Which PrCl would you never want in your game? (part 1 - DMG)

[Storm Raven]

Well, this brings up an interesting point:

Many people complain about a lot of elements of the D&D rules as put forward. They will vociferously argue that this or that is "broken", "overpowered" or otherwise a problem with the game (in this thread, it happens to have been PrCs that have been targeted). They talki blithely about various "super-powerful" combinations and decry the terrible results thus produced, alleging all kinds of abstract examples of abuse and horror.

And then you ask them to demonstrate, concretely, their argument. You ask them to put out an example, detailed out, of the problem combination, or problem class, in order to compare the result with the standard options that are an accepted part of the game.

And guess what? Nine times out of ten, they, like DungeonMaster, will turn tail and run. When subjected to the rigors of actually producing an example of the offending character build, they become strangely silent. Because when they were talking about the various combinations they were ranting about they didn't take into account other options, the limitations on a character's resources, and so on.

The funny thing in this thread is that DungeonMaster suggested making example characters, within some very standard parameters. And I pointed out I had already done that, but if he thought he could do better with his side of the argument to make an example of his own. Thus far, the sum total of his response has been to complain, ineffectually, about the examples provided. But he hasn't provided his own example.

I think that says everything that needs to be said about his opinions concerning the broken nature of prestige classes in general, and prestige classes in the DMG specifically. He demanded examples. I said put your money where your mouth is. His money is nowhere to be seen.

 

[DungeonMaster]

I'm still waiting to see what DungeonMaster produces. I think I'll probably be waiting a while. All talk and no action, that guy.

Pardon? I've asked you to provide fully stated wizard + cleric cohort using the rules described. You're still completely unable to understand even the simplest arguments so rather than going insane trying to explain (1+1+ XP)/2 >> 1 I'm merely waiting for you to actually provide a write up.

 

[Storm Raven]

Pardon? I've asked you to provide fully stated wizard + cleric cohort using the rules described. You're still completely unable to understand even the simplest arguments so rather than going insane trying to explain (1+1+ XP)/2 >> 1 I'm merely waiting for you to actually provide a write up.

Umm, I already did. Several posts ago. Perhaps you might have noticed that. I'm still waiting for your super-powered version of the MT you promised. You are the guy who has said that using the MT gives you a super powerful build. Let's see your example.

 

[DungeonMaster]

Because when they were talking about the various combinations they were ranting about they didn't take into account other options, the limitations on a character's resources, and so on.

Oh that's hilarious that is. Just gold. Sounds like an off-shade of brown without the extra "o".

 

[Storm Raven]

Oh that's hilarious that is. Just gold. Sounds like an off-shade of brown without the extra "o".

I see you are still dodging and weaving, avoiding the question, and basically doing exactly what I said you would do - refuse to put your objections into concrete form.

Basically, your argument is looking more and more foolish all the time.

 

[DungeonMaster]

So this is what you keep insisting is a "write up"?

Wizard 12: S 8, I 18 (15 + 3 points for level), W 10, D 13, C 12, Ch 14 (so I can have a good cohort). 4 available feat slots, plus 2 wizard bonus feat slots.
Hit points 43.5 (average), Fort +5, Reflex +5, Will +8
Cleric 10, S 13, I 8, W 17 (15 + 2 points for level), D 10, C 14, Ch 12. 3 available feat slots.
His poitns 68.5 (average), Fort +9, Reflex +3, Will +10

Your cleric is level 9, because you have a familiar -1 to leadership score.
You have no chosen gear, no race, no chosen feats beyond leadership.

I guess I do have to show you what a write up is otherwise you might consider this a write-up.

 

[Storm Raven]

So this is what you keep insisting is a "write up"?

Wizard 12: S 8, I 18 (15 + 3 points for level), W 10, D 13, C 12, Ch 14 (so I can have a good cohort). 4 available feat slots, plus 2 wizard bonus feat slots.
Hit points 43.5 (average), Fort +5, Reflex +5, Will +8
Cleric 10, S 13, I 8, W 17 (15 + 2 points for level), D 10, C 14, Ch 12. 3 available feat slots.
His poitns 68.5 (average), Fort +9, Reflex +3, Will +10

Your cleric is level 9, because you have a familiar -1 to leadership score.
You have no chosen gear, no race, no chosen feats beyond leadership.

I did choose some gear (that which was necessary for comparison purposes), written up later, you'd notice that if you bothered to read. The race of the character in question doesn't really matter, since it comes out in the wash anyway - you play a dwarven MT, and get dwarven advantages, then the same can be done for the wizard and/or cleric. In the end, race doesn't matter for the comparison, so why clutter up the example with it? The same goes for feats - the wizard by himself has 2 more available feat slots than the MT, let alone the cohort. Anything the MT can choose, the wizard can match by himself, and take other feats as well.

The cleric is level 10, for two reasons (1) the wizard can call his familiar after he takes the Leadership feat (and knowing he's going to take it, probably would), and (2) once you have obtained your cohort, the only limitation on his levels is that he cannot be higher than your level minus two, the Leadership score is no longer a limitation.

But I see you are just going to dodge, weave, avoid, and evade, hoping that no one will notice that you haven't even bothered to provide any kind of example of what you consider to be a super-powerful MT. We can only assume you don't know how to make one. As long as you avoid making your example concrete. you can engage in the abstract "but I can do this, that or the other" game, ignoring that you don't have infinite resources, and what options you forego to get to your "super-powerful" character.

 

[Storm Raven]

And, as usual, when the call goes out for him to provide a concrete example to examine, DungeonMaster goes missing.

 

[Kem]

Pardon? I've asked you to provide fully stated wizard + cleric cohort using the rules described. You're still completely unable to understand even the simplest arguments so rather than going insane trying to explain (1+1+ XP)/2 >> 1 I'm merely waiting for you to actually provide a write up.

Problem is, we ALL know what a wizard tends to look like.

You are trying to say that a Myth is better then a wizard. So go ahead, core only also. No need to turn this into a "Who found the best items contest".

And I'll save you some time. If the Myth is the only Mage/Cleric in the party, they are near perfect, a cleric would be better (Healing Magic/Cleric Magic is almost needed, wizard magic is not as much). But in a party with either a cleric or a wizard, they should just be the other.

Keeping leadership in mind, a Wizard 11 & Cleric 9 are better then a Myth 12. More higher level spells, and twice as many actions. So if the wizard/cleric wants to spend exp to be a lower level, then by all means they can.

 

[Storm Raven]

Keeping leadership in mind, a Wizard 11 & Cleric 9 are better then a Myth 12. More higher level spells, and twice as many actions. So if the wizard/cleric wants to spend exp to be a lower level, then by all means they can.

What DungeonMaster doesn't seem to be able to understand is something I pointed out several posts ago: his argument concerning the "double equipment" needs of the wizard/cohort doesn't hold water. His hypothetical MT, to the extent he has put forward the build, relies on very expensive equipment to "keep up" offensively with the wizard/cohort (like orange iouns stones and lesser metamagic rods of quicken spell), equipment that, in these examples comes out of an essentially fixed pool of available cash (equipment that, realistically, doesn't allow the MT to close the offensive gap he suffers from). The wizard/cohort don't have to spend their cash on this equipment, and as a result have more than enough available cash to provide for their defensive needs (mostly save enhancing items).

But, since DungeonMaster is still hung up on the item creation issue, I can explain. One can create items using either cash, or cash plus experience points. Both hypothetical builds have the exact same amount of cash (88,000 gp, as is standard for a 12th level character). But the MT has only a single pool of experience points to use to craft items, while the wizard/cohort have roughly 1.75 times that. Thus, they have more resources available to use to craft items, and can outstrip the MT when doing so. If the MT wants to stretch his cash by crafting items for his use (reducing, say, the cost of making an orange ioun stone from 30,000 gp to 15,000 gp plus 1,200 experience points) he can, but the wizard/cohort combination can match him by crafting 30,000 gp worth of their own items (probably not orange ioun stones, they don't really need them) but the wizard only spends, effectively 685 or so of his own experience points doing so, the rest can be spent by his cohort companion on his own crafted items. Once you get into a crafting race to make your cash go further, the MT will always lose, since he has fewer abvailable resources to commit to the effort.

But, as I said, I didn't need to do that. Just using the base cash amounts (which actually provides a result more advantageous for comparison purposes for the MT) shows that the wizard/cohort have more than enough cash resources to stay well ahead of the MT in effectiveness. In reality, it comes down to DungeonMaster's inability to understand the concept of opportunity cost, which is what causes all of his arguments to end up as nonsense.