Best Spell to Maximize

[Xarlen]

If you can Cleave on an AoO, then *Why* would it take a Full Round Action to cleave?

That's like saying you have to take a FRA to Sneak Attack.

 

[hong]

Uhm... I'm not that much experienced in the rules of 3 Ed. yet but wouldn't that piece of math have to be done something like this?

Average MM damage with 5 missiles: (2,5+1) *5 = 17,5

That then needs to be multiplyed with: 1,5^4 =5,0625

Nope. "Multiplication" in D&D really means adding percentage increases. See the glossary in the PHB, p.275.

 

[Bonedagger]

Nope. "Multiplication" in D&D really means adding percentage increases. See the glossary in the PHB, p.275.

WTF don't they just say add then... Ahh well. Thanks.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

edit for I didn't see the other thread so I'll stop hijacking this one.

 

[S'mon]

Tell me again why I should give a damn whether or not you like me.

I thought quite the opposite - I'd presume you get a positive pleasure out of being disliked by as many people as possible. I guess I think you might feel ashamed of being such an embarrassment to your country, but I guess I can't talk since I'm a fairly poor advert for mine also... well we can't all be gentlemen like Upper_Krust, but at least I don't dedicate my entire life and thousands of posts to annoying people, as you seem to.

 

[Zhure]

... so if Cleave can only be used during FRA, has anyone with a BAB of less than 6+ taken this Feat?


Why does Great Cleave have a BAB of 4+ as a prerequisite since it'd only be useful in FRAs... and characters with a BAB of less than 6+ almost never use FRAs.

Weird. I just can't even see this interpretation at all.

Greg

 

[Ferret]

Poison.

 

[hong]

I thought quite the opposite - I'd presume you get a positive pleasure out of being disliked by as many people as possible.

You != as many people as possible, O solipsistic one.

I guess I think you might feel ashamed of being such an embarrassment to your country, but I guess I can't talk since I'm a fairly poor advert for mine also...

Tell me again why I should give a damn what you think about my country.

well we can't all be gentlemen like Upper_Krust, but at least I don't dedicate my entire life and thousands of posts to annoying people, as you seem to.

No, I only dedicate a few posts to annoying people. The remainder of my posts I dedicate to normal people.

BE! FUNNY!

 

[kreynolds]

It's not worth arguing Shard, they don't give a damn about what it says in the PHB.

Sure they do. It just so happens that they're also trying to edjucate you, which seems to be really pissing you off, especially because you keep getting knocked down at every turn. If you continue your rants and arguments as you have been, no doubt you will soon enough be arguing that having a character sheet was one of the most rediculous assumptions that any DM or Player could ever have made.

The approach of "always interpret feats/powers in the most liberal possible interpretaion" to make them as powerful as possible seems to be new in 3e.

They are interpreting those feats according to the rules, which in my opinion, is much better than your "always interpret feats/powers in the most rediculously hamstringed way you can imagine" method. It sounds as though you don't like options in your games, and if that's the case, you're better suited for Chainmail.

Often this seems to involve disregarding all statements to the contrary within the rules themselves. Eg:

"It doesn't say we can't stack Empowers - therefore we can."

Personally, I know that the Sage and Monte Cook have both clarified that you can stack metamagic feats. They had to clarify this because it wasn't clearly stated in the PH. I see that you like to ignore the rules.

"It doesn't say we need a Full Attack to cleave

That's because you don't, but you can rule 0 anything you like.

therefore we can Cleave anytime we make an attack roll."

Well...yeah. Not so difficult to understand.

I doubt the author ever even considered the possibility of stacking multiple Empowers on the same spell

Sure they did. You just don't like it.

it seems totally alien to the whole Feats approach.

Enlarge Spell is alien to Quick Draw as Quick Draw is alien to Reactive Counterspell. What's your point?

As for Cleave, there is a specific rule that ALL feat-granted extra attacks require a full attack action.

Where?

But that would mess with your fun. So it won't do at all.

It seems that the problem here is that the core rules are messing with your fun. Fine. Have your fun somewhere else. Might I suggest Rifts?

 

[Jeremy]

Flame flame everywhere....

Hang on a second, lemme go get my Frosty.

To the no multi empowers and no cleaves there are numerous rules reasons why the rules say what they say, none of which will convince you because you've locked on to your once phrase in the book that you are going to take literally above all others.

That's ok, that's how arguments on this board normally turn out.

There is one non-rules point that should make a minor difference to you even if it doesn't sway you.

There are numerous people, myself and my group included, that have always thought that it was ruled this way, and when the sage confirmed it we just nodded and kept playing. It had seemed simple to us from the text---(That's one reason, that so many people read it that way BEFORE the sage said anything). And it has not unbalanced gameplay. Cleave and Great Cleave are still somewhat relegated to large strong creatures with reach for it's usefulness and empower spell still doesn't see much use because at 2 and 4 and 6 levels higher than your original spell, you'll find other spell that are incredibly useful. Why do a double empowered cure moderate when you can do a heal?---(That's the second reason, we've been playing it like this since 3e playtest before the PHB came out and it works fine, so it can't be as gamebreaking as you are saying.)

So please, either try it and tell us of how it broke your game, or stop bashing it and simply state that in your games you don't want to run it that way. Either one is more convincing and less offensive then saying "You all who play it like that way are breaking the game and are all powergamers" because some of us don't feel like powergames and feel it insulting to be called such, and some of us don't feel like our games are broken in any way shape or form.

As we are the ones playing with these rules in effect, we are in a much better situation to judge whether or not they are broken then you can by sitting down and thinking of it in theory. In theory there are a lot of things that would seem to be a lot more powerful than they are.