[Dungeon] Lich Queen's Beloved: Am I missing something? (spoilers)

[jasamcarl]

You are under no obligation to take Race Levels before taking Class Levels. Indeed, you can mix and match them.

(As a side note, I don't like "Race Levels", since it relates physical maturity to experience, which is silly in some regards... I much prefer "Age Templates" related to chronological progression.)

True, although your counter-stance presumes that they aren't. It also presumes that the only thralls they are enthralling are low-level, which needs not be the case (indeed, it would be counter-productive to not target higher-level beings at all).

Fallacy. He questioned your assumption by brining in an alternate one (i.e. that lower-power challenges are more numerous that greater challenges). He is under no obligation to disprove you, he is simply asking for positive valdation that your scenario is more probable.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

You are being ridiculous.

Yes.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Fallacy.

If you say so. My stance remains: It is WotC that is presumptive about what constitutes the "standard" game, and these presumptions are the entire issue that I am talking about.

Indeed, most of my complaints are based on the fact that this level of tripe is not the way I'd do it.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

If Bendris were to be presented with a backdrop with nothing but low-level commoners, but the usual assortment of challenges, he would cry that 'the monsters would have taken over by now' regardless of how those challenges were introduced by the DM. I don't think heroic pc action plays much of a role in his thinking; the trademark of an egocentric DM who uses the game only as a pretense to force his fictional reality on his players.

Oh, insults now?

No, that's okay. These kinds of posts let me know who's views and opinions are worth noting.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Isn't this a house rule? IIRC Savage Species states that you have to take the whole racial class before any other levels.

Actually, I wouldn't know, being that the book attaches physical maturity to experience, which is an absolutely rediculous notion.

 

[drnuncheon]

True, although your counter-stance presumes that they aren't. It also presumes that the only thralls they are enthralling are low-level, which needs not be the case (indeed, it would be counter-productive to not target higher-level beings at all).

Actually, it presumes that most of them aren't, not all - I'm not saying that there are no leveled mind flayers, just that they are comparatively rarer than leveled humans or gith.

In fact, in many ways, it could be counter-productive to target higher-level beings, because such beings are not only more likely to be able to resist you, but also to gather other higher-level beings and come and derail your plan entirely.

Again, no idea what the ECL of a mind flayer is - let's say 13, which means that you can be dominating 90% of most populations (people up to level 5) and not be getting any XP for it by the rules as written.

J
Of course, most DMs don't bother tracking XP like this for their NPCs, so it's kind of a moot point anyway.

 

[jasamcarl]

If you say so. My stance remains: It is WotC that is presumptive about what constitutes the "standard" game, and these presumptions are the entire issue that I am talking about.

Indeed, most of my complaints are based on the fact that this level of tripe is not the way I'd do it.

Uh, yeah...and you have no basis even in the canon (assuming it matters) to validate this negative opinion. your 'logic' seems to be limited to 'i saw it in a rulebook last week, so it must be everywhere in the standard setting.' You are doing most of the determining, especially given that the standard setting is suppossed to be vague enough that dms can determine this issue as the story dictates.

 

[drnuncheon]

Actually, I wouldn't know, being that the book attaches physical maturity to experience, which is an absolutely rediculous notion.

I think that if you're going to throw it out on those grounds, you can't fairly use it to defend your point. I have no problem not using the rules in SS in the context of this discussion, but if it's going to be 'pick-and-choose' then anyone can 'prove' anything.

J

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Uh, yeah...and you have no basis even in the canon (assuming it matters) to validate this negative opinion. your 'logic' seems to be limited to 'i saw it in a rulebook last week, so it must be everywhere in the standard setting.' You are doing most of the determining, especially given that the standard setting is suppossed to be vague enough that dms can determine this issue as the story dictates.

Oh, do please try to understand my posts before debating them.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

I think that if you're going to throw it out on those grounds, you can't fairly use it to defend your point. I have no problem not using the rules in SS in the context of this discussion, but if it's going to be 'pick-and-choose' then anyone can 'prove' anything.

Actually, I can. See, 'pick-and-choose' is exactly how the game is designed. In addition, just because I don't use a crappy book in my game doesn't mean it isn't relevant to the conversation, since the book deals with ECL races, is a WotC product, and thus can be applied to the issue at hand (being the long-running war between two ECL races).