D&D 3e/3.5e/d20The forum for conversations specifically related to the rules and procedures of Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition, 3.5 Edition, or any fantasy game using the d20 system or a variant thereof (commercially published or not).
No, it isn't. Nowhere in any book or any article has any author ever written anything about this interaction. You don't know RAI. I don't know RAI. The authors knew RAI, but probably don't even remember it at this point. Pretending that you do is insulting to others' opinions and consists of a serious logical fallacy.
This forum seems addicted to "RAI" and it's not a good thing.
I believe my presumptuous friend meant was Read As Common Sense Demands
RACSD... Gotta work on that name...
EDIT: *clack-clack-clack-clack* Can you hear it? Its the sound of ninja's at there keyboards... they are plotting against me...
__________________
Cult of the Playground est. 2011
Proud owner of 1 internet
Cult of the Playground Highly endorses the ideals of the Tippyverse, World Optimization and "Paradise". its Clerics are encouraged to Optimize everything that they set there sights on. Perfection is our goal.
I'll preface this by saying that the abilities of the legacy champion are at least ambiguous as to warrant the amount of discussion this topic apparently generates.
I don't think RAW supports interactions to make legacy champion advance PrCs beyond levels they were intended. Heres why:
-as mentioned in several books, PrCs with less than 10 levels shouldn't have extended progressions, one of the reasons (especially pertinent here) is "the rate of improvement of a special ability might be too fast to extrapolate over an infinite number of levels" (Complete Warrior, p. 150)
-The "class features" entry of the legacy champion give no mention to if you can or can not go above the normal progression
This absence of support leads me to believe it does not work, rather than "it doesn't say no, therefore it works". Secondly, classes with no further progression technically have no class features above their listed values.
Also, the interpretation that it can extend developments would mean the following is true: by taking three levels of uncanny trickster and 10 of legacy champion, using your LC levels to boost uncanny tricker, thus over ten levels gaining 8 free skill tricks, 8 more favorite tricks, and 8 more levels of another class you previously belonged to (say, a hellfire warlock since that seems to be the favorite pick?) lets say you only dipped one level of hellfire warlock before going in, that gives you +18d6 eldritch blast damage. Sure, you would have to be 20th level by that point, but that is still a ton of bonus damage, and that is on top of 17 effective levels you have of warlock (8d6 eldritch blast) (8 warlock, 1 uncanny trickster, 1 hellfire warlock, 10 legacy champion)
Sounds awfully like a progression too quick to extrapolate over an arbitrary amount of levels to me. Lets at least admit that the RAW doesn't support this interaction. By saying an individuals interpretation of how an interaction works in the absence of hard evidence means you are using RAI, which this thread has quickly dismissed as inadmissible for discussion in a rules oriented thread.
I don't want to wade into the Hellfire warlock debate specifically, and more generally whether or not Legacy Champion stacks with Merchant Prince. However, may I suggest an alternate reading of the class indicating that everyone might be doing Merchant Prince's capital costs wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by WotC
You receive a +2 insight bonus on your profit modifier (see page 183 of Dungeon Master's Guide II) per class level and a 10% reduction in your capital costs per class level.
Note, this is per level. There is no table entry that indicates this is a flat modifier or a cumulative reduction. Which means that for each level of merchant prince, we apply mathematics. In the SRD, it indicates that when referring to real-world values, normal math rules apply. Capital costs in gp are a real-world value.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SRD
When applying multipliers to real-world values (such as weight or distance), normal rules of math apply instead. A creature whose size doubles (thus multiplying its weight by 8) and then is turned to stone (which would multiply its weight by a factor of roughly 3) now weighs about 24 times normal, not 10 times normal. Similarly, a blinded creature attempting to negotiate difficult terrain would count each square as 4 squares (doubling the cost twice, for a total multiplier of ×4), rather than as 3 squares (adding 100% twice).
Five levels in merchant prince means cost x (0.90 x 0.90 x 0.90 x 0.90 x 0.90) = cost 0.59, or 59% capital costs not cost x (1- (0.10 + 0.10 + 0.10 + 0.10 + 0.10) = cost x 0.50.
Capital costs will never be reduced to 0, no matter how many levels of legacy champion you tack on. At least by this reading, which while more complex than the normal interpretation, is an equally (if not more) valid RAW.
__________________
Avatar by Derjuin, sing her praises to Elysium. Adopt an Avatar today.
Chairman of Zinc Saucier. Currently judging made-from-scratch Whisperknives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kazyan
Nah, the material component of that spell is a Mindraped Ice Assassin of a Rudimentary Intelligence Shadesteel Golem with a Craft Contingent Shapechange on it. Not worth the trouble.
Spoiler
Characters: Grath - Southern Comfort Campaign
Prizes: Eglath - 2nd Place Iron Chef XXXII
No, it doesn't. If it were 80% of all-people-who-have-an-opinion-on-the-issue, then it would, but since it's merely 80% of people-who-posted-in-the-thread, it's meaningless, and has no place in a debate. At best, it adds nothing; at worst, it's misleading and deceptive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtagon
Whether you want to follow the consensus or not in your own games is entirely up to you, but that thread does show that the consensus of those taking part in that thread is against you.
Right, which is meaningless since it's a skewed sample from a subset of the population. It tells you nothing about the opinions of the larger population.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtagon
I don't think he was using it to claim a position of authority -- merely to show the opinions of other people who have also discussed this exact same issue.
Yes, that is how he mostly presented it – which I commended him on – and it's fair to do so, but he still felt the need to cite the 70% figure which is utterly meaningless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calanon
I believe my presumptuous friend meant was Read As Common Sense Demands
RACSD... Gotta work on that name...
No, "common sense" is a myth and attempting to use it in a debate is wrong for exactly the same reasons that using "RAI" is wrong – it's an appeal to an inappropriate authority, presumes that you are correct, and implies that everyone who disagrees with you is oblivious or ignorant. It's not merely logically invalid but also insulting in its implications.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Din Riddek
This absence of support leads me to believe it does not work, rather than "it doesn't say no, therefore it works".
Unfortunately, it's not that simple. Despite the reasons to think that it shouldn't work, the quotes you mention come from describing Epic rules (as far as I'm aware), which don't apply to the Legacy Champion, and moreover talk about continuing to give such shortened PrCs more class features over the next however many levels.
However,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Din Riddek
Secondly, classes with no further progression technically have no class features above their listed values.
This is absolutely the case, and no one is arguing otherwise. No one is claiming new class features by extending Hellfire Warlock. The only thing that is claimed is that one's "Hellfire Warlock level" increases by 1. Therefore, things that depend on "Hellfire Warlock level" (like Hellfire Blast) are affected by this increase in level.
So, in short, your quotes could actually serve as a decent argument for Wizards' general intent regarding shorter PrCs, but they don't strictly apply to the Legacy Champion and moreover don't directly contradict a claim that Legacy Champion was intended to override that since they don't refer to it or to an exactly similar situation. The lack of class features for those higher levels is true, but doesn't necessarily matter.
For example, if Hellfire Blast had said "At 1st, Hellfire Blast adds +2d6 damage to Eldritch Blast. At 2nd, this increases to +4d6, and at 3rd, to +6d6," then Legacy Champion would do nothing. But instead it says that it adds "+2d6 damage per class level," of which Legacy Champion says you have 4. This also applies to the Hellfire Warlock's progression of invocations, since it says "At each Hellfire Warlock level," or similar (I don't actually have the book open in front of me).
RAW is ambiguous, but tends to favor that it does work. RAI is, as usual, also ambiguous, and moreover not particularly relevant, but probably favors the interpretation that it doesn't work. What's left is "whatever will work best at your table," which is really always the best ruling anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Din Riddek
Lets at least admit that the RAW doesn't support this interaction.
It... does, actually. Legacy Champion states that it extends class features, including one's "effective" class level for the purpose of scaling elements. It doesn't put any relevant caveats or qualifications on that statement aside from "as if you had gained a level in [the chosen class]." Hellfire Blast and the Invocation progression refer to that class level, whatever it is.
Your quotes from other rulebooks don't apply to Legacy Champion's case, and even if they did, specific trumps general: even though they say you generally shouldn't do it, Legacy Champion specifically says that it does.
The only real sticking point is the "as if you had gained a level" clause, and that's where the ambiguity lies. The "pro" argument is that "you gain class features and an increase in effective level," which means "you gain an increase in effective level" since Hellfire Warlock has no more class features to offer. The "con" argument is that since you could not take another level, you cannot apply Legacy Champion's Class Features feature to it; however, the Class Features description does not state any such restriction.
The "as if you had gained a level" clause appears in the description of what you gain, not in the description of the class you could choose. If I was a Hellfire Warlock 3, it's pretty trivial to state that "if I had gained another level, I'd gain an improvement in Hellfire Blast damage and Invocation use," since those things depend only on Hellfire Warlock class level.
Thus my claim that RAW is ambiguous, but favors the "pro" argument.
Whether or not it's a good idea to allow this is a wholly separate issue, and depends on your table. I know a lot of tables that are not impressed by 18d6 damage. After all, that's only 63 average damage; a half-decent charger should have a larger damage bonus than that (e.g. +15 for Strength, +40 for Power Attack, all at least doubled for using a Lance).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Din Riddek
By saying an individuals interpretation of how an interaction works in the absence of hard evidence means you are using RAI, which this thread has quickly dismissed as inadmissible for discussion in a rules oriented thread.
No, it doesn't. No one can use the "Rules As Intended" because no one knows them. It's an interpretation, but no one should be pretending that it's the "right one because it's the one the developers intended." It's just a reading of the rules as written.
Five levels in merchant prince means cost x (0.90 x 0.90 x 0.90 x 0.90 x 0.90) = cost 0.59, or 59% capital costs not cost x (1- (0.10 + 0.10 + 0.10 + 0.10 + 0.10) = cost x 0.50.
Oh Lady Mathematics is there something that you can't solve?
Mattie's assuming that they meant a 10% reduction applied each level on what it would have been before that level. I don't know that this isn't what is said, since it really does not state one or the other, but the "real world value" thing doesn't hold, since there is no standard in the real world that "a percent cost reduction per some quantity is always calculated by compounding that reduction as many times as the quantity." In the real world, the exact nature of the thing is actually described in detail so no one can mess it up.
Basically, this was never a matter of D&D's weirdnesses when it comes to multiplying, and always an issue of the order in which operations take place. Mattie's case seems unlikely to me since compounding the reduction is usually something that would be stated explicitly, and the wording definitely seems like the total percent reduction is calculated first, before applying it to the price.
Answerer, can you please explain to me why when you state something is 'meaningless' or 'a myth' it has value in a logical debate but when someone else says something 'is RAI' it does not? Because from my point of view, both statements are the same thing - opinions.
Are your opinions more important than anyone else's or am I reading it wrong?
Answerer, can you please explain to me why when you state something is 'meaningless' or 'a myth' it has value in a logical debate but when someone else says something 'is RAI' it does not? Because from my point of view, both statements are the same thing - opinions.
Are your opinions more important than anyone else's or am I reading it wrong?
No, I'm not stating opinions, but facts, since the rules of logic and the validity of various debate tactics have been studied for millenia. I'm not a philosopher or even much of a debater, but this much I do know.
Common sense does not exist. There is no universal set of things known to the human race, you will find someone who disagrees with almost anything, or doesn't know something you deem obvious. The overwhelming majority of appeals to common sense are ethnocentric and culturally normative, which invalidates the opinions, cultures, and experiences of others in an attempt to avoid having to defend your opinions.
No, I'm not stating opinions, but facts, since the rules of logic and the validity of various debate tactics have been studied for millenia. I'm not a philosopher or even much of a debater, but this much I do know.
Sincerely, that's where I think you are wrong. I'm happy you enjoy your Debate 101 class or whatever, but this is a forum for D&D discussions, this is not debate club or whatever. People don't care about 'debate tactics' because they are not usually trying to convince you about anything, they are just saying what they think. Applying logical debate 'techniques' and 'rules' to a D&D discussion is meaningless, presumptuous and rude.
Also, factsdon'texist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Answerer
Common sense does not exist.
Except it does. It might have no bearing as debate tactics or whatever, but common sense does exist. After all, it's a concept that has been studied for milenia.
Last edited by ThiagoMartell : 05-22-2012 at 09:52 AM.
RAW is ambiguous, but tends to favor that it does work.
I appreciate that you are admitting that it is both ambiguous and non-concrete, but it is disingenuous to claim that it is, "ambiguous, but my interpretation is favored by the RAW."
Sincerely, that's where I think you are wrong. I'm happy you enjoy your Debate 101 class or whatever, but this is a forum for D&D discussions, this is not debate club or whatever. People don't care about 'debate tactics' because they are not usually trying to convince you about anything, they are just saying what they think. Applying logical debate 'techniques' and 'rules' to a D&D discussion is meaningless, presumptuous and rude.
Also, factsdon'texist.
You're complaining about my use of standards of debate, while you simultaneously include those links? Fun.
I'm not making statements about "rules" or "tactics," I am stating that which is logically valid. When you make an argument, it is going to be judged by its validity. Assertions that you follow RAI are not valid by any stretch of the imagination. The reasons that I have not gone to great lengths to explain why common sense is invalid is precisely because it has been studied, at length, for millenia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell
Except it does. It might have no bearing as debate tactics or whatever, but common sense does exist. After all, it's a concept that has been studied for milenia.
It's been studied, and been found useless. There exists nothing in the global human consciousness which is common to all members of the population. What is "common sense" to you depends entirely on when, where, how, and with whom you have lived your life, and therefore you cannot rely on it to explain or defend anything, because no one reading it will have exactly the same common sense as you.
Furthermore, by attempting to claim that something is common sense, you're attempting to force others to see things your way by dint of your assertion that to see things otherwise is nonsensical. It is insulting and it is invalid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Din Riddek
I appreciate that you are admitting that it is both ambiguous and non-concrete, but it is disingenuous to claim that it is, "ambiguous, but my interpretation is favored by the RAW."
How so? I've given quite a lot of support for the claim. The full text of the Legacy Champion mentions no restriction that only classes in which you still have levels to take may be chosen, and it states that it gives you an increase in your effective class level. Hellfire Warlock says that your Hellfire Blast deals damage based on your class level. This is what the rules say.
The only ambiguity ("as if you had taken a level in the class") doesn't really matter because one, it seems to apply to the "gain class features" clause that directly precedes it, and moreover definitely does not apply to which class you might choose. If such a restriction was intended, it would seem that it should have been mentioned; no such restriction is mentioned.
This is not a matter of "the rules don't say I can't" so much as "the rules say I can, without the qualification that you think should be there."
It implies, but because of the ambiguity of this whole topic it is an equally valid interpretation.
Quote:
Mattie's assuming that they meant a 10% reduction applied each level on what it would have been before that level. I don't know that this isn't what is said, since it really does not state one or the other, but the "real world value" thing doesn't hold, since there is no standard in the real world that "a percent cost reduction per some quantity is always calculated by compounding that reduction as many times as the quantity." In the real world, the exact nature of the thing is actually described in detail so no one can mess it up.
Banking and financial instruments, to my knowledge, do not have explicit rules in 3.5. But if you made a deposit that earned 10% per month, it seems to me you would have to compound the interest. I see no reason why a merchant prince, who should be intimately familiar with compounding interest, shouldn't do the same with that particular class feature.
Quote:
Basically, this was never a matter of D&D's weirdnesses when it comes to multiplying, and always an issue of the order in which operations take place. Mattie's case seems unlikely to me since compounding the reduction is usually something that would be stated explicitly, and the wording definitely seems like the total percent reduction is calculated first, before applying it to the price.
It seems unlikely to me, as well, that this reading should be the intent, but as it seems even more unlikely to me that a merchant prince 5/legacy champion 10 should be able to make money just by buying things, reserving judgement on whether or not the classes actually stack (which has been described so eloquently on both sides) this is how I'd do it at my table, should that particular stacking be deemed valid.
__________________
Avatar by Derjuin, sing her praises to Elysium. Adopt an Avatar today.
Chairman of Zinc Saucier. Currently judging made-from-scratch Whisperknives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kazyan
Nah, the material component of that spell is a Mindraped Ice Assassin of a Rudimentary Intelligence Shadesteel Golem with a Craft Contingent Shapechange on it. Not worth the trouble.
Spoiler
Characters: Grath - Southern Comfort Campaign
Prizes: Eglath - 2nd Place Iron Chef XXXII
H'boy. Given your approach in this (and other) threads, I think I'd like to actually thank you for keeping out of the RACSD thread.
Let me be completely clear here, or at least attempt it as best I am able via a written medium with huge opportunty for misunderstanding and out-of-sync debate.
Yes, I did create the RACSD thread...for exactly the reason you feared. I created it in hopes that it would engender considerable participation and involvment, and that from it a significant consensus opinion of what constitutes "Common sense" would, in fact, arise. That the term RACSD *would* be used in this forum, that the rules in that thread *would* be referred back to in other threads just as I have done here. This is entirely on purpose.
Common sense does exist, no matter how vehemently you choose to deny it. It simply does not have ultimate, universal authority that you are claiming that others claim. Common sense is:
what makes sense : a rational. reasonable explanation.
to the common person: Regular folks with no claim of exceptional authority...one of the main reasons I've outright rejected attempts at having "experts" have more sway than anyone else.
So far as it is possible to ascern (ie, based on the limited sample of those who have elected to participate), common sense would favor denying Legacy Champion advancement beyond the top of a class's levels.
As of my earlier post, that common sense was at a threshold of 70%. What does 70% mean? Not much. It's a majority. If you care about parlementary procedure, it's a supermajority. If you care about statistics, it's still less than a normal distribution. Interpretion of the meaning, or lack thereof, of 70% is left to the reader...and YOU were the one who assumed that I was making any sort of claim as to the importance of that figure.
I was not...I was simply reporting the current state.
Now, back to the argument at hand. Let me give you another reason to consider denying it, one that even RAW ought to appreciate.
What are the special class features of the 4th level of Hellfire Warlock?
You are *assuming* that it's another +2d6. You're *extrapolating* from the existing 3 levels. However, since there is no such 4th level line in the class, you have nothing to go on but that assumption.
There isn't even wording in the description of Hellfire Blast that says "every level" in it.
The only class feature of HFW that has "at each level" in its description is increases in invoking. All of the rest is purely assumption.
Thus, even if you reject the arguments to the contrary, and the influence of a majority of interested forum participants who feel it is common sense to deny such progression, at MOST legacy champion could only advance those abilities who, spelled out in the text, apply to "each" or "every" level. Extrapolating and assuming is, oddly enough, explicitly called out only as a feature of designing epic progressions which, as you've pointed out, is a totally different thing from Legacy Champion progression.
All of the above set aside in DarkOrchid is a prime example of fatigue-blindness. I honestly read over that paragraph three times, and still completely managed to miss the "each level" part that Snowbluff, below, correctly points out. Completely incorrect mis-reasoning left intact for the sake of honesty.
__________________
Whadda ya mean, Orcs got levels too?
You are *assuming* that it's another +2d6. You're *extrapolating* from the existing 3 levels. However, since there is no such 4th level line in the class, you have nothing to go on but that assumption.
There isn't even wording in the description of Hellfire Blast that says "every level" in it.
The only class feature of HFW that has "at each level" in its description is increases in invoking. All of the rest is purely assumption.
Hellfire Blast (Sp): Whenever you use your eldritch blast ability, you can change your eldritch blast into a hellfire blast. A hellfire blast deals your normal eldritch blast damage plus an extra 2d6 points of damage per class level. If your blast hits multiple targets (for example, the eldritch chain or eldritch cone blast shape invocations), each target takes the extra damage. This damage is not fire damage. Hellfire burns hotter than any normal fire, as described in the sidebar on page 119.
Each time you use this ability, you take 1 point of Constitution damage. Because the diabolical forces behind the power of hellfire demand part of your essence in exchange for this granted power, if you do not have a Constitution score or are somehow immune to Constitution damage, you cannot use this ability.
Invoking: At each level, you gain new invocations known, increased damage with eldritch blast, and an increase in invoker level as if you had also gained a level in the warlock class. You do not, however, gain any other benefit a character of that class would have gained.
You're complaining about my use of standards of debate, while you simultaneously include those links? Fun.
That was sarcasm, actually.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Answerer
I'm not making statements about "rules" or "tactics," I am stating that which is logically valid. When you make an argument, it is going to be judged by its validity.
Again, you're missing the point. I'm not doing an argument, I'm expressing my opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Answerer
Assertions that you follow RAI are not valid by any stretch of the imagination.
Except they are. It's as valid as yoru Debate 101 class or whatever, because everything ever is opinion and interpretation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Answerer
The reasons that I have not gone to great lengths to explain why common sense is invalid is precisely because it has been studied, at length, for millenia.
Again, it makes no difference when applied to a context in which opinions matter, like this one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Answerer
It's been studied, and been found useless.
I'm not saying it's useful. I'm saying it exists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Answerer
What is "common sense" to you depends entirely on when, where, how, and with whom you have lived your life, and therefore you cannot rely on it to explain or defend anything, because no one reading it will have exactly the same common sense as you.
Wrong. The fact people have agreed with me already disproves your point. Many people, upon reading it, had the exact same common sense as me. In fact, many people, upon reading it, had the exact same common sense as you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Answerer
Furthermore, by attempting to claim that something is common sense, you're attempting to force others to see things your way by dint of your assertion that to see things otherwise is nonsensical. It is insulting and it is invalid.
My, that's almost like by saying common sense is invalid you're attempting to force others to see things your way by dint of your assertion that common sense existing is nonsensical.
Answerer, your aproach to discussion might fit theoretical discussions, because it's all about rules specifically as written. If anyone ever attempts to play anything related to this thread, though, it all depends on opinions and interpretations. When it comes to opinions and interpretations, common sense does matter. When it comes to opinions and interpretations, RAI does matter. When it comes to opinions and interpretations, RAW is the myth because every rule ever needs to be understood and interpreted. RAW does not a game make, so as long as we're talking about a game (and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we are) this should be a discussion, not a debate, focused on opinions and interpretations and not exact words or your Debate 101 class.
This is the usual claim to say "my opinion > your opinion."
The rest of your post actually says human beings are fallible (which is correct), so shall we assume you are not a human being?
Regarding the rest of your post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Answerer
Further reading:
If you are pointing your fellow posters towards "further reading", you should be a subject matter expert in philosophy.
Unfortunately, you've already conceded you are not, and the sources you've linked indicate the same.
What is worse, however, is what you seem to imply here. The wikipedia text you linked gives two reasons for fallacious appeals to authority:
(1) "This occurs when an inference relies on individuals or groups without relevant expertise or knowledge"
--> this means that you deny the other gamers relevant expertise or knowledge.
(2) Inductive reasoning.
--> Note that a large part of scientific research is (still) essentially inductive. This just means that the researchers try to generalize from samples. Yes, it is fallible, but you'd not have medication otherwise. Fallibility is not the issue, humans are fallible. As researchers, as debaters, as individuals in general. You, me, everybody.
Also, this is no scientific experiment, and we're not talking of a representative sample here.
Andorax is gathering opinions to achieve an assessment. I don't think anybody claims that this is representative of "the playground". It is just the opinion of those who have taken part in the discussion. Perhaps the expressed opinion of twenty people might still be valuable as an indicator?
Finally, the amount of disagreement over RAW and the heated debates it still causes after all the years it has left print might serve as an indicator that we are not discussing RAW. We are discussing Rules As Written As Interpreted By Me vs. Rules As Written As Interpreted By You.
Working with text requires interpretation. When dealing with ambiguity, we interpret, and we use our judgment, and in part this process is even subconscious. There are parts of the rules that are seen as non-ambiguous, but these don't tend to spur the forum debates.
Dm running evil campaign. I want to combine legacy champion and Merchant Prince to give me some more profit modifiers.
Dm says he's "Not sure if it's suppose to be able to do that".
We always used to play with it that way, with stuff like the hellfire warlock and so on, but he wants an online ruling.
So was there ever any official RAI ruling on the subject?
Thanks for the help!
RAW works that way. However, your DM is entirely justified in saying that you cannot reduce costs past 100%...or even to 100%. This is a change to RAW, but not an unreasonable one. Talk with him about what kind of cost mitigation he finds an acceptable cap, and only take legacy champ that far, then do something else.
__________________
Have been sick, off forums for like...a month and a half. Apologies for anything I've missed, still in catch-up mode.
"World domination is such an ugly phrase. I prefer to call it world optimization."
Common sense does not exist. There is no universal set of things known to the human race, you will find someone who disagrees with almost anything, or doesn't know something you deem obvious. The overwhelming majority of appeals to common sense are ethnocentric and culturally normative, which invalidates the opinions, cultures, and experiences of others in an attempt to avoid having to defend your opinions.
This is actually where you are wrong, but I'd rather not derail the thread with a debate on philosophy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattie_p
It implies, but because of the ambiguity of this whole topic it is an equally valid interpretation.
I'd actually say the interpretation of "Final_Price = Initial_Price * (1 - 0.1*Class_Level)" is correct, due to how other such "at each level" abilities from classes work. Yes, this does break WBL if you go into Legacy Champion, but there are tons of other ways WBL gets broken already. The simple fact is that Merchant Prince was never meant to be combined with Legacy Champion like that, even if Legacy Champion was meant to be combined with anything and everything.
DnD math, simply, is weird. It is the place where [value] x 2 x 2 = [value] x 3 and where someone can carry a million items and still carry nothing at all due to them not having a weight entry of "-".
__________________
Strawberries is thanked for being an awesome avatarist.
Answer: you can attempt to re-frame the discussion to suit your needs all you want, but it doesn't change that there isn't any printed documentation or ruling to support your theory on how this interaction works.
Admitting a rule is ambiguous, then claiming you are correct by RAW is like saying "No one can be sure if non-earthly life exists, but regardless of your reasoning my opinion is more valid."
No, "common sense" is a myth and attempting to use it in a debate is wrong for exactly the same reasons that using "RAI" is wrong – it's an appeal to an inappropriate authority, presumes that you are correct, and implies that everyone who disagrees with you is oblivious or ignorant. It's not merely logically invalid but also insulting in its implications.
So does RAW RAW is pretty much trying to rule lawyer your way out of having to admit your wrong by saying "It doesn't say that it DOESN'T have it so it must" The same can be argued that all Fighters have every spell in the game as a Spell-Like ability can cast them at will because by RAW it doesn't say that they don't so it could be argued that they simply do because it doesn't say that they don't. The moment you start trying to figure out how something was intended for use it immediately stops being RAW.
By RAW, Mystra couldn't exist because Karsus' Avatar wouldn't work because Mystryl is immune to mind effecting spells By RAW, The Sphere of Annihilation in the Statues mouth in the Tomb of Horror? Well by RAW the Sphere of Annihilation can't touch anything without disintegrating it so that statue is fine sized dust which takes up ½ ft. of space by RAW, also by RAW Vecna could never have absorbed Iuz and infiltrated Sygil because there is simply no by RAW way for Vecna to have access Iuz Divine Rank without killing him (Which Die Vecna, Die specifically states does not happen)
Half of the most Iconic events in the series just wouldn't work because RAW states that it does not. (and the terrible thing is that by RAW, everything that happens on these threads is false because by RAW there is nothing that states otherwise)
__________________
Cult of the Playground est. 2011
Proud owner of 1 internet
Cult of the Playground Highly endorses the ideals of the Tippyverse, World Optimization and "Paradise". its Clerics are encouraged to Optimize everything that they set there sights on. Perfection is our goal.
DnD math, simply, is weird. It is the place where [value] x 2 x 2 = [value] x 3 and where someone can carry a million items and still carry nothing at all due to them not having a weight entry of "-".
I agree that D&D math is wonky. The excerpt you cited is correct, but only when it comes to game mechanics with no real world value (such as weapon crit range on a d20 roll). But I did cite the portion where real math applies where real-world values (such as gp costs) are concerned in my first post.
I digress, even I don't like my particular reading of that class feature. I think the 'regular' math is almost certainly correct, and how I would apply it. But I also don't think legacy champion applies would stack on merchant prince or hellfire warlock. I won't go into detail on this, suffice to say, although Answerer brings up some legitimate points, I am more swayed by the arguments against. I won't claim RAW on this though.
If I was somehow playing at a table where this came up, with the levels stacking and all, I'd recommend using my wonky math to ensure that the merchant pays at least something (0.90 ^ 13 = ~25.4%) for the stuff they buy.
__________________
Avatar by Derjuin, sing her praises to Elysium. Adopt an Avatar today.
Chairman of Zinc Saucier. Currently judging made-from-scratch Whisperknives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kazyan
Nah, the material component of that spell is a Mindraped Ice Assassin of a Rudimentary Intelligence Shadesteel Golem with a Craft Contingent Shapechange on it. Not worth the trouble.
Spoiler
Characters: Grath - Southern Comfort Campaign
Prizes: Eglath - 2nd Place Iron Chef XXXII
DnD math, simply, is weird. It is the place where [value] x 2 x 2 = [value] x 3 ..
This makes more sense when you realize that what's going on here is percentile addition, not multiplication; x2 = +100%, x3 = +200%, and so on, so naturally x2 + x2 = x3. Don't know why exactly they went with the rather roundabout and somewhat obtuse way it's presented (ease of notation, perhaps, or they didn't want to muck up their pretty new 'simplified' game with percentile stuff) but that's what's happening.
RSS Feeds: 
Re: Legacy Champion and Advance Past Maximum
Proud owner of 1 internet 
