Weakest and Most Loathed Prestige class.

[Legacy_WebShaman]

               ALL EPIC spells can be considered available to the right Palemaster build.

However, in my example, it was as a comparison.  When we talk about Summons, exactly what Summons is better than the Palemaster Demilich, pray tell?

And as I suggested before, the Demlich would be far, FAR more superior if one could possess it, much like a Familiar (and have full access to all spells, etc - or even better, be able to configure the spell list!).

Imagine a Palemaster combat build, with the full support of a full powered Demilich spellcaster with a configurable spell list and player controlled AI!

And that is EXACTLY what I meant!
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

SHOVA wrote...

I don't deny the PMs immunities, those make it able to last in a PVP fight, but I question its damage, taking PM limits the spells that can be cast, when compared to a non multi-class caster of the same level. The touch attacks are almost useless, unless you happen to luck out on the roll, when the targets AC, is probably higher than the BAB. Add in the items that grant immunity to death attack, (vanilla gear) and any builder (cheese) gear, and its a long shot it will be effective. ((( first I usualy roll ones, its the biggest reason I suck at PVP. second I used the "cheese" word only because I do not like to add immunity items into my mods, not even the vanilla gear ones from the OC. What others do is up to them, and I accept that when I log into their worlds. )) A PM is great in a 20 level max mod, with low end magic items. PM is week in 40 level, high end magic gear with immunities. I can't change my viewpoint on that, as even if Web showed me how to play a PM the most effective way possible, I would still roll a 1 when it maters most.

I would say the opposite but its possible that I cannot imagine palemasters at lvl 20 at all.

On lvl 40 however its super effective exactly in PvP. Builds like barbarian/pm (low-ac tank - but only viable with boosted rage which is common or rather must at pvp servers), paladin/pm, cleric/pm(either no-ac healer or str based dever) or bard/bg\\pal/pm are totally imbalanced in PvP. Str based with devastating and itself immune against it and even sneak attacks which prevents any cneakers to hurts them.

Casters at lvl 40 dont lose anything with 10PM levels and wizard even gain more epic feats.

In PvM its a bit worse, mostly rdds abilities overcome PM abilities in PvM as devastating DC is low, AB is not very good and neither damage. But most pvm lvl 40 servers needs PM builds with AC like wiz/rogue/pm to "tank" uber monsters for other players. Also cleric/PM if cleric's boosts are not limited is still very good in ab/damage and can heal others in raids etc.

Webshaman: Black blade of disaster is IMO better. At least I can cast it many times + scrolls I craft myself, its immortal (which demilich in lvl 40environment isnt and since you need like 34lvls you cant tell me its great in low lvl environment ) and mainly I dont need to screw my build with 30lvl of PM which would make my character useless with caster level of 10, no ab and no damage.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_WebShaman]

               BBoD will disappear if you "cast" anything (other than using Haste, and critical timing

The actions a caster can take that are considered to break concentration are exactly the following: attacking, casting a spell (including spells from items), counterspelling, disabling a trap, flagging a trap, picking a pocket, and taunting.
   The conditions a caster can be under that are considered to break concentration are exactly the following: confused, dominated, frightened, paralyzed, petrified, polymorphed, sleeping, and stunned.

'> ) - the Demilich does not.  Also, BBoD has a time limit - Demilich does not.

BBoD is certainly not "immortal" - it is vulnerable, of course

The blade cannot be harmed by physical attacks, but it can be affected by dispel magic or similar effects.

The black blade of disaster can only be destroyed by Mordenkainen's disjunction or dismissal. In particular, it is not affected by banishment, word of faith, or other breach or dispelling effects targeting the blade. (Dispels targeting the caster can unsummon the blade, though.)

It is also not as effective as it should be -

The intended enhancement bonus based on ability modifier is blocked due to a bug in the script (the weapon becomes unalterable before the enhancement is applied). Instead, the blade has a +5 enhancement bonus and a +15 attack bonus.

And here the Lesser Demilich Summons

As one can see, it also "suffers" from bugs (Caster level of 15 for abilities, not immune to Death Spells as per Undead, etc).

But even better, using your Demilich AND a BBoD! '>  All while safe and secure in your GS.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par WebShaman, 12 août 2011 - 07:25 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_MrZork]

               

Lowlander wrote...

Right we were arguing about what you saw as reasonable tradeoffs and I didnt'.

Except that we weren't because I never said that the tradeoffs made the class reasonable.

You joined in to comment on the often stated over powered nature of RDD by commenting on what a huge deal it was  losing that third class and how significant the tradeoffs were compared to some of the marginal beneifts.

So it certainly appeared that you were arguing that it wasn't overpowered as you gave up so much to get it.

I was arguing the opposite.  That tradeoffs are very minimal for an outsized reward. Your third class is stuck as Bard/Sorc. Bard is a VERY complementary class to fighter.  You might have some shred of an argument if you were forced to take Sorc/Wiz, but with Bard, not at all.

Lowlander, it seems pointless to repeatedly clarify that I am not arguing against the thesis that RDD builds can be overpowered. Here is the case I am actually making: The RDD warrior (melee) build involves significant trade-offs, primarily due to the requirement of filling a class slot with bard or sorcerer. Note that nothing about that statement carries with it the necessary implication that RDD builds cannot be overpowered. If it doesn't seem like a huge claim to make that's because it's not. It is a simple claim, one that is fairly easy to support, and one that I was motivated to make because many of the rants (it happened here, but this thread is not the first to deal with the subject) against RDDs often tick off the great benefits of the class and generally ignore that it's not just a giant can of free uber that a warrior can grab without giving up anything. I decided to point out some of what must be given up.

So, why do I consider the sorcerer/bard requirement a significant tradeoff? 1) The need for bard or sorcerer levels is a "tradeoff". Hopefully, it is clear that opting to get something that requires forgoing something else represents a trade-off. For example, the bard/sorcerer requirement means no one can make a Ftr/RDD/WM build, so the benefits of one of those classes must be traded to acquire the RDD benefits. 2) It is a "significant" trade-off because other interesting (likely stronger) builds could be made if the trade-off weren't necessary, thus the requirement has an impact on available builds. One can argue against this point, but I find it hard to imagine that one would think the prospect of fighter/RDD/dwarven defenders or monk/RDD/champions of torm or whatever else would represent no significant change in the power and variety and whatever else of RDD builds. So, it is a tradeoff and it is one that significantly affects the available builds. Thus, it is a significant tradeoff. Note that there continues to be no claim that the lack of those other overpowered RDD builds means that the existing RDD builds can't be overpowered.

Now, if you disagree with the above, I am interested in your opinion. But, it would not be an argument against my claim to point out that RDDs can be overpowered or unbalanced or whatever because that can be true at the same time what I said is true.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MrZork]

               

SHOVA wrote...

[...] The touch attacks are also strength based, unless of course one adds the wf feat. [...]

Just as a side note, even if a character has weapon finesse, that will not change the AB calculation for touch attacks from strength to dexterity. Similarly, having zen archery will not change the AB calculation for ranged touch attack from dexterity to wisdom. That can have an impact on the special abilities of some builds (e.g. cleric or monk arcane archer builds will often lose their high AB when attempting imbue arrow, hail of arrows, or arrow of death attacks).
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Guest_Lowlander_*]

               

MrZork wrote...

 Here is the case I am actually making: The RDD warrior (melee) build involves significant trade-offs, primarily due to the requirement of filling a class slot with bard or sorcerer.   I was motivated to make because many of the rants (it happened here, but this thread is not the first to deal with the subject) against RDDs often tick off the great benefits of the class and generally ignore that it's not just a giant can of free uber that a warrior can grab without giving up anything. I decided to point out some of what must be given up.

 the bard/sorcerer requirement means no one can make a Ftr/RDD/WM build,

That's your "Significant Tradeoff"?  It could have been worse?

Only against an even more ridiculous and overpowered RDD builds that you can't make? Why even bother bringing up something so irrelevant.

Obviously it could have been worse. That is in no way a mitigation of how bad it is and I don't see what it adds to the discussion.

But absolutely I will give you that, RDD could have been even worse if it had no third class requirement. Your diversion could have been put more succinctly.

But the original point stands. RDD as is, is a ridiculous overpowered class. I wouldn't play anywhere that allowed them (without significant nerfs).
               
               

               

                     Modifié par Lowlander, 13 août 2011 - 04:27 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_WebShaman]

               Well, let us for a moment suppose that in NWN you could choose 4 classes, and not the 3 that we are currently limited to (who knows what someone will eventually be able to do).

That does open up a whole new can of worms, doesn't it?

NWN2 has that problem (especially with the Monk attacks of death syndrome).  At least NWN2 only goes to level 30 (I shudder to THINK of just how ridiculous Epic levels would become, had it the 40 level llimit that NWN has!!!).

Epic levels are soooo broken!
               
               

               

                     Modifié par WebShaman, 13 août 2011 - 04:41 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Kail Pendragon]

               

Lowlander wrote...

But the original point stands. RDD as is, is a ridiculous overpowered class. I wouldn't play anywhere that allowed them (without significant nerfs).

And yet cleric and mages, which are base classes without prerequisites, are even more overpowered. So what?

RDD is not at all a weak PrC (10 lvls to get the equivalent of 16 epic feats plus immunities and a breath weapon), but the drawbacks are there (3/4 AB, 2 class slots needed, low skillpoints per level, limited skillset, etc.). Both are facts.

And luckily RDD exists. It opens up many interesting character builds, it would be a shameful loss not to have it or to have it significantly nerfed.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

Lowlander wrote...

MrZork wrote...

 Here is the case I am actually making: The RDD warrior (melee) build involves significant trade-offs, primarily due to the requirement of filling a class slot with bard or sorcerer.   I was motivated to make because many of the rants (it happened here, but this thread is not the first to deal with the subject) against RDDs often tick off the great benefits of the class and generally ignore that it's not just a giant can of free uber that a warrior can grab without giving up anything. I decided to point out some of what must be given up.

 the bard/sorcerer requirement means no one can make a Ftr/RDD/WM build,

That's your "Significant Tradeoff"?  It could have been worse?

Only against an even more ridiculous and overpowered RDD builds that you can't make? Why even bother bringing up something so irrelevant.

Obviously it could have been worse. That is in no way a mitigation of how bad it is and I don't see what it adds to the discussion.

But absolutely I will give you that, RDD could have been even worse if it had no third class requirement. Your diversion could have been put more succinctly.

But the original point stands. RDD as is, is a ridiculous overpowered class. I wouldn't play anywhere that allowed them (without significant nerfs).

I agree with Lowlader, this is irrelevant.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MrZork]

               Yup. My significant tradeoff was just a significant tradeoff. To you, that's irrelevant because RDD builds can still be very powerful. To me, it's important not to rant on against the great benefits with no one at least noting the costs. Sorry I wasn't arguing the extreme position some folks wanted to rail against.

BTW,

Your diversion could have been put more succinctly.

Yeah, probably. But, as long as I am pointing out things others don't think are relevant (from my first post on this topic):

So, I am not saying it isn't a strong PrC, because it is. I'm just saying that some of the benefits are marginal and the trade-offs are significant.

I tried. ;-)
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Guest_Lowlander_*]

               

MrZork wrote...
I tried. ;-)

No you didn't. You statement was misleading.  Your so called "Significant tradeoff" is imaginary. It could have been worse isn't a trade off.
 
Harping on some marginal benefits is also completely pointless. Having a few marginal benefits doesn't in any way detract from the multiple ridiculous benefits.

By highlighting marginal benefits and imaginary significant tradeoffs you are just dissembling like a politician.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par Lowlander, 13 août 2011 - 08:48 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Kail Pendragon]

               

Lowlander wrote...

MrZork wrote...
I tried. ;-)

No you didn't. You statement was misleading.  Your so called "Significant tradeoff" is imaginary.

Ludicrous statement. The tradeoff is very significant. It involves 2 class slots one of which is 3/4 AB and the other it's either 3/4 AB or 1/2 AB.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MrZork]

               

Lowlander wrote...

MrZork wrote...
I tried. ;-)

No you didn't. You statement was misleading.  Your so called "Significant tradeoff" is imaginary. It could have been worse isn't a trade off.

To get the benefits of the RDD class, one has to fill two class slots, which means giving up on some of the benefits of the other combat classes that might have filled that other slot. If you want fighter feats plus the special abilities of a dwarven defender or weapon master, you cannot have them in a RDD build. That isn't "imaginary", it's a tradeoff. Your stubborn contention that something that obviously is a tradeoff somehow isn't a tradeoff is bizarre. Hint: Something can require a significant tradeoff even if an uber build can still be built around it.

Harping on some marginal benefits is also completely pointless. Having a few marginal benefits doesn't in any way detract from the multiple ridiculous benefits.

This strawman fixation is a problem. Where did I "harp" on the marginal benefits? Nowhere. I mentioned them once in the first post and not since. And, I didn't even deride them, I just said they weren't ones someone building a warrior would likely pick.

The broader strawman is that you continue to infer that my goal is to "detract from the multiple ridiculous benefits". Someone can post something that doesn't support your case without disputing your case.

By highlighting marginal benefits and imaginary significant tradeoffs you are just dissembling like a politician.

Oh, for pity's sake. <><>

               
            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               It is imaginary. You could say the same for anything that has some prerequisities -> "if that class havent these prerequisities it would be stonger! so these prerequisities are signaficant". Its how the class work and by saying "if it wouldnt work this way it wouldnt be imbalanced" has no logic.

Tradeoffs are really there as for any other class with prerequisities but there is no point to say if they are significant or not. They just exists.

But even if you would convince me that you are right about this issue, you would still not persuaded me that those imaginary tradeoffs are significant because:

1) in max lvl 40 environment, the bab of RDD and sorc/bard is not an issue as you just start progressing these classes once you retain full BAB
2) even if someone would lost 1-4BAB due to need of the bard (for example bard20+/rdd10+ builds) you get this AB drop back with +8str (which is +4ab and +4disc +4devast DC) and in addition you get +2con +2int(which adds skill points) +2char(very usefull for builds with main class of paladin/bg/bard) +immunity paralyse/sleep/fire and mainly +4AC that is imo the best RDD benefit that outshine all other strenght warriors.
3) bard is tumble+umd class and every serious build needs tumble so even if you would make for example WM , you would still take 1-3lvl of bard or rogue (depens on environment, usually rogue is a bit better choice)
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shia Luck]

               

ShaDoOoW wrote...

But even if you would convince me that you are right about this issue, you would still not persuaded me that those imaginary tradeoffs are significant because:

1) in max lvl 40 environment, the bab of RDD and sorc/bard is not an issue as you just start progressing these classes once you retain full BAB

So you claim this argument is only valid in max lvl40 environment which means it is not an argument for all other environments.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

2) even if someone would lost 1-4BAB due to need of the bard (for example bard20+/rdd10+ builds) you get this AB drop back with +8str (which is +4ab and +4disc +4devast DC) and in addition you get +2con +2int(which adds skill points) +2char(very usefull for builds with main class of paladin/bg/bard) +immunity paralyse/sleep/fire and mainly +4AC that is imo the best RDD benefit that outshine all other strenght warriors.

You seem to keep ignoring the point made that although there are tradeoffs, a strong character build can be made. You are arguing against something that has not been said. It is a strawman argument.

However, Bard is also non-lawful, which restricts the choices of the final class further. Monks and paladin wanna be RDDs will be forced to use sorc in most environments which means they will lose significant AB. You are simply assuming bard because it is a stronger choice, but that is not looking at the class description, nor thinking about all builds. It is using your own playstyle as a standard, and nobodies playstyle can be called THE standard.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

3) bard is tumble+umd class and every serious build needs tumble so even if you would make for example WM , you would still take 1-3lvl of bard or rogue (depens on environment, usually rogue is a bit better choice)

Rogue is better choice so therefore you are making a tradeoff by being forced to take bard. That is the definition of tradeoff.

Lowlander wrote...

MrZork wrote...
I tried. ;-)

No you didn't. You statement was misleading.

Only to those who don't actually read what was written.

Lowlander wrote...
 
By highlighting marginal benefits and imaginary significant tradeoffs you are just dissembling like a politician.

Drop of AB to a warrior build and being forced to use a class slot IS a significant tradeoff. Ignoring what is lost and focusing only on the positives is what politicians do, so you are calling the kettle black it seems.

MrZork'sposition has been clear from the outset and he has repeatedly said he is not claiming that strong builds cannot be built, and hasrepeatedly said he is not disputing the obvious benefits. Your continued refusal to actually read his points and respond to them, and instead harp on against a strawman position that no one in this thread
has claimed is just trolling as usual.

Get out the acid and fire time again methinks.

Have fun [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/smile.png[/smilie]
               
               

               

                     Modifié par Shia Luck, 14 août 2011 - 10:57 .