry, leetle illithid. FRY! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!"
I would say it doesn't count as your body because you're still able to manifest as your body. If the statue is your body then you could have 2 bodies through manifestation. Another being that this particular question of casting spells only comes up when you make a statue with all the moving parts of a human. If you were haunting a wagon, wheel barrow, you wouldn't even have the question of casting spells with somatic or material components.
As to the last, well, yeah, it's like a Druid being unable to cast because of not having hands (if he didn't have Natural Spell, because he was level 5).
So I dunno, I think it's a tossup as to whether it's your body.
As for knowledge handling how the wizard knows how to do this, this is something I don't really agree on, because in my opinion it seems as though it requires the wizard to have meta gaming knowledge of the exact quantifiable nature of hit dice, negative levels, and other mechanical game concepts. But then that is my opinion, and I don't know the RAW on exactly what a Knowledge check can get you.
It's very much unclear here, but I consider it pretty reasonable since really all the knowledge involved here is "how does this spell work" and "who can I cast this spell on." He may not know exactly how HD work, but he could know that stronger people need to be weakened through level drain to be effected.
As for the absolutism, of a fighter being able to fight any wizard given sufficient knowledge is rather absurd as in this case sufficient knowledge would mean knowing the exact spells the wizard has prepared for the day.
Which was actually my point from the beginning.
JaronK
That's because his initial premise is false, I didn't bring dueling into this, and I didn't do anything with the Fighter claim.
The thread was talking specifically about dueling with a Fighter vs Wizard when both had prep time. I said "here's one possible tactic" and you jumped in there.He claimed this trick would make him invincible to fighters.
I never did. I said it would make him nearly invincible to hitpoint damage from most Fighters, which is true... I in fact outright stated that a charger could get through this hardness successfully.Not only does it not work outright, even if it DID work, it doesn't make them invulnerable.
As others have explained to you, it does work. I've also given plenty of information.So, where's the problem here with not only shooting down something that doesn't work in results, but in execution?
You tried to shoot it down by methods that were simply false.I can just see them at WoTC when they wrote up 'calculations or equations' thinking "Yeah, and instead of calling these hard limits and caps on spells, we all know they are Boolean Equations and so will all our players!'
Sheesh. At least be conservative if you want to defend your cheese.[/b]
Please, what else did you think they meant? They clearly meant any calculation related to HD, which is what they said.Again: this was not a proposal of a wizard/fighter duel.
Go back and read it yourself again if you want. It's very early in the thread. In fact, here's what started this:
Any regular fighter has a good shot at taking down a regular wizard on any X day without X planning.
If a wizard has time to prepare beforehand, knowing he will fight a fighter, then sure, he has the upper hand. But if you give a fighter the same info on the wizard, I am sure he can equip himself to perfectly counter the wizard.
Also, you just have to look at if the wizard can kill the fighter before his spells run out, if he doesn't he is toast anyways. unfortunately fighters don't have many options of running away, whereas a wizard has a teleport handy.
If you take a wizard and tell him to prepare and destroy the fighter, and the fighter to do the same, and give them planety of time to prepare, buy the appropriate magical items, memorize the correct spells, train the best abilities, etc. Then they are pretty even.Ah, assuming again. Classic wizard defender strategy. If it doesn't say I can't do it, then I can assume it lets me!
No, classic correct strategy. If the rules say it works, it probably works.I'm not even sure if you get somatic components.
Even if this is true (which it may well be when you're not using the body to cast) Shadowcraft Mages can easily cast their shadow spells without need for somatic components.I envision your 'voice' as akin to ventriloquism...you do not, after all, have a throat, lungs, or speaking apparatus...you are just making the words sound off, which is not spellcasting. Just as this statue/rock/slab of metal is not your body, I wouldnl't let you get around the insubstantiality of being a prescence by letting this ghostly whisper thing be your voice. After all, if that works, just Eschew Material Comps, still spell, silent spell, and you can cast without a voice at all....which also goes against the whole idea of insubstantiality. How exactly are you casting if you've no substance?
Actually, the whole Eschew/Silent/Still trick is common for SCMs. It makes them cast like psionics.
JaronK
Ok so lets just recap here quickly
#1 Vision problem as long as you are poltergeisting the statue.
Yes. I suggest using Mendbender/Mindsight or a familiar to help out with this issue (if not both). If push comes to shove, you can manifest to attack (limited times per week). But hey, if this causes your Fighter opponent to never want to close within 60' of you, that's AWESOME.
#2 Movement speed problem for the statue.
Non issue. Haunt Shift just sets your base speed... you can still cast Fly or whatever.
#3 Size limitations of the statue: tiny to Huge (IIRC)
Minor issue at best. Heck, with Permanent Shrink Item your size is more flexible than most casters (since that will let you shrink and grow at will between tiny and huge).
The text does state that due to your HD you can do either Polter OR Imp Home. This in no way makes it sound like you can do both simultaneously.
Fair enough. It's not clear cut but it's a logical conclusion.
If you were able to do both at the same time you could be corporal and use the statue to cast all somatic components. In effect you would have 2 bodies at the exact same time.
Yeah, hence it being a pretty logical confusion, just because the idea of having two bodies simultaneously and controlling both at once is a little strange.
Also when the spell is cast it is VERY specific that you are PART of the object or area you selected.
Yes... so?
It is also very specific that if your object is destroyed you are also destroyed.
No, it says the Haunting is dispelled. That's... not hugely clear. People cannot usually be dispelled. It could mean the Haunt Shift spell is dispelled, which makes more sense.
It does not state that if you are corporal and your object is destroyed that you somehow live, or do so for x rounds. It only states that undead who are resistant to death may not immediately die if they are corporal etc. and goes on to give examples.
Well, it just says "the haunting is dispelled." If you remained insubstancial, that could be a problem, but if you were material at the time, I see no reason for you to suddenly dematerialize. I'm not sure I buy that you die per se, though it's possible. I think it's far more likely that in fact the entire haunting is dispelled, meaning you return to your non haunt shifted state. After all, spells being dispelled makes more sense than creatures being dispelled.
As for using a familiar with this build.... to be honest I would be pretty concerned about doing that. It would be insanely easier to kill that familiar from straight up dmg or save or die spells vs killing the statue I would think. However that being said I have never been a fan of the super familiar idea so maybe the familiar could be made very strong.
That's why I recommended making him a Ghostly Visage. They can hide in your body if they need to and their incorporeality provides them with greater defense than normal. If you're nearly invincible to most damage but your little weasel can be killed easily, that paints quite a target on him. So you'd REALLY want to defend him as best you can.
Some final notes.
I did read on about the 10+ HD thing and you are correct Jaron, it would not need to be articulate due to that factor. However I do have a question about the series of events then.
#1 You lower your HD to qualify for the spell to be cast on you by holding some holy items.
Well, before this you create and buff the body, but okay.
#2 The spell is cast on you and you INSTANTLY become a haunting presence.
Well, I think you'd want to use a scroll to cast the spell, which you can easily create before grabbing the arrows. But yes.
#3 You are now well, unable to effect the world because you aren't even incorporal... So you would have to become corporal to drop those holy items. After you drop the items your HD go back to normal, but would that immediately effect your haunting abilities?
No, spells check targetting only when they actually target something. When it targets you, you're a legal target, so it works, and then once it effects you the fact that you become an illegal target isn't relevant anymore... especially since the spell is Instantaneous in duration (though it should also work fine for permanent duration effects).
I mean if a ghost (NPC) was haunting something and managed to kill some adventurers would it level up and then have better haunting powers, IE those of the >10 HD powers? Just curious if dropping those arrows would work in that regard.
I don't think NPCs level up like that, but if the DM said it did so, then it should gain the greater powers. I mean, how else do you get 10+ HD as a haunting presence short of DM fiat?
Please note I do not actually care if this works out or is a total disaster in the end. I just want to make sure nothing was overlooked and everything is run by the rules.
I'm glad for that. I want to be questioned, because I don't want to overlook something. I'm trying to get the rules correct too.
Someone should take the time to find out what the CR would be for this object if it were to be animated though, because if it has a higher CR than your HD when you revert then you can not animate it. That would be a problem.
Not a problem at all, assuming it has the same CR as Animated Objects (which it seems to). Huge ones are well below CR 8 even.
JaronK
This might be a better example, then:
Jar-Jar the Wizard: "Oh rats! Illithid's got me in a grapple! Hey-You, my trusty Shield Guardian! Pull out x and y spell components."
Hey-You the Shield Guardian: "I comply."
Jar-Jar: "Good. I will now cast z spell using the spell components in Hey-You's hands. Waa-lah! Fry, leetle illithid. FRY! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!"
Not at all, since the Wizard himself controls all the actions. It's not a minion... the Wizard himself moves the body directly and has full and complete control. It is NOT an Animated Object (it simply has the movement abilities of one, and I think it's reasonable to say the rest of the physical stats of one since no other stats are given).
Really, Magic Jar is by far the closest example in the rules.
JaronK
The only part of this whole topic I am still unsure of (despite the points that are going to need creative work around) is casting through the body.
Casting when you are insubstantial seems like a no to me, because you are not on any plane and can not be directly effected (even though your body can be destroyed); as such how would you directly effect others? You are simply insubstantial and so everything you do/are can not affect others.
Well, you're actually still on the same plane (nothing in the spell suggests otherwise). And nothing in the spell changes your casting ability either, except for possibly removing the ability to handle material components and make somatic gestures (if you're not using the body). As such, you'd probably want to be a Shadowcraft Mage which can solve those problems.
When using the body, you just cast like any other time. It is, after all, something you're a part of, not some animated minion of yours.
Casting while in the body of the statue...
1 - Well you can make a verbal component with no problem because regardless of being substantial or insubstantial you can speak, the text clearly states that.
Quite so.
2 - You are currently poltergeisting something on the material plane and as such I would consider you to be substantial/able to affect and be affected by those on that plane (through the statue). This would also mean that casting can be interrupted via damage to the statue of course, or must be cast defensively.
Okay (though I don't think being insubstancial makes you unable to cast spells, simply because the spell simply never says that. It might make it problematic). But yes, when casting through the body, I would assume normal casting rules apply, so you could get interupted and all that.
3 - Somatic components are the only part I am personally hung up on. I mean you are willing the object to move, and the object does not have the power to cast, you do. So are you actually providing the somatic components, or is the statue? And if the statue is, because you are possessing it, does that provide enough basis for it to give you somatic components? Still spell would 100% solve this with no questions of course, but is it needed?
Well, yes, you're controlling everything, just as you do with your own body. So, when a Wizard normally casts spells, does he provide the components, or does his body? Same thing here... and it's irrelevant, because the Wizard is part of his body... which is here true as well (though in D&D, unlike in real life, there's more to a person than their physical body, which makes things more interesting).
Obviously if you are manifesting corporal/incorporal you can not have 2 bodies at the same time and as such only you could cast and not the statue (which would actually be inert due to a lack of possession).[/qutoe]
As was earlier pointed out, you can't actually manifest and polterguist at the same time, so this is a non issue. When you manifest, the body isn't going to be moving or in fact be anything other than a statue.But regardless of how you choose to currently manifest, corporal/incorporal/insubstantial/poltergeist you are part of that statue...
Yes, much like a Wizard is still connected to his body when he astrally projects.So if you are always a part of it, and can not cast from it when corporal/incorproal/insubstantial... the only difference between those forms and the last is of course possession (or a form thereof).
Once again to me it would not matter if the statue can provide somatic components or not, while in poltergiest of it, it seems clear that you would be able to cast from it.
Now I'm confused as to what you're saying.I have had almost no experience with possession in my games and as such I have not really read up on it, nor am I able to properly provide a parallel to the Haunting version. Could someone provide that so we can decide if the statue can provide somatic components?
The only parallels I know of are Magic Jar, and IIRC the Fiend of Possession. Those are the only other cases where someone gains full control of a new body and has no other body existant. In both cases, the person can cast normally as though it was their body (including handling somatic components). If you can find another example, I'd love to know.
Symbiots are close, but they have their own body, and they use the abilities of the new body... really, they're doing a dominate effect, which is different (basically, they're mind controlling the person as opposed to acting in the person's body).
JaronK
In fact, a haunting presence is tied to an object or location, and only upon the destruction of the object or location is it dispelled.
Very strange word choice by the author of the book. Also when read in context with the text both before and after it makes it very clear that each haunting presence is a specific undead, vampire/skeleton/zombie etc.
It also states that when undead are created they can sometimes become a haunting presence. To me that indicates that they are both undead, and a haunting presence. This leads me to the same conclusion that you stated earlier.
When the object is destroyed the Haunting Presence merely manifests as a corporal undead (as it was before it became a haunting presence). So if your statue were to die you would still live, but of course be vulnerable at that time (due to a BSF who was able to smash your statue being beside you). I would assume that you would appear where the statue was, or directly adjacent to it (as per exorcism). This would mean that destroying the object is in essence a permanent exorcism. Neat.
I have gone and read Magic Jar and I agree that the post spell mechanics for both spells seem to be super similar. To me that would indicate that you can use the statue for somatic components, and also use it to hold casting materials etc.
Really as has been stated the statue is just a statue, it gains movement as per animate object, but that is all. Every movement it does is because you are in effect inside it possessing it and moving it as you will with your own thought patterns etc.
Ok so I am 100% on board that somatic + verbal + material needs for casting are all met while you are manifesting in one of the 3 methods: corporal, ethereal, and poltergeist. God I have read this entry in LM almost 100 times now...
Ok so lets move onto what is legal as far as the statue is concerned, as well as what its stats/hp etc. would be.
You are animating a statue that you have created. As such the LM refers to the animated objects in the MM. No stats aside from this reference are given. There are some modifications made though, specifically speed and vision has been changed by the Haunting Presence entry. Aside from that it would seem that you would be stuck using the animated object stat block.
So assuming the statue is Huge you would end up with:
HP 8D10+40
Init -1
AC 13
BAB 6
Full attack = Slam 2d6+7
15' Reach
Trample 2d6+7
Hardness : as per the object before animating
etc.
The statue would have your base saves as long as you polter it, but if you chose to manifest ethereal or corporal then it has the saving throws of a non animated object (ie disintegrate = win?). However you would only get to keep your mental stats and would be stuck with the physical stats of the statue as an animated object would you not?
That gives you an average of 84hp. Obviously you are trying to overcome this with hardness, making the statue nigh invulnerable.
So assuming you are 100% ok with the base stat block and abilities from the animated object entry in the MM (aside from speed and vision as limited by LM) my big question now is: Does your insane hardness bump up the CR of the animated object? I mean you are talking some serious damage reduction here.
IIRC you had 84 hardness, that is almost effectively damage reduction 84/-, is it not? IIRC you would still take full dmg from both sonic and acid, unless the material you craft the statue with has a special resistance to those energy types?
As a side note, when you hit every 4th level would you be able to put your stat point gain in a physical stat, or just a mental one? Considering the statue situation...
Time for some more snippets.
Very strange word choice by the author of the book. Also when read in context with the text both before and after it makes it very clear that each haunting presence is a specific undead, vampire/skeleton/zombie etc.
It also states that when undead are created they can sometimes become a haunting presence. To me that indicates that they are both undead, and a haunting presence. This leads me to the same conclusion that you stated earlier.
When the object is destroyed the Haunting Presence merely manifests as a corporal undead (as it was before it became a haunting presence). So if your statue were to die you would still live, but of course be vulnerable at that time (due to a BSF who was able to smash your statue being beside you). I would assume that you would appear where the statue was, or directly adjacent to it (as per exorcism). This would mean that destroying the object is in essence a permanent exorcism. Neat.
I have gone and read Magic Jar and I agree that the post spell mechanics for both spells seem to be super similar. To me that would indicate that you can use the statue for somatic components, and also use it to hold casting materials etc.
Really as has been stated the statue is just a statue, it gains movement as per animate object, but that is all. Every movement it does is because you are in effect inside it possessing it and moving it as you will with your own thought patterns etc.
Ok so I am 100% on board that somatic + verbal + material needs for casting are all met while you are manifesting in one of the 3 methods: corporal, ethereal, and poltergeist. God I have read this entry in LM almost 100 times now...
Ok so lets move onto what is legal as far as the statue is concerned, as well as what its stats/hp etc. would be.
You are animating a statue that you have created. As such the LM refers to the animated objects in the MM. No stats aside from this reference are given. There are some modifications made though, specifically speed and vision has been changed by the Haunting Presence entry. Aside from that it would seem that you would be stuck using the animated object stat block.
So assuming the statue is Huge you would end up with:
HP 8D10+40
Init -1
AC 13
BAB 6
Full attack = Slam 2d6+7
15' Reach
Trample 2d6+7
Hardness : as per the object before animating
etc.
The statue would have your base saves as long as you polter it, but if you chose to manifest ethereal or corporal then it has the saving throws of a non animated object (ie disintegrate = win?). However you would only get to keep your mental stats and would be stuck with the physical stats of the statue as an animated object would you not?
That gives you an average of 84hp. Obviously you are trying to overcome this with hardness, making the statue nigh invulnerable.
So assuming you are 100% ok with the base stat block and abilities from the animated object entry in the MM (aside from speed and vision as limited by LM) my big question now is: Does your insane hardness bump up the CR of the animated object? I mean you are talking some serious damage reduction here.
IIRC you had 84 hardness, that is almost effectively damage reduction 84/-, is it not? IIRC you would still take full dmg from both sonic and acid, unless the material you craft the statue with has a special resistance to those energy types?
As a side note, when you hit every 4th level would you be able to put your stat point gain in a physical stat, or just a mental one? Considering the statue situation...
Here's an interesting question to posit. is a statue made of obdurium, magically treated, hardened, and wearing armor qualifying as a Mundane object?
I'd find that hard to believe, too. Heh. And no, I can't say I agree with the whole spellcasting shtick. Just because the effects are similar doesn't mean they are the same, there really are no rules for possessing animated objects and being able to cast spells (spell-like abilities, now...), and I'm the conservative type, unlike Jaron. He assumes that if it's simiilar and there's no rules, he can do it. I assume unless you are permitted to, you can't.
Eh!
===Aelryinth
That's because his initial premise is false, I didn't bring dueling into this, and I didn't do anything with the Fighter claim.
The thread was talking specifically about dueling with a Fighter vs Wizard when both had prep time. I said "here's one possible tactic" and you jumped in there.
Actually I also came in after that time...on a completely different thread, where you persisted in this business, and THEN I started this one in reply to your continuous assertions of your invincibility. The dueling stuff fell by the wayside long ago. You presented this build as a topic for completely being invulnerable to melee damage, not just as an arena build, and you've been waving it around ever since.
I never did. I said it would make him nearly invincible to hitpoint damage from most Fighters, which is true... I in fact outright stated that a charger could get through this hardness successfully.
As well as several other methods, which shoots down the invulnerability argument, but otherwise, you'd still be waving it around.
As others have explained to you, it does work. I've also given plenty of information.
Aye, and you ignored anything contrary and make leaps of inclusion which most conservative players consider downright ridiculous.
You tried to shoot it down by methods that were simply false.
Ah, no, but it's typical of you to say so.I can just see them at WoTC when they wrote up 'calculations or equations' thinking "Yeah, and instead of calling these hard limits and caps on spells, we all know they are Boolean Equations and so will all our players!'
Sheesh. At least be conservative if you want to defend your cheese.[/b]
Please, what else did you think they meant? They clearly meant any calculation related to HD, which is what they said.
What they meant is calculation and equations, as in x level for casting this spell results in range this, dmg this, area this, et al. boolean logic? (Jaron brought it up before you did, Alpha). Good lord. These boards have a field day insulting the intelligence of the designers, and you are jumping to the field to proclaim deliberate inclusion of boolean logic.
Occam's Razor, simplicity. And hard limits don't make me want to make them more complex by calling them boolean.
Go back and read it yourself again if you want. It's very early in the thread. In fact, here's what started this:
Any regular fighter has a good shot at taking down a regular wizard on any X day without X planning.
If a wizard has time to prepare beforehand, knowing he will fight a fighter, then sure, he has the upper hand. But if you give a fighter the same info on the wizard, I am sure he can equip himself to perfectly counter the wizard.
Also, you just have to look at if the wizard can kill the fighter before his spells run out, if he doesn't he is toast anyways. unfortunately fighters don't have many options of running away, whereas a wizard has a teleport handy.
If you take a wizard and tell him to prepare and destroy the fighter, and the fighter to do the same, and give them planety of time to prepare, buy the appropriate magical items, memorize the correct spells, train the best abilities, etc. Then they are pretty even.
Yesssss...but I didn't start this thread in response to those. I started it because you kept waving around this strategy in other threads, and it doesn't work. Specifically, I asked for the source where they hashed out the negative level/HD rules, which is the God/Batman thread, also at the start of this thread.
Now, I don't mind that you've taken the thread over to try to convince people that this will work, but at least get my premise for beginning it correct!
No, classic correct strategy. If the rules say it works, it probably works.
Except the rules don't say it works or are silent, which is where you start making logic leaps and proclaiming that it does.
Even if this is true (which it may well be when you're not using the body to cast) Shadowcraft Mages can easily cast their shadow spells without need for somatic components.
Or verbal or material? This part is where insubstantiality screws with things for me. I believe whole-heartedly that the full intent of being a haunting prescence is that the only thing you can do is say "Scooby Doo, I'm coming for yoooooooooou" in a ghostly voice, and animate a mundane, unbuffed, common object that you are tied to. I believe insubstantiality is the mechanism for this, not allowing you to do ANYTHING else.
But, we are not given a mechanism for what insubstantiality actually is and what its limits are. I'm being conservative and saying you are allowed to do what a Haunt is allowed to do. You are being very liberal and saying that a Haunt is allowed to do anything which it is not DISALLOWED to do, and that includes spellcasting.
And that's where I cite you for your logic leaps, always in your favor.
Actually, the whole Eschew/Silent/Still trick is common for SCMs. It makes them cast like psionics.
Which doesn't mean much in my perspective because of the insubstantiality issue, and I definitely don't think that an animated object is your body. Being tied to something does NOT make it your body. A lich is tied to his phylactery. A vampire is tied to the soil of his grave. Slaying a magic jar only kills you if you are INSIDE the jar at the time. They are not the same thing, and you are attempting to argue that they are. "Ties" do not a body make, and there is nothing in the haunt description about being able to cast spells through a bound object.
===Aelryinth
Very strange word choice by the author of the book. Also when read in context with the text both before and after it makes it very clear that each haunting presence is a specific undead, vampire/skeleton/zombie etc.
It also states that when undead are created they can sometimes become a haunting presence. To me that indicates that they are both undead, and a haunting presence. This leads me to the same conclusion that you stated earlier.
When the object is destroyed the Haunting Presence merely manifests as a corporal undead (as it was before it became a haunting presence). So if your statue were to die you would still live, but of course be vulnerable at that time (due to a BSF who was able to smash your statue being beside you). I would assume that you would appear where the statue was, or directly adjacent to it (as per exorcism). This would mean that destroying the object is in essence a permanent exorcism. Neat.
Yeah. I'd assume you'd appear as per exorcism right next to the now destroyed statue. You'd be very vulnerable (and quite likely naked) and next to, well, something that can blow up an 84 hardness statue... I'd expect a contingency of "if my statue is destroyed, teleport me to X location to avoid severe troubles for this reason.
I have gone and read Magic Jar and I agree that the post spell mechanics for both spells seem to be super similar. To me that would indicate that you can use the statue for somatic components, and also use it to hold casting materials etc.
Really as has been stated the statue is just a statue, it gains movement as per animate object, but that is all. Every movement it does is because you are in effect inside it possessing it and moving it as you will with your own thought patterns etc.
Ok so I am 100% on board that somatic + verbal + material needs for casting are all met while you are manifesting in one of the 3 methods: corporal, ethereal, and poltergeist. God I have read this entry in LM almost 100 times now...
That was my logic too. And yeah, I've read it over tons of times, including cross referencing to the Animated Objects entry and any other possession-like thing I could find.
Ok so lets move onto what is legal as far as the statue is concerned, as well as what its stats/hp etc. would be.
I mostly went off the Animated Object rules because that's really the only possible thing to use.
You are animating a statue that you have created. As such the LM refers to the animated objects in the MM. No stats aside from this reference are given. There are some modifications made though, specifically speed and vision has been changed by the Haunting Presence entry. Aside from that it would seem that you would be stuck using the animated object stat block.
So assuming the statue is Huge you would end up with:
HP 8D10+40
Init -1
AC 13
BAB 6
Full attack = Slam 2d6+7
15' Reach
Trample 2d6+7
Hardness : as per the object before animating
etc.
The statue would have your base saves as long as you polter it, but if you chose to manifest ethereal or corporal then it has the saving throws of a non animated object (ie disintegrate = win?). However you would only get to keep your mental stats and would be stuck with the physical stats of the statue as an animated object would you not?
You're pretty much going exactly where I went too. I think that it's an attended object and as such uses your saves as long as you're polterguisting it... if you manifest next to it I do agree that it's going to be just an unattended object, and thus this could be dangerous in a combat situation. Luckily it's too big to shatter.
Note that if you make it Dwarvencraft Quality (raising the DC to create it to 22... hardly out of reach) it gets a +2 to all saves, and I believe the Augment Object spell does the same, so you'd get a +4 to all saves in construct form. And your movement would be the lesser of either the huge object rules (depending on number of legs) or your natural movement.
Something to consider though... if you make the statue have four legs like a Centaur, you should get the bonus against bullrushes and trips. If you give it four arms, I wonder if you could make use of Multiweapon Fighting? Not sure about that, but it should work... not that Wizards generally care. But perhaps you could hold a shield (mithral to avoid arcane failure of course) and a staff while still having a free hand. Something to think about.
Further, if you give the statue wings it should count as cloth like and thus enable you to blind people in grapples. Again, I doubt most casters would grapple, but it's a fun option to add and very unexpected.
And I actually think the physical stats thing is a big advantage. Remember, it lets you dump stat Dex, Str, and Con with absolutely no penalties, since those stats will be reset by your new metal body. Sweet!
That gives you an average of 84hp. Obviously you are trying to overcome this with hardness, making the statue nigh invulnerable.
Note that Augment Object doubles the object's hitpoints, and Dwarvencraft Quality gives +10 (and would occur before Augment Object). So you'd actually average at about 188 hitpoints. Not too shabby.
So assuming you are 100% ok with the base stat block and abilities from the animated object entry in the MM (aside from speed and vision as limited by LM) my big question now is: Does your insane hardness bump up the CR of the animated object? I mean you are talking some serious damage reduction here.
Technically, no, because your CR is set only by your size. In any case, I doubt it would bump the CR above your own level even if the DM did that, assuming you do this starting at around level 12. But the CR of an Animated Object is set only by size, not by hardness... a paper Animated Object has the same CR as an obdurium one.
IIRC you had 84 hardness, that is almost effectively damage reduction 84/-, is it not? IIRC you would still take full dmg from both sonic and acid, unless the material you craft the statue with has a special resistance to those energy types?
It's actually better than DR 84, because it applies to energy damage too. Also, remember that all ranged attacks against you get half damage and most elemental damage is halved (see the rules for damaging objects). Also note that hardness does apply to sonic and acid... those simply aren't halved like fire is or quartered like cold damage. The only things that ignore hardness are things that explicitly say as much, meaning some martial manuevers and rust monsters (WATCH OUT FOR THOSE!).
As a side note, when you hit every 4th level would you be able to put your stat point gain in a physical stat, or just a mental one? Considering the statue situation...
Remember, you still have your physical stats (they pop up when you manifest, for example), so while you could put that point into a physical stat, it wouldn't help the statue at all. So it's a bad idea. Not that it matters... you'd put it in Int anyway.
You should be able to wear gear normally on the statue though, which is interesting. It is, after all, a humanoid body. If you're huge there will be all those associated issues, and if you go for the four legged thing (which does grant more speed if your base body is fast enough) there's issues there, but generally you should be able to buff the body nicely that way.
JaronK
Here's an interesting question to posit. is a statue made of obdurium, magically treated, hardened, and wearing armor qualifying as a Mundane object?
It's not a magic item, if that's your question. And thus, yes, it's an enchanted mundane object. That said, IIRC you can haunt magic items anyway if you want.
I'd find that hard to believe, too. Heh. And no, I can't say I agree with the whole spellcasting shtick. Just because the effects are similar doesn't mean they are the same, there really are no rules for possessing animated objects and being able to cast spells (spell-like abilities, now...), and I'm the conservative type, unlike Jaron. He assumes that if it's simiilar and there's no rules, he can do it. I assume unless you are permitted to, you can't.
I assume that when not given specific rules for a situation, you should default to the most similar rules available. For example, there are no rules for the DC to climb a surface that's covered in vines, but I could easily reference the rules for climbing a surface that's got ropes on it, so I'd go with that.
JaronK
Here's an interesting question to posit. is a statue made of obdurium, magically treated, hardened, and wearing armor qualifying as a Mundane object?
I'd find that hard to believe, too. Heh. And no, I can't say I agree with the whole spellcasting shtick. Just because the effects are similar doesn't mean they are the same, there really are no rules for possessing animated objects and being able to cast spells (spell-like abilities, now...), and I'm the conservative type, unlike Jaron. He assumes that if it's simiilar and there's no rules, he can do it. I assume unless you are permitted to, you can't.
Eh!
===Aelryinth
Just to touch on both points Aelryinth
(Remember I don't really care which side 'wins' I just want to know if this is possible)#1 You can haunt a magic item. If you choose to do so it gains a saving throw. This could mean you might need to cast/create your scroll multiple times until the object fails its save.
#2 Being insubstantial is a major problem as far as I am concerned in regards to casting. If, for example, the Haunt were to choose to not manifest corporal/incorporal/polter and was just insubstantial, I would say it can cast any spells it wants, but they would also be insubstantial. For me the reasoning is straight forward: you are basically impervious to damage/effect you should not be able to damage/effect others.
On the other hand if the haunt is manifesting, then it is subject to damage/effect and as such should be able to reciprocate. Don't forget that if the casting is coming from the statue (during poltergeist) that you can also interrupt any spells by damaging etc. the statue.
If you are really uncomfortable with the statue providing somatic and verbal components then the wizard is simply bound to have both silent and still spell on all of his/her spells he wishes to cast. He still casts FROM the poltergeisted statue, and is still able to be interrupted etc. For example: you could AMF the statue, then there is no casting that would happen in any way shape or form (except for the spells that specifically have a way around the AMF).
It is much safer as a DM to have the Haunt only be able to cast while manifesting in some form or another. All 3 forms of manifestation create a chance to take damage and be interrupted. But if you could use the SCM casting while insubstantial bit, that would be almost as bad as PUNPUN in my opinion.
Jaronk:
I am glad we seem to be on the same page in regards to the stat blocks etc. that would be set on the statue. I have not read up on those spells and their effects on HP etc. for constructs/objects, I assume your statements are correct but will double check of course.
Everyone:
Would making someone into a haunt not be like adding a template? And if so, should it have a cost or a LA? What you are getting out of the deal is basically a chance at a second life (your statue dies, then they have to kill you). A great str score, the ability to dump all 3 physical stats, construct traits (Immune to crits etc WOOO!) I mean this is a very serious package to give to a player. Just being immune to crits/sneak attack is huge! Not to mention the potential for a HUGE HP increase, a HUGE natural armor for free, and 20 str for a 0 point buy investment. Bleah its just insane!
So would there need to be a cost or LA for this? It's crazy strong, even with the minor drawbacks.
Jaronk:
I am glad we seem to be on the same page in regards to the stat blocks etc. that would be set on the statue. I have not read up on those spells and their effects on HP etc. for constructs/objects, I assume your statements are correct but will double check of course.
Dwarvencraft Quality Items are from Races of Stone. Augment Object is from Stormwrack. Hardeness is from Spell Compendium.
There's also a Psionic Power that would be REALLY good as it adds something like 5 hitpoints per inch of thickness of the object... a huge deal on a huge creature! But of course that requires a psionic buddy.
Everyone:
Would making someone into a haunt not be like adding a template? And if so, should it have a cost or a LA? What you are getting out of the deal is basically a chance at a second life (your statue dies, then they have to kill you). A great str score, the ability to dump all 3 physical stats, construct traits (Immune to crits etc WOOO!) I mean this is a very serious package to give to a player. Just being immune to crits/sneak attack is huge! Not to mention the potential for a HUGE HP increase, a HUGE natural armor for free, and 20 str for a 0 point buy investment. Bleah its just insane!
So would there need to be a cost or LA for this? It's crazy strong, even with the minor drawbacks.
PAO doesn't cause an LA, so why should this?
JaronK
The more I read this the more I think you can't cast while insubstantial, you've got two options while insubstantial poltergeist and manifest. You can't cast while poltergeisting, you get to move things around and have them attack. You can cast while manifesting, as that is an ability of your special brand of undead. As there are no specifics on casting with regards to haunt shift, there is no correct answer to the question of whether you can cast or not, so either ask Customer service(best 2 out of three wins?) or talk it over with your DM. In the case of unDM'ed discussions the rules simply aren't clear.
What qualifies as an attended object? Because if you've commissioned a statue I'd say it qualifies as your possession, but if it means actually being warn/carried around by someone then never mind.
Well, you have full control of the object and move it at will, so that's clearly not the same as an unattended object.
The more I read this the more I think you can't cast while insubstantial, you've got two options while insubstantial poltergeist and manifest. You can't cast while poltergeisting, you get to move things around and have them attack.
Note that there's nothing in the rules that says anything like "you can't cast while poltergeisting."
You can cast while manifesting, as that is an ability of your special brand of undead.
More to the point, you can do absolutely everything normally while manifesting.
As there are no specifics on casting with regards to haunt shift, there is no correct answer to the question of whether you can cast or not, so either ask Customer service(best 2 out of three wins?) or talk it over with your DM. In the case of unDM'ed discussions the rules simply aren't clear.
Well, the default case is that you can cast (as a caster). Haunt Shift doesn't remove that ability, therefor shouldn't the default case still apply?
JaronK
More likely than not the potential of a statue being haunted, and subsequently moved as an animated object wasn't foreseen by development, otherwise you think they might have actually used it as an example. Could you cast while haunting and using poltergeist to move a cart, or a cross bow? I'd say no. The use of a statue shouldn't make much of a difference.
As for the unattended object, re-read the section on viable objects that can be haunted. Any object in the possession of a character is invalid for haunting. Hence my question on the matter as what qualifies something as in attended, or more specifically as in a characters possession.
Just to clarify, I don't think my opinion on how haunting interacts with casters is 100% correct, this is just how it seems to work to me, use your own interpretation of it for your own game.
Another potential leap of logic, the line in manifesting that states, when manifesting a haunt is able to do anything its particular brand of undead can normally do indicates that as a haunt it can't do these things. This seems to support the interpretation that there are three options while haunting. Those being, say spooooky things to anyone nearby, manifest, poltergeist and move a thing around having it attack as an animated object. Though this is, admittedly, a leap of logic.
also, don't bother with criticism to this post.
You can, of course, lower your effective HD for spells via negative levels from holy arrows or other sources. This allows a Wizard to create a scroll of Haunt Shift for himself (at a minimum level of 9 IIRC) and then cast the spell on himself when he has 8 HD for purposes of spells. He can fabricate a statue body (preferably made of Obdurium) and Haunt Shift himself into said body. At this point, he's haunting the object.
At this point, he can see and hear within 60' of the body (if he wants better range than that, he's going to need to get some other available vision mode from gear or spells or something). His physical stats are those of an Animated Object of his appropriate size (anywhere from Tiny to Huge, I'd recommend Huge), with the cavat that his speed is either the speed of the Animated Object of his size or his own speed, which ever is lesser. Note that by casting permanent Shrink Item on the object before possessing it he can shrink it by 4 size catagories at will. He has the saves of the Wizard himself (though that may be raised by making the object Dwarvencraft Quality at the time of crafting) and the object itself can wear gear (I think) which should effect him (since he's part of the object). Mentally of course he's still the Wizard.
Now, it's still in the air as to whether he can cast spells while he's just being insubstancal. He can speak, so verbal components are easy, but somatic components are unlikely and material components are right out. However, as a Shadowcraft Mage he may still be able to cast just fine while insubstancial... this part is still up for debate. The rules say that he can attack when he manifests, so depending on your definition of "attack" that may imply that he can't cast while not manifested or polterguisting. However, it also seems to be implying that you can take physical actions (such as the actual attack action) so maybe that might not imply anything to casting. When controlling the body, he can use it to cast since the rules for him controlling the body most closely match those of Magic Jar, which does indeed allow for casting. Also, the body is your body (it says that you're part of it after all) so other class abilities should be based through the body. As such, a Paladin of Tyranny's Aura of Tyranny, for example, would be centered on the body should he be haunt shifted.
Should the body be destroyed, the Haunt Shift effect is dispelled, and the mage should appear as though excorcised next to the now destroyed body.
One question involves permanent Shrink Item... what happens if you shrink the body to smaller than Tiny? The Haunt Shift rules say you can only haunt a tiny to huge sized object. As I see it, there are a few possibilities:
1) Following the rules for templates and for most spells, a spell only has to be a legal target when cast. Thus, as long as the body is legally sized when the Haunting starts, you can still control the body even if it's shrunk to below Tiny sized.
2) Because the Haunt Shift rules say you can only haunt something Tiny to Huge, if you go below Tiny sized you're no longer haunting anything, and the Haunting is effectively supressed until the body returns to a normal size. As such, you'd appear next to it just like if the effect were dispelled or if you were excercized, but you'd pop back in when it came back to normal size.
3) As 2, but the Haunting is entirely removed and you just appear permanently, because the Haunting became illegal.
4) You simply can't possess the object while it's too small, but can still manifest near it and all that normally.
Not really sure which of the above is correct, though I'm leaning towards number 1.
I think that's basically where we're at.
JaronK
Well, as a haunt you are unable to be affected, and in turn you, arguably, aren't able to affect others directly, so while you arguably could cast, the real question would be how can you affect them.
Yes, this would be the debatable part. Then again, since you can at the very least cast touch spells via your familiar (which does not have this issue, and can also be attacked) at least you've got something. And of course the rules don't say one way or another whether you're allowed to effect others with spells (not with physical means, certainly) though the part in the impermanent home seems to suggest you can't directly do it.
It doesn't say you can cast during poltergeist either, as it specifically says all you do is control the objects movement.
Well, it says you control the object's movement and that you're a part of the object, which I think adds something to it.
More likely than not the potential of a statue being haunted, and subsequently moved as an animated object wasn't foreseen by development, otherwise you think they might have actually used it as an example. Could you cast while haunting and using poltergeist to move a cart, or a cross bow? I'd say no. The use of a statue shouldn't make much of a difference.
I think it matters for the same reason that it matters whether your shape is humanoid or animal for the purpose of casting any other sort of spell. The cart can't cast because without hands it can't make somatic gestures. Make a cart with hands and arms, and perhaps it could cast just fine.
As for the unattended object, re-read the section on viable objects that can be haunted. Any object in the possession of a character is invalid for haunting. Hence my question on the matter as what qualifies something as in attended, or more specifically as in a characters possession.
Attended generally means the character has direct control over the object, whether it's worn on his body, held in his hands, or whatever. But since attended generally means the character can, for example, pull the object out of the way of an incomming fireball or whatever, I think that should apply to a haunting presence as well as long as it's actively polterguisting.
Just to clarify, I don't think my opinion on how haunting interacts with casters is 100% correct, this is just how it seems to work to me, use your own interpretation of it for your own game.
Still, I'd like to get the rules as correct as possible, and the more input the better.
Another potential leap of logic, the line in manifesting that states, when manifesting a haunt is able to do anything its particular brand of undead can normally do indicates that as a haunt it can't do these things. This seems to support the interpretation that there are three options while haunting. Those being, say spooooky things to anyone nearby, manifest, poltergeist and move a thing around having it attack as an animated object. Though this is, admittedly, a leap of logic.
It's a leap that I consider relatively reasonable. I think the only arguement against being able to cast while just insubstancial and not polterguisting is the line that says you have to manifest to attack. Remember, technically spells are an Extraordinary Ability Special Attack.
JaronK