Weakest and Most Loathed Prestige class.

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

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

No I dont, it just didnt seem to needed to describe other environments.

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.

No.

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

No. If someone ignoring anything there its not me.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shia Luck]

               

ShaDoOoW wrote...

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

No I dont, it just didnt seem to needed to describe other environments.

Well, the argument is clearly false in any lvl 20 or less environment, so I think environment does matter. Environment ALWAYS matters, no? I KNOW you won't argue against that. *grin*

ShaDoOoW wrote...

Shia Luck wrote...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.

No.

Is that it? A pedantic denial is not an argument.

I applaud the fact that you didn't just ignore an argument you have no answer for, but I am surprised that the fact you can't argue against it didn't make you rethink your position.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

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

No. If someone ignoring anything there its not me.

I didn't mention "ignoring" anything. Perhaps you could read what I wrote a little more carefully? Or express yourself differently? Because as it stands, I see no sense in that answer.

You yourself claimed rogue is better than bard, but with RDD you are forced to take bard, therefore being forced to take bard is a tradeoff. That's an example of the very simple logic you are trying to call "imaginary".

Have fun '>
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Guest_Lowlander_*]

               

MrZork wrote...
 Hint: Something can require a significant tradeoff even if an uber build can still be built around it.

I think the problem stems from you misundertanding of  "significant tradeoff".

If I work weekends for 6 months, to get a $5000 bonus, that is a significant tradeoff.

If I work one weekend for $50000 bonus, that is an insignificant tradeoff.

A significant tradeoff is one where reward is proportional to the loss.
An insiginicant tradeoff is where reward is disproportionately larger than the loss.

The rewards of RDD is disproportionately  larger than the loss of third class choices, so the tradeoff is insignificant. 

Also the real tradeoff of taking RDD should obviously be considered against not taking RDD. That is the actual tradeoff in the game.

Not against a theoretical RDD that has no pre-requisites, that doesn't exist. This is not a real tradeoff in the game. It is a construct.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par Lowlander, 14 août 2011 - 05:08 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Kail Pendragon]

               

ShaDoOoW wrote...

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.

Well done, you managed to contradict yourself real fast ShaDoOow!

There is point in saying whether a tradeoff is significant, if one is to evaluate the game balance and then decide how to possibly proceed to alter it to one's tastes.

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

Which you just declared to exist, hence negating their imaginary nature...

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

And time will be spend without RDD and bard/sorc benefits which is another tradeoff (possibly an "imaginary one that exists", in your mindscape) of significant importance.

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)

A build already including rogue or assassin has no need of bard for tumble/umd and a build already including rogue/assassin/shadow dancer/harper scout and monk has no need of bard for tumble. A casting class build will easily have no big need of UMD. The two classes/11+ lvls investment anyhow is a tradeoff as you yourself, in your own confused way, admit. Anybody that says that needing to fill two class slots is not a significant tradeoff is evidently someone lacking basic comprehension skills, but nothing new under the sun since it comes from people who think one can cheat in SP and that modifications to wad game features are fixes. It remains true that the features granted by RDD are pretty much worth the significant tradeoff one must pay.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par Kail Pendragon, 14 août 2011 - 04:52 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_WebShaman]

               Wow.

Kinda hard trying to reach those who obviously have no idea what "straw man" means.

Wasted resources trying.

In NWN, ANYTHING that requires the use of a very precious class slot can be considered a trade-off AT LEAST...and a serious tradeoff at the most.

Requiring two is definitely a serious tradeoff.  What is NOT being considered here, is what sort of cheese would one be facing if RDD did NOT have the "extra class" requirement here?

So instead of avoiding this and pontificating, take it into consideration here.  What about a Fighter/RDD/PM build, or somesuch?  Think about how ridiculous it COULD be, instead of ignoring what is being pointed out.

What if NWN had 4 classes (like NWN2) AND level 40, but with the 3.5 rules (meaning BAB increases in Epic levels)?

What I see being pointed out here (and rightly so), is that taking RDD means taking a tradeoff.  Yep.  You loose a class slot.  Got anything to the contrary here, other than redoing the requirements?  No rebuttal at all?  Well, that was short and easy.

Next!

I am beginning to think we got some Tea Baggers here.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Kail Pendragon]

               And I also think that no one is gonna say that the tradeoff is not worth the trouble, considering the amazing features RDD grants. Or is someone saying that?
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_WebShaman]

               No-one who has any type of grasp on reason, Kail '>
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Guest_Lowlander_*]

               

Kail Pendragon wrote...
Anybody that says that needing to fill two class slots is not a significant tradeoff is evidently someone lacking basic comprehension skills,

Does it make you feel big and self important attacking someones comprehension skills when he is not using his native language. I'd like to see you debate him in his native language.

Your pedantic argument that using a class slot (just for the class itself) is a significant tradeoff, is ridiculous. All classes use a class slot.

Now the significance of the second qualiying class slot does merit discussion.  But it isn't like this slot is blown, you still get a class, you only get less choice of which one, but  you have the choice of Bard, which has incredible synergy for a Fighter/RDD Build.

In the end you still have 3 classes, you also have three classes that have great synergy, thust the tradeoffs of taking RDD are insignificant, when compared with not taking RDD. 

The significance of a tradeoff is balanced by what you get from. From the size of the reward, the significance of tradeoffs to take RDD are minimimal.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par Lowlander, 15 août 2011 - 03:13 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Kail Pendragon]

               

Lowlander wrote...

Kail Pendragon wrote...
Anybody that says that needing to fill two class slots is not a significant tradeoff is evidently someone lacking basic comprehension skills,

Does it make you feel big and self important attacking someones comprehension skills when he is not using his native language. I'd like to see you debate him in his native language.

I'm not using my native language either so we stand on equal footing. And besides, it's about understanding concepts (basic comprehension skills) not about the subtletities of language...

Your pedantic argument that using a class slot (just for the class itself) is a significant tradeoff, is ridiculous. All classes use a class slot.

RDD uses two. It's called math. It also uses 10 lvls since not all RDD features are forefronted. And in a game with limited class slots, using a class slot is not just a tradeoff but a significant one. If that's beyond your (self)limited reasoning ability, then fine. I figured out the extent of your applied intellect a long time ago. Oh, and it's not just my pedantic argument, there's others agreeing with it... with you there's only ShaDoOow agreeing, which says a lot...

Now the significance of the second qualiying class slot does merit discussion.  But it isn't like this slot is blown, you still get a class, you only get less choice of which one, but  you have the choice of Bard, which has incredible synergy for a Fighter/RDD Build.

In the end you still have 3 classes, you also have three classes that have great synergy, thust the tradeoffs of taking RDD are insignificant, when compared with not taking RDD. 

The significance of a tradeoff is balanced by what you get from. From the size of the reward, the significance of tradeoffs to take RDD are minimimal.

Blah-blah-blah

Now there is a tradeoff and it's not imaginary anymore for you too! Congrats for the consistency first of all!

Is there a tradeoff for the RDD character? Yes
Is it of an absolute significant nature? Yes (two class slots, 11+ levels ina 3 class/40 lvls max environment plus potential alignment restrictions issues, starting ability allotment,  etc.)
Is it worth the tradeoff in some specific builds? Yes
Is it not worth the tradeoff in some specific builds? Yes
               
               

               

                     Modifié par Kail Pendragon, 15 août 2011 - 07:07 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Guest_Lowlander_*]

               

I'm not using my native language either so we stand on equal footing. And besides, it's about understanding concepts (basic comprehension skills) not about the subtletities of language...

This is quite obviously untrue, he has fluency issue that are apparent, you do not, and you are attacking someone less fluent, at the language in use, over his comprehension skills. That is low.  But what I have come to expect as you attempt to brow beat everyone into line with your way of thinking.

Now there is a tradeoff and it's not imaginary anymore for you too! Congrats for the consistency first of all!

The only part I called imaginary was in respect to those making reference to comparision to the non-exsistent construct of a RDD that has no pre-requisites.  Such a thing does not actually exist, it is not a real tradeoff in the game. Thus it is an imaginary construct.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par Lowlander, 15 août 2011 - 07:54 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Kail Pendragon]

               

Lowlander wrote...

I'm not using my native language either so we stand on equal footing. And besides, it's about understanding concepts (basic comprehension skills) not about the subtletities of language...

This is quite obviously untrue, he has fluency issue that are apparent, you do not, and you are attacking someone less fluent, at the language in use, over his comprehension skills. That is low.

Low is only your intellectual level ,dude. I'm not attacking anyone on the language, but again how can I expect you to understand something that complex?

Now there is a tradeoff and it's not imaginary anymore for you too! Congrats for the consistency first of all!

The only part I called imaginary was in respect to those making reference to comparision to the non-exsistent construct of a RDD that has no pre-requisites.  Such a thing does not actually exist, it is not a real tradeoff in the game.

So there is a tradeoff to get the equivalent of 16 epic feats plus immunities which consist in 2 class slots and 11+ class levels plus side stuff like potential alignment conflicts, etc. That's real and significant. And worth the trouble in certain builds, not in others and so and so in others still.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_SHOVA]

               Just to point out, depending on the mod, everyones opinion could be true. Kail I tried to run a PM build that was not a caster, and the mod, made it pretty week. I did a 3 sorc, 15 cleric, 12 pm, and made it a str build. Sad to say it just did not do that well with the PM abilities in combat.  Web, I do not understand how you can get the demi-lich summon, when the game requires you to have so many core class levels before you can take epic PM. Is there some override your using to unlock it?
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Kail Pendragon]

               

SHOVA wrote...

Just to point out, depending on the mod, everyones opinion could be true

Well said. Generally I tend to base myself on a mid magic environment which is what NWN should be "balanced" around (ok, stop laughing up there in the gallery).

Kail I tried to run a PM build that was not a caster, and the mod, made it pretty week. I did a 3 sorc, 15 cleric, 12 pm, and made it a str build. Sad to say it just did not do that well with the PM abilities in combat.  Web, I do not understand how you can get the demi-lich summon, when the game requires you to have so many core class levels before you can take epic PM. Is there some override your using to unlock it?

I was addressing PM as a useful PrC without having to go too deep in it; basically PM is good for crit immunity and stuff by getting 10 lvls in it (which is something feasible for both combat and caster builds) or to get, in addition to that, epic spells without druid/cleric/wiz/sorc by going PM 16ish. Anything beyond that gets diminishing returns, especially in vanilla NWN where PM grants no caster level. Personally, I find a PM 30 build to be a weak one (although one evidently can manage to have fun with it), but that is not enough to turn PM into a weak PrC. Now, PDK, that is a weak PrC (even though one can pull a trick or two out of it) IMO.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_WebShaman]

               I don't normally play PMs, SHOVA.  I dislike how NWN handles party members, tbh.  And that includes things like summons.  Thankfully, one can possess their Familiar as a Wizard.  Would be AWESOME if one could do the same with the Palemaster summons...but I digress.  Would be even better if one could also "pick and choose" the spells for the lesser Demilich, wouldn't it?

Is it possible to get Epic PM?  I am pretty sure it is possible.  I am not sure on the exact requirements, however.

Of course, one could "unlock" it...not that I have done so.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shia Luck]

               

Lowlander wrote...

I'm not using my native language either so we stand on equal footing. And besides, it's about understanding concepts (basic comprehension skills) not about the subtletities of language...

This is quite obviously untrue, he has fluency issue that are apparent, you do not, and you are attacking someone less fluent, at the language in use, over his comprehension skills. That is low.

I wonder how Shado0ow feels about you describing his language use that way? You are after all claiming that he has expressed himself badly and yet still assuming he agrees with you. How can you know he agrees with you if you have such a low opinion of his language use? IMO Shado0ow does a fine job of expressing himself most times. Certainly, when challenged he does not (usually? ever? I myself have never seen it anyway)  say "it was a language mistake", he sticks to his opinion. (This, incidentally, makes him a lot more consistent in his arguments than you are. You just change your position and pretend it was that all along with no admission of the point of discussion.)

This, to me, looks like you using Shado0ow's non-perfect grammar to attack Kail.  I am also not originally an English speaker, tho it is my best language these days. But as you can see from my posts and as my friends would tell you, I still make mistakes, and I am a qualified English for Speakers of Other Languages teacher. If you didn't know, ALL native speakers OFTEN make mistakes in expression as well. The simple fact is, grammar and other language mistakes or errors do not always impede expression, understanding or communication.

Meaning is a negotiation between the one expressing and the one listening.

The only way to have a reasoned forum discussion is to 'read charitably'. Try to find the best interpretation of what the poster is saying. Constantly inventing strawman positions for other posters so you can argue against them, whether they are native speakers or not shows exaclty your position on language use and comprehension.

Ultimately, the fact you use another's language ability in an attempt to score points in your own forum argument speaks volumes about you.


..................................

On PM's ...

In the module I and friends are building, we changed PM summons to act like the druid high lvl summons, so once the summon you are entitled to is killed, then the next tier down is automatically summoned (for 4 tiers) , mostly to make it a viable summoner class for casters who specialise in PM. Otherwise PM is best used for STR based melee builds imho.

As advertised and implemented, PMs are certainly not a strong prestige class for a caster.