New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 56
  1. - Top - End - #1
    Banned
     
    Morithias's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Gender
    Female

    Default Legacy Champion and Advance Past Maximum

    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!

  2. - Top - End - #2
    Banned
     
    ThiagoMartell's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Brazil
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Legacy Champion and Advance Past Maximum

    RAI is quite clear it's not supposed to work.

  3. - Top - End - #3
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    ElfRangerGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2012

    Default Re: Legacy Champion and Advance Past Maximum

    The problem is that master of commerce reduces the capital cost by 10% per class level, and advancing that with legacy champion, and I can see it not reducing it a 100%.

    RAW and RAI it advance class features (that advance by level). The biggest question RAI is if it allows to gain virtual class features beyond the maximum level of the class. RAW it does, for example, a 3 lvl hellfire warlock, 10 lvl legacy champion would have the class features of a lvl 11 hellfire warlock, since only the hellfire blast is affected by the lvl of hellfire warlock (the other abilities are fixed) only the hellfire blast would be affected.

    Personally I believe that it's RAI that it works that way, of course the DM still can ban it, or limit it, if he feels like it.

    A merchant prince with a +22 bonus to the profit modifiers and a -110% to the capital cost is... quite crazy.
    Last edited by Aeryr; 2012-05-19 at 08:31 AM.
    Currently playing:
    Aer the Raven in the refounding of the temple of nine swords.
    Estef in From Splendor to Shadow
    DMing Here be Dragons IC & OOC

  4. - Top - End - #4
    Banned
     
    Answerer's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2012

    Default Re: Legacy Champion and Advance Past Maximum

    Quote Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell View Post
    RAI is quite clear it's not supposed to work.
    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.

    If you have an opinion on how things should be, make your case. Don't pretend that the authors have already made it for you and everyone should just agree because it's "quite clear" to you that this is how they "intended" it to work.

    It's almost certain that the authors didn't intend anything about this interaction because they probably never considered it. You and I cannot pretend to know how they would have reacted if someone had brought it up.

  5. - Top - End - #5
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Newfoundland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Legacy Champion and Advance Past Maximum

    For reference:
    Quote Originally Posted by Weapons of Legacy
    At each level except 1st and 7th, you gain class features and an increase in effective level as if you had also gained a level in a class to which you belonged before adding the prestige class level.
    So if you use Legacy Champion, you can effectively progress to Hellfire Warlock 4 "as if you had also gained a level" in Hellfire Warlock. However there is no 4th level of Hellfire Warlock.

    My reading is that HW 4 is meaningless - you can not progress to HW 4 through Legacy Champion "as if you had also gained a level" in HW, because it doesn't exist. Forget RAI, this is RAW.

    Quote Originally Posted by Answerer View Post
    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
    These others must have particularly thin skin. If two people disagree on a point of RAW, does that mean they are insulting one another's ability to read?
    Last edited by prufock; 2012-05-19 at 10:23 AM.
    Settings: Weird West
    Work in Progress: Fulcrum

  6. - Top - End - #6
    Banned
     
    Answerer's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2012

    Default Re: Legacy Champion and Advance Past Maximum

    You're correct that Hellfire Warlock 4 would not have any class features.

    However, things that depends on your Hellfire Warlock level – like Hellfire Blast – would be affected. Your effective Hellfire Warlock level is 4, even if the 4th level is feature-less.


    Or, at least, so it could easily be argued. RAW here is definitely ambiguous.


    In any event, DMs should handle this exactly like they should handle every other rules dispute: what will work best for your game? If the 11th-level Hellfire Blast is overpowered for your game, he shouldn't allow it. If it isn't, then he should. *shrug*

  7. - Top - End - #7
    Banned
     
    ThiagoMartell's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Brazil
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Legacy Champion and Advance Past Maximum

    Quote Originally Posted by Answerer View Post
    No, it isn't. Nowhere in any book or any article has any author ever written anything about this interaction.
    Yeah, because he never thought about the interaction. If you don't even know about something, you can't say it is expected to stack. Nowhere does it say it breaks the stablished limits, so it does not break the stablished limits.
    Obligatory link.

  8. - Top - End - #8
    Banned
     
    Answerer's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2012

    Default Re: Legacy Champion and Advance Past Maximum

    I didn't say he expected it to stack. I explicitly said that he didn't expect anything.

    You are the one who made a positive statement about what they did or did not expect. You claimed that the intent was this did not work. There is absolutely no way to justify that assertion. Especially considering that you, yourself, are now agreeing that the author almost definitely never even considered the interaction.

    As for your link, I'm not particularly impressed that someone took it upon themselves to attempt to dictate the "ten commandments" for the entire community. I don't agree with his every point (or disagree with his every point), but that's irrelevant because your link in general is irrelevant. I was not defending any interpretation of the rules. I was only pointing out that you made a bald and unsupported assertion that effectively insinuates your correctness on the basis of an invented external authority, with whom others are not allowed to disagree. It's a logical fallacy and an insulting one at that.

    RAI as a term is meaningless; it is far more the myth than your link claims RAW to be. You could, if you wanted, attempt to argue that the authors intended one thing or another – but you cannot just assert it, and even if you convince me it doesn't mean I'm going to agree with the authors, so I personally feel that it's probably a waste of your time to do so.

    Instead, try convincing people that you are right because you have good reasons for thinking what you do.

  9. - Top - End - #9
    Banned
     
    ThiagoMartell's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Brazil
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Legacy Champion and Advance Past Maximum

    Quote Originally Posted by Answerer View Post
    As for your link, I'm not particularly impressed that someone took it upon themselves to attempt to dictate the "ten commandments" for the entire community.
    You simply don't know Caelic, nor the 339 community that started the CO trend. Being late to the party sometimes has that effect on people.

  10. - Top - End - #10
    Banned
     
    Answerer's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2012

    Default Re: Legacy Champion and Advance Past Maximum

    That's wonderful. It still has absolutely no relevance on anything that I said. I was not making any argument for any particular reading of the rules. I made two statements: 1. you (and I) don't know what the RAI is, and it's insulting to assert that you do, and 2. the RAW is ambiguous and it could be argued either way.

    You have addressed neither of these.

  11. - Top - End - #11
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Draz74's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Legacy Champion and Advance Past Maximum

    Answerer, this seems to have become a pet peeve with you that is making you aggressive and argumentative on a number of unrelated threads. For the sake of your own enjoyment of the forums, I suggest you abandon your crusade of trying to abolish appeals to RAI. I don't think they're going to go away no matter what you do.

    Nor are they completely without basis. Sometimes RAI can be established by authors' personal post-publication comments. Occasionally, RAI can truly be dictated by "common sense" (e.g. Monks' proficiency with unarmed strikes). And sometimes, RAI can be determined, not absolutely, but with reasonable margin of error, through logic and use of Occam's Razor. The topic of this thread would seem to fall under the latter case, IMO.

    It's clear from abundant precedents that the writers of D&D splats did not, in general, do a detailed analysis of how new character options would interact with other splats' character options in combination; especially relatively obscure splats (e.g. Weapons of Legacy, Fiend Folio). If RAI did intend for Legacy Champion to increase classes' abilities beyond their normal limits, it would necessitate an exception to this general trend, and a reason that the writer would not have specified this intent explicitly. Occam's Razor indicates that it's far more likely that the writers simply didn't consider the possibility of such a combination.

    If tables want to rule that Legacy Champion advances such things, because they actually like the tradeoff that comes from following the (tentative) RAW in this case, that's fine. Nothing wrong with that. But I think stating that it's against RAI is pretty justifiable in this case.
    You can call me Draz.
    Trophies:
    Spoiler
    Show

    Also of note:

    I have a number of ongoing projects that I manically jump between to spend my free time ... so don't be surprised when I post a lot about something for a few days, then burn out and abandon it.
    ... yes, I need to be tested for ADHD.

  12. - Top - End - #12
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Mnemnosyne's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2010

    Default Re: Legacy Champion and Advance Past Maximum

    I posted my thoughts on this a day or two ago in another thread, so I'll go ahead and quote what I said there:

    Common sense tells me you can always get better at something. Ideally I'd go for a rule that says that, except in specific, rare cases, all prestige classes can be extended indefinitely so you wouldn't have to use Legacy Champion, you could just go right on ahead taking levels of Mystic Theurge or Anima Mage or whatever. But lacking that rule, Legacy Champion and Uncanny Trickster are at least an option to continue getting better at things you should be able to get better at.

    Come to think of it, I don't think I'd even agree with Hellfire Warlock being limited as I mentioned above - there doesn't seem to be anything specific and inherent to the class that suggests you can't get better at it. Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil might be a better example: you can't add more layers to a prismatic after seven because there aren't any. In that case, it makes sense that you can't extend the class. But any class that's just 'get better at what you were already doing' it makes no sense that you can't extend it. Granted, balance-wise, I see reasons to prohibit that in some cases. But those don't strike me as common sense rules - a balance rule arbitrarily preventing you from getting better at something you were doing might be useful in the sense of retaining balance, but it's also not a 'common sense' rule from my point of view.
    It's entirely reasonable to me that you should be able to keep getting better at things. However, for balance purposes, I can see restricting it on certain classes. After a quick look, Merchant Prince is definitely one I would restrict it on due to that level-based profit modifier/reduction in capital costs. Not that that would matter to me since the commerce rules are utterly insane and I wouldn't use them anyway, but if you are using the commerce rules, for balance purposes, letting you apply that level of modifier would just get silly.

    Besides, even in a purely logical/reasonable/practical sense, there is a limit at just how good you can be at investing money. Most things D&D classes do logically lend themselves to infinite improvement, but this one doesn't.
    -Do you honestly think that we believe ourselves evil? My friend, we seek only good. It's just that our definitions don't quite match.-
    Ailanreanter, Arcanaloth

  13. - Top - End - #13
    Banned
     
    Answerer's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2012

    Default Re: Legacy Champion and Advance Past Maximum

    Quote Originally Posted by Draz74 View Post
    Answerer, this seems to have become a pet peeve with you that is making you aggressive and argumentative on a number of unrelated threads. For the sake of your own enjoyment of the forums, I suggest you abandon your crusade of trying to abolish appeals to RAI. I don't think they're going to go away no matter what you do.
    People may continue to be wrong, but in this particular case their inaccurate and unfounded assertions insult me and should insult everyone else who finds themselves disagreeing with any such assertion. Claiming to be right, and that others are wrong, just because you are right and making up some justification for it, is neither appropriate for a discussion forum nor respectful of the opinions of others. I am not going to be dissuaded from the importance of recognizing this fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by Draz74 View Post
    Nor are they completely without basis.
    And when people justify their claims I'll have no problem with them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Draz74 View Post
    Sometimes RAI can be established by authors' personal post-publication comments.
    Exceptionally rare. If this is the case, then a simple link settles the matter and I have no complaint.

    Quote Originally Posted by Draz74 View Post
    Occasionally, RAI can truly be dictated by "common sense" (e.g. Monks' proficiency with unarmed strikes).
    "Common sense" is a myth, and basically falls in the same category as RAI itself. If you believe something be true, justify it. If it's so "obvious," this should be trivial. If it is not, then perhaps it is not so obvious.

    Monks gain bonuses to unarmed strike damage and are described as being masters of unarmed combat; it is not hard to argue that they probably were supposed to have proficiency with their fists. Drowning doesn't heal people in real life, and barring some sort of magical water situation that you'd expect to be more fleshed out, I'd be willing to stipulate that it's not intended either. Etc. etc. But in all cases it's necessary to state your case, not simply assert it. That defeats the purpose of a discussion forum.

    Quote Originally Posted by Draz74 View Post
    And sometimes, RAI can be determined, not absolutely, but with reasonable margin of error, through logic and use of Occam's Razor. The topic of this thread would seem to fall under the latter case, IMO.
    Only if you actually make a case for it. Thiago did no such thing. It's not necessarily the concept of discussing what the authors intended that I object to, it's the fact that almost every time I see "RAI" used, it's as a blatant appeal to authority with absolutely no justification for its assertions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Draz74 View Post
    It's clear from abundant precedents that the writers of D&D splats did not, in general, do a detailed analysis of how new character options would interact with other splats' character options in combination; especially relatively obscure splats (e.g. Weapons of Legacy, Fiend Folio).
    That's true; I'm not entirely certain of the relevance here. I've stated the same thing myself.

    (also, for pedantry's sake, Hellfire Warlock is in one of the Fiendish Codexes, not Fiend Folio. I think it was FC2...

    Quote Originally Posted by Draz74 View Post
    If RAI did intend for Legacy Champion to increase classes' abilities beyond their normal limits, it would necessitate an exception to this general trend, and a reason that the writer would not have specified this intent explicitly. Occam's Razor indicates that it's far more likely that the writers simply didn't consider the possibility of such a combination.
    What? No, WotC generally made it quite clear that you should expect the books to work together (of course, because they wanted people to buy them and effectively the product they were offering was more the testing and the assurances that it was balanced more than the ideas; their execution on that promise is lacking, of course). There is no rule or even suggestion that you're supposed to adjudicate combinations of things from separate books differently.

    It may make sense to do so, particularly in cases like these, but WotC was loathe to admit that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Draz74 View Post
    If tables want to rule that Legacy Champion advances such things, because they actually like the tradeoff that comes from following the (tentative) RAW in this case, that's fine. Nothing wrong with that. But I think stating that it's against RAI is pretty justifiable in this case.
    No, because there was no intent with respect to this combination (in all likelihood and as stated by everyone who's cared to state an opinion on the fact). "They didn't ever consider this combination" does not equal "they intended that this combination wouldn't work." This is kind of like an inverse "Just because the rules don't say you can't" – it's no more true that you you cannot do something "just because the rules don't explicitly state that you can." The general assumption made by (non-setting-specific) books by WotC is that they can be added to any game in any combination with any other (non-setting-specific) books and it's supposed to work.

    It doesn't, of course, but this is basically what WotC was advertising.

  14. - Top - End - #14
    Banned
     
    ThiagoMartell's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Brazil
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Legacy Champion and Advance Past Maximum

    Answerer, I believe you should heed Draz's advice. If you don't believe in RAI, that's fine. Plenty of other people do and as Draz said, there are many times when RAI is quite obvious.

    Also, I'm not claiming to be right. I'm just stating my opinion. If that somehow offended you, I apologize. I don't claim to be all knowing or always correct nor do I want to be.

  15. - Top - End - #15
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Draz74's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Legacy Champion and Advance Past Maximum

    Quote Originally Posted by Answerer View Post
    No, because there was no intent with respect to this combination (in all likelihood and as stated by everyone who's cared to state an opinion on the fact). "They didn't ever consider this combination" does not equal "they intended that this combination wouldn't work." This is kind of like an inverse "Just because the rules don't say you can't" – it's no more true that you you cannot do something "just because the rules don't explicitly state that you can." The general assumption made by (non-setting-specific) books by WotC is that they can be added to any game in any combination with any other (non-setting-specific) books and it's supposed to work.
    Ah, I see where you're coming from with this argument -- "no intent" is indeed different from "intent that it wouldn't work." And when considering the writer of Legacy Champion, that's probably valid.

    But (taking Hellfire Warlock as an example) think about it from the other way around: when Hellfire Warlock was published, it seems pretty clear that there was an intent, namely that you not be able to progress its abilities beyond three levels. And that writer probably did not consider that there would be ways in other splatbooks to evade that limitation.
    You can call me Draz.
    Trophies:
    Spoiler
    Show

    Also of note:

    I have a number of ongoing projects that I manically jump between to spend my free time ... so don't be surprised when I post a lot about something for a few days, then burn out and abandon it.
    ... yes, I need to be tested for ADHD.

  16. - Top - End - #16
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    ElfRangerGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2012

    Default Re: Legacy Champion and Advance Past Maximum

    Quote Originally Posted by Mnemnosyne View Post
    snip
    For what is worth, I agree with you there.

    Answerer, even if I agree with you in that claiming to know RAI is a bit extreme, what was the intention behind the rules when they were written is something the author might have problems discerning now, so anyone claiming to know what they were intending is a bit excessive.

    Thiago, in many cases I will agree with you, sometimes it is easy to imagine what was the intent behind a rule. For example, a monk probably should be proficient with its unarmed strike. But in the case of legacy champion? It is hard to know, maybe if you were to go back in time and talk to the author while he was writing the class you would be able to throw some light into the matter.

    As for now, nor you, nor anyone, can know.

    To the OP I repeat, where I dming, it won't work for merchant prince particularly. But I cannot say that it was RAI that it worked, or RAI that it didn't work.

    Ps. Addendum: The link seems a collection of suggestions based on personal experience towards PO, it doesn't address at any point the legacy champion debate, why is it relevant?
    Currently playing:
    Aer the Raven in the refounding of the temple of nine swords.
    Estef in From Splendor to Shadow
    DMing Here be Dragons IC & OOC

  17. - Top - End - #17
    Banned
     
    Morithias's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Legacy Champion and Advance Past Maximum

    So to sum it up there is no OFFICIAL "RAI" word, and half the forum thinks RAW it works, and the other half thinks it doesn't.

    I guess ultimately I'll just have to try and talk to him about it like a sensible person.

    Thanks for the help people.

  18. - Top - End - #18
    Banned
     
    Answerer's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2012

    Default Re: Legacy Champion and Advance Past Maximum

    Quote Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell View Post
    Answerer, I believe you should heed Draz's advice. If you don't believe in RAI, that's fine. Plenty of other people do and as Draz said, there are many times when RAI is quite obvious.
    If it is obvious, then it should be easy to defend your argument. Do not assume that everyone will automatically agree with you just because it seems obvious to you. What is "obvious" varies strongly from person to person, and even more strongly among different cultures.

    Quote Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell View Post
    Also, I'm not claiming to be right. I'm just stating my opinion. If that somehow offended you, I apologize. I don't claim to be all knowing or always correct nor do I want to be.
    Then don't assert things to be "obviously true" – the implication then is that anyone who doesn't see it your way is oblivious, since the truth of your assertion is "obvious."

    Quote Originally Posted by Draz74 View Post
    Ah, I see where you're coming from with this argument -- "no intent" is indeed different from "intent that it wouldn't work." And when considering the writer of Legacy Champion, that's probably valid.

    But (taking Hellfire Warlock as an example) think about it from the other way around: when Hellfire Warlock was published, it seems pretty clear that there was an intent, namely that you not be able to progress its abilities beyond three levels. And that writer probably did not consider that there would be ways in other splatbooks to evade that limitation.
    This argument I will completely accept, and I am inclined to agree.

    I could make the counter-argument, however, that it is possible that the author of the Legacy Champion was aware of cases where the Legacy Champion would allow such "phantom levels," and considered it a valid use of the class. He may not have considered the Hellfire Warlock specifically, and may have thought differently if he had, but the Hellfire Warlock isn't the only example (see the OP for another). It's possible that the author did think this would be OK.

    It's also possible, of course, that he just didn't think of such things. Or it's possible that he thought his wording would preclude them (though that would surprise me, since it would be trivial to just make it explicit with the addition of one short sentence to that effect). The reality is that we just don't know.

    But suppose I'll stipulate that it was intended that a Hellfire Warlock never, under any circumstances, went past 3 levels, and the author of the Legacy Champion never intended to override that. What then? You would have established RAI, but that hasn't convinced me of anything with respect to how to rule the thing at my own table. I disagree with the designers on a lot of things; this could easily be another.

    Which goes back to my original advice: the DM should adjudicate this based on what will or will not be broken in his games. It ultimately doesn't matter what the designers intended; what matters is a fun game.

    And that is why arguing about RAI is, I think, a waste of time – it's fraught with people making bald assertions about what's "obvious," and even if you take the time to argue it properly, it doesn't accomplish much to convince people of it.

  19. - Top - End - #19
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Draz74's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Legacy Champion and Advance Past Maximum

    Quote Originally Posted by Answerer View Post
    What then? You would have established RAI, but that hasn't convinced me of anything with respect to how to rule the thing at my own table. I disagree with the designers on a lot of things; this could easily be another.

    Which goes back to my original advice: the DM should adjudicate this based on what will or will not be broken in his games. It ultimately doesn't matter what the designers intended; what matters is a fun game.

    And that is why arguing about RAI is, I think, a waste of time – it's fraught with people making bald assertions about what's "obvious," and even if you take the time to argue it properly, it doesn't accomplish much to convince people of it.
    Well, I think RAI is a decent common ground to be able to discuss elements of the game that are and aren't balanced (in cases where RAW has already been established as unbalanced or absurd). In addition, there seem to be a number of forumites -- particularly newcomers who are just wanting a simple answer to a question before they go back to playing the game -- who seem to hold the opinion, "I won't know what makes a fun game for my group until I try something, but I'd like to minimize hassle by guessing an intelligent starting-place for my group to try things out whenever a ruling is needed. And RAI seems like the most logical basis for an initial try."

    It's not how I would run a game -- I agree with you, the designers were off their rocker in lots of places, and I'd rather make my own rulings about an issue than trust that RAI will make a good game. But not everyone has the sense of game balance that you or I have.

    EDIT: As a side note, often when people "make a bald assertion about what's obvious" in the realm of RAI, it's because the logical argument has already been spelled out and accepted by community consensus at some point, and they don't feel the need to re-state it.
    Last edited by Draz74; 2012-05-19 at 01:20 PM.
    You can call me Draz.
    Trophies:
    Spoiler
    Show

    Also of note:

    I have a number of ongoing projects that I manically jump between to spend my free time ... so don't be surprised when I post a lot about something for a few days, then burn out and abandon it.
    ... yes, I need to be tested for ADHD.

  20. - Top - End - #20
    Banned
     
    Answerer's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2012

    Default Re: Legacy Champion and Advance Past Maximum

    Quote Originally Posted by Draz74 View Post
    Well, I think RAI is a decent common ground to be able to discuss elements of the game that are and aren't balanced (in cases where RAW has already been established as unbalanced or absurd).
    Except there's almost nothing "common" about it in almost all cases. RAI cannot be determined with anything approaching certainty in very, very many cases, such as this one. The cases where RAI is anything like certain are rare.

    You waste time arguing about what the authors did or did not intend when what you really want to know is whether or not a given ruling is going to work well in your game.

    Quote Originally Posted by Draz74 View Post
    In addition, there seem to be a number of forumites -- particularly newcomers who are just wanting a simple answer to a question before they go back to playing the game -- who seem to hold the opinion, "I won't know what makes a fun game for my group until I try something, but I'd like to minimize hassle by guessing an intelligent starting-place for my group to try things out whenever a ruling is needed. And RAI seems like the most logical basis for an initial try."
    Except it's not a good basis for anything, since the number of cases where RAI is clear is very, very small. I completely sympathize with people who want advice – but what would help them most is knowing the ramifications of a given ruling and when it is or is not balanced.

    Quote Originally Posted by Draz74 View Post
    It's not how I would run a game -- I agree with you, the designers were off their rocker in lots of places, and I'd rather make my own rulings about an issue than trust that RAI will make a good game. But not everyone has the sense of game balance that you or I have.
    And it's perfectly reasonable to ask for people's opinions. After all, when you ask for RAI, all you're going to get in most cases are people's opinions anyway. But if a newcomer sees someone claiming that "this is what the authors intended" then they may misunderstand this to be an actual fact, and furthermore to be a necessarily a good way to run the game. Neither of these is necessarily true, and that is misleading to new players who have enough things to worry about without having to be misled...

    Quote Originally Posted by Draz74 View Post
    EDIT: As a side note, often when people "make a bald assertion about what's obvious" in the realm of RAI, it's because the logical argument has already been spelled out and accepted by community consensus at some point, and they don't feel the need to re-state it.
    Except that I've never actually seen this occur. Almost every time I have seen it used, it is used without qualification or justification, and there does not seem to be any previous thread where these things can be found (much less one linked to by the one using the term). I think you're incorrect here: I don't think the logical argument has been spelled out in most cases. I further think that in a lot of cases, there isn't any actual consensus. All there is is someone who thinks that they are right, and furthermore thinks that their correctness is somehow canonical.

  21. - Top - End - #21
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Snowbluff's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2011

    Default Re: Legacy Champion and Advance Past Maximum

    I'm siding with Answerer on this. We can't rule on intention with out the explicit statement of what was intended. Sure, it can be ruled one way or the other, but as a forum, we can't rule past RAW. Talk to your DM on whether or not it has that huge of an impact on your game.
    Avatar of Rudisplork Avatar of PC-dom and Slayer of the Internet. Extended sig
    GitP Regulars as: Vestiges Spells Weapons Races Deities Feats Soulmelds/Veils
    Quote Originally Posted by Darrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Snowbluff View Post
    All gaming systems should be terribly flawed and exploitable if you want everyone to be happy with them. This allows for a wide variety of power levels for games for different levels of players.
    I dub this the Snowbluff Axiom.

  22. - Top - End - #22
    Banned
     
    Answerer's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2012

    Default Re: Legacy Champion and Advance Past Maximum

    Well, we can certainly talk past RAW, giving opinions on what is or isn't balanced and when and such.

    But it's important to actually have a conversation as opposed to just asserting that we are right and that those who disagree are oblivious or ignorant.

    It's worth noting that I realize no one actually said that those who disagree are oblivion or ignorant. However, this is the implication when one states that things are "obvious" and uses this as their sole justification for an assertion.
    Last edited by Answerer; 2012-05-19 at 03:05 PM.

  23. - Top - End - #23
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Snowbluff's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2011

    Default Re: Legacy Champion and Advance Past Maximum

    Quote Originally Posted by Answerer View Post
    Well, we can certainly talk past RAW, giving opinions on what is or isn't balanced and when and such.

    But it's important to actually have a conversation as opposed to just asserting that we are right and that those who disagree are oblivious or ignorant.
    Exactly! We just can't come and say "That's not intended, GTFO".
    Avatar of Rudisplork Avatar of PC-dom and Slayer of the Internet. Extended sig
    GitP Regulars as: Vestiges Spells Weapons Races Deities Feats Soulmelds/Veils
    Quote Originally Posted by Darrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Snowbluff View Post
    All gaming systems should be terribly flawed and exploitable if you want everyone to be happy with them. This allows for a wide variety of power levels for games for different levels of players.
    I dub this the Snowbluff Axiom.

  24. - Top - End - #24
    Troll in the Playground
     
    The-Mage-King's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Central Florida, USA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Legacy Champion and Advance Past Maximum

    I, too, am with Answerer. RAI is silly, and should be ignored. Only RAW matters for most of these discussions.

    Asking how people would rule for their games, though, RAW might need to be ignored for.



    At any rate, in regards to the OP, it should stack, by RAW.


    Each level in Legacy Champion counts as a level for the class your advancing.

    Legacy Champion says
    At each level except 1st and 7th, you gain class features and an increase in effective level as if you had also gained a level in a class to which you belonged before adding the prestige class level.
    (Bolded for emphasis)

    So if this PrC says that it gains it by level, it should gain it by level. If it specifies levels, it shouldn't.
    Last edited by The-Mage-King; 2012-05-19 at 03:19 PM.
    Avatar by Ceika.
    Steam account. Add me to argue about philosophy whatever!
    Advertized Homebrew: Fire Emblem 4's Holy Blood as Bloodlines
    Extended Signature.
    Using a different color of text for sarcasm is so original.

  25. - Top - End - #25
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Snowbluff's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2011

    Default Re: Legacy Champion and Advance Past Maximum

    Quote Originally Posted by The-Mage-King View Post
    I, too, am with Answerer. RAI is silly, and should be ignored. Only RAW matters for most of these discussions.

    Asking how people would rule for their games, though, RAW might need to be ignored for.


    So if this PrC says that it gains it by level, it should gain it by level. If it specifies levels, it shouldn't.
    Yeah, but fiddling around with this and Uncanny Trickster you might be able to do better. Taking the dead first level of Trickster pre-HFlock, then dropping a dead Legacy Champ level afterwards. I still have to do this sometime.
    Avatar of Rudisplork Avatar of PC-dom and Slayer of the Internet. Extended sig
    GitP Regulars as: Vestiges Spells Weapons Races Deities Feats Soulmelds/Veils
    Quote Originally Posted by Darrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Snowbluff View Post
    All gaming systems should be terribly flawed and exploitable if you want everyone to be happy with them. This allows for a wide variety of power levels for games for different levels of players.
    I dub this the Snowbluff Axiom.

  26. - Top - End - #26

    Default Re: Legacy Champion and Advance Past Maximum

    This is basically a simple Q&A so:

    The RAW though is unarguably in favor of it. Check with the epic rules though, concerning 11th level of PrCs that aren't written for an 11th level. If you don't use epic then this might have some strange interaction with classes for which there would otherwise be epic advancement.

    Link to proving thread withheld.

  27. - Top - End - #27
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    hex0's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2011

    Default Re: Legacy Champion and Advance Past Maximum

    Quote Originally Posted by NeedsAnswersNao View Post
    Link to proving thread withheld.
    Oh lordy, Legacy Champion thread.

    Easy mode: only apply to level 10 prcs and act as though progressing into epic (11th level on).

  28. - Top - End - #28
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location

    Default Re: Legacy Champion and Advance Past Maximum

    The issue is widely debated (as evidenced in this thread).

    As of this particular moment (see Rule 003), the current take on the matter here:

    http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=240218

    is that 70% of those participating think that it should NOT work...not enough to count as an agreed-upon consensus, but still a significant portion.


    Personally, I'm dead-set against it. Various factors exist in the game to limit and control the power of various spells/feats/prestige classes. Magic Item creation is limited by XP costs, GP costs, and time costs.

    Prestige classes are limited by entry requirements and by how short or long they are.

    In the vast majority of cases, the size (number of levels) of a prestige class is specifically chosen to determine how much of it you can take. Some prestige classes are a "career move" (10 level). Some are more of a "specialty focus" (5 level). Some are even more specialized and narrowed down (3 level). There are a few general exceptions (Initiate of the Seven Veils, Sovereign Speaker) where the number of levels is actually tied to something based on the class itself (7 colors, 9 gods of the Sovereign Host, etc.).

    To me, the intent seems VERY clear...that the size of the class is an intentional limit on their power. For an example, please reference the "Behind the Curtain" sidebar on page 6 of the Epic Level Handbook as to why only 10-level prestige classes can have epic progressions. Intent seems clear when reading what the authors themselves wrote on the subject...that there is an inherent difference between 5-level and 10-level PRCs, that allowing someone more levels in short classes is something a DM 'can allow', but that it is clearly an exception, not the rule.
    Whadda ya mean, Orcs got levels too?

  29. - Top - End - #29
    Banned
     
    Answerer's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2012

    Default Re: Legacy Champion and Advance Past Maximum

    Quote Originally Posted by Andorax View Post
    The issue is widely debated (as evidenced in this thread).

    As of this particular moment (see Rule 003), the current take on the matter here:

    http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=240218

    is that 70% of those participating think that it should NOT work...not enough to count as an agreed-upon consensus, but still a significant portion.
    OK, I haven't posted in your thread because the moderators have advised me that attempting to show that a thread is, in totality, a terrible idea is "threadcrapping" and therefore against the rules.

    However, you have now brought that thread somewhere else and attempted to use it to justify something. This is exactly what I was worried when I first saw the thread, and now I want to make something very clear:

    That thread is utterly meaningless and cannot be used in any logical debate, ever.

    80% of whoever-decides-to-post-in-that-thread does not make a consensus. And a consensus does not make you right.


    The other half of your post is fine. Make a case for why you believe it should be one way or the other. But do not pretend that you have some sort of authority because you've got a thread that has some people who happen to agree with you. You don't, and attempting to use that thread that way is unacceptable to my mind.

    Hell, the first half is commendable for including appropriate caveats and explanations over what it is or isn't. But the 70% figure is still utterly meaningless.
    Last edited by Answerer; 2012-05-21 at 06:48 PM.

  30. - Top - End - #30
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Ashtagon's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Legacy Champion and Advance Past Maximum

    Quote Originally Posted by Answerer View Post
    OK, I haven't posted in your thread because the moderators have advised me that attempting to show that a thread is, in totality, a terrible idea is "threadcrapping" and therefore against the rules.

    However, you have now brought that thread somewhere else and attempted to use it to justify something. This is exactly what I was worried when I first saw the thread, and now I want to make something very clear:

    That thread is utterly meaningless and cannot be used in any logical debate, ever.

    80% of whoever-decides-to-post-in-that-thread does not make a consensus. And a consensus does not make you right.
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consensus

    Dictionary disagrees.

    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.

    The other half of your post is fine. Make a case for why you believe it should be one way or the other. But do not pretend that you have some sort of authority because you've got a thread that has some people who happen to agree with you. You don't, and attempting to use that thread that way is unacceptable to my mind.

    Hell, the first half is commendable for including appropriate caveats and explanations over what it is or isn't. But the 70% figure is still utterly meaningless.
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •