What am I missing?

[ClothedInVelvet]

Rainbow Servant...

Full casting progression (text over table), three free domains (below average domains), able to cast all cleric spells, detect thoughts at will.

This seems pretty good, but I don't see it talked about and it got a -1 adjustment on the PrC tier. Can someone explain?

[Dimers]

This seems pretty good, but I don't see it talked about and it got a -1 adjustment on the PrC tier. Can someone explain?

The -1 means it's better. You need to subtract a number, not a level of awesomeness -- otherwise, Tier 6 would vastly outshine Tier 1. So, yes, other people are agreeing with you that Rainbow Servant is potent.

[ClothedInVelvet]

The -1 means it's better. You need to subtract a number, not a level of awesomeness -- otherwise, Tier 6 would vastly outshine Tier 1. So, yes, other people are agreeing with you that Rainbow Servant is potent.

No, that's how it works in the base class tiers, but the PrC tiers work on an adjustment. So a +1 PrC moves its entry class up one category (e.g. from tier 3 to tier 2). It's counterintuitive, but that's how they set it up.

http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5198.0

[sonofzeal]

No, that's how it works in the base class tiers, but the PrC tiers work on an adjustment. So a +1 PrC moves its entry class up one category (e.g. from tier 3 to tier 2). It's counterintuitive, but that's how they set it up.

http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5198.0
When I was originally creating the system, I switched to "Up" and "Down" to avoid the +/- confusion. When I disappeared for a while and Suzerain continued the project, they brought it all back.


Rainbow Servant is a dubious case. Text and table contradict, and various foreign language printings have gone different directions. Some keep the contradiction, but most give it partial progression. There's one or two that gave it unambiguously full progression though.

Personally, I consider Rainbow Servant as partial progression, by RAI if not by RAW. It's very much in line with other partial-progression PrCs, and let's be honest that the table in this case is a whole lot more visible and less likely to be accidentally wrong than the text. IMO, "text over table" is primarily for cases where tables have brief descriptions that the text then expands. I also side with the significant majority of foreign language printings as clarifying RAI nicely (and resolving RAW within those languages).


All that said... look at the top, in the "Up Two" category. Rainbow Servant's listed.

[Shadowleaf]

Rainbow Servant...

Full casting progression (text over table), three free domains (below average domains), able to cast all cleric spells, detect thoughts at will.

This seems pretty good, but I don't see it talked about and it got a -1 adjustment on the PrC tier. Can someone explain?It's full casting by technicality only. RAI, it's moderate spellcasting. No sane DM would let you use the full casting version in a campaign, as it is obviously meant as 6/10 casting.

Also, there's the Complete Divine Page 20 argument.

[NeoSeraphi]

You're only able to cast all cleric spells if you're a warmage, dread necromancer, or a beguiler.

For a wizard, you're still going to have to shell out time and money to copy those cleric spells into your spellbook. For a sorcerer, you'll still have to burn a precious spell known (it's almost worse than taking Arcane Disciple, for a sorcerer at least. You're probably likely to spend only a few of your spells known on cleric spells anyway, and at least with Arcane Disciple you don't have an alignment restriction and you can take a better prestige class)

That said, with the 6/10 casting progression, it becomes one of the best theurge PrCs I've seen for the full-list spontaneous casters. All cleric spells cast spontaneously, as well as blasting (clerics don't get much outside domains), enchantment and illusions (clerics get almost none of either) or necromancy (here it gets pretty ridiculous, but at the very least you can get access to some splatbook necromancy)

[Swooper]

It's full casting by technicality only. RAI, it's moderate spellcasting. No sane DM would let you use the full casting version in a campaign, as it is obviously meant as 6/10 casting.

Also, there's the Complete Divine Page 20 argument.
That's a strawman argument if I ever saw one. People like different levels of power, and it has nothing to do with sanity.

[Heliomance]

It's full casting by technicality only. RAI, it's moderate spellcasting. No sane DM would let you use the full casting version in a campaign, as it is obviously meant as 6/10 casting.

Also, there's the Complete Divine Page 20 argument.

No sane player would take the 6/10 casting version.

Personally, I'm pretty sure I'm a sane DM, and I'd let it have full casting. I wouldn't let you take it with Warmage, beguiler, or Dread Necromancer, but if you wanted to go in from Wizard I'd be fine with that.

[Coidzor]

It's only worth it for the full casters who have such weak 9th level options that getting access to another list is worth not getting 8th level spells on time or getting 9ths at all.

[sonofzeal]

That's a strawman argument if I ever saw one. People like different levels of power, and it has nothing to do with sanity.
Er, that's not remotely what "strawman" means. A strawman would be if she were arguing against it being full-progression and nobody in the world treated it that way. This is pretty much the exact opposite of that, a plain old overgeneralization.

But yes, there's games with all sorts of silliness in them, where you don't have to be on the ground to Jump, and where Inspire Greatness is used to qualify for PrCs early. That said, 6/10 very much appears to be RAI and should generally be recommended as the default assumption... with exceptions in certain "high op" campaigns of course.

[Heliomance]

Er, that's not remotely what "strawman" means. A strawman would be if she were arguing against it being full-progression and nobody in the world treated it that way. This is pretty much the exact opposite of that, a plain old overgeneralization.


Technically, it's the No True Scotsman fallacy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman)

[sonofzeal]

Technically, it's the No True Scotsman fallacy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman)
Hmm... it could qualify, but I don't think any self-identified DMs had posted in the thread, and the Wikipedia definition of NTS seems to preclude the possibility of a pre-emptive one. I can see the case, but I think it's just a normal rhetorical hyperbole, rather than what I would consider a proper NTS.

[Yora]

If I am the only GM here, I wouldn't allow Complete Divine at all.

Which means no GM, sane or not, would allow Complete Devine. which in turn means nobody ever played a Rainbow Servant. :smallsigh:

[ClothedInVelvet]

Okay, but we've got to be consistent here. The Rainbow Servant (obviously couldn't come up with good fluff for a PrC) gets a -1, unless you're coming in from warmage, but the Sacred Fist gets a +1.

They're in the same position with caster levels, with the table and text disagreeing. If the table wins in Sacred Fist, it's certainly not going to knock the cleric up to a new tier. It should probably be knocked down a tier for losing caster levels and will save.

I don't have much of a problem with a wizard having to scribe the spells into his spellbook.

Heliomance, it's good to know someone is keeping us on track logically. As a philosopher, that's one of my goals.

[sonofzeal]

Okay, but we've got to be consistent here. The Rainbow Servant (obviously couldn't come up with good fluff for a PrC) gets a -1, unless you're coming in from warmage, but the Sacred Fist gets a +1.

They're in the same position with caster levels, with the table and text disagreeing. If the table wins in Sacred Fist, it's certainly not going to knock the cleric up to a new tier. It should probably be knocked down a tier for losing caster levels and will save.
I can see the argument there; it's probably like that more for legacy reasons than anything else, nobody protested its ranking when the system was getting bashed through.

That said... it might be a problem of "logical entry". While RS is useful on Warmage and whatnot, it's decidedly poor on Wizard and Sorcerers which are specifically called out in the text as those most likely to take the class. The split ranking acknowledges the disparity, but the default usually goes with what the text itself uses. This is why the default MoMF is a Druid, and the Wildshape Ranger got split off from there. Sacred Fist is an odd duck though, since the default logical entry is a multiclassed Cleric/Monk. These multiclassed entries are much harder to rate.

The build given in Sacred Fist is Cleric 1 / Monk 6 / Sacred Fist X... or, a Monk who dipped Cleric rather than the other way around. Given a Monk dipping Cleric, Sacred Fist is a nice step forward for them even with the partial progression. Given a Cleric dipping Monk of course, it's total nerfsauce. Hence the difficulty. But when in doubt I went with what the book used, hence its favourable rating.

Rainbow Servant doesn't enjoy that, though. The listed entry is Sorcerer 6, and it's a pretty weak option for that, and just about as bad for Wizard. "Logical Entry" is unambigous, and (given the RAI interpretation as 6/10) it's a bad choice all around. You do get some toys, which saves it from being "down two", but it's not going to break even on a traditional arcanist.

[NeoSeraphi]

Hmm... it could qualify, but I don't think any self-identified DMs had posted in the thread, and the Wikipedia definition of NTS seems to preclude the possibility of a pre-emptive one. I can see the case, but I think it's just NeoSeraphi's occasionally-hyperbolic mode of speaking, rather than what I would consider a proper NTS.

What the...I didn't talk about the "No sane DM" thing, that was the post above me! What about my occasionally-hyperbolic mode of speaking contributed to this NTS fallacy thing?

[ClothedInVelvet]

I can see the argument there; it's probably like that more for legacy reasons than anything else, nobody protested its ranking when the system was getting bashed through.

That said... it might be a problem of "logical entry". While RS is useful on Warmage and whatnot, it's decidedly poor on Wizard and Sorcerers which are specifically called out in the text as those most likely to take the class. The split ranking acknowledges the disparity, but the default usually goes with what the text itself uses. This is why the default MoMF is a Druid, and the Wildshape Ranger got split off from there. Sacred Fist is an odd duck though, since the default logical entry is a multiclassed Cleric/Monk. These multiclassed entries are much harder to rate.

The build given in Sacred Fist is Cleric 1 / Monk 6 / Sacred Fist X... or, a Monk who dipped Cleric rather than the other way around. Given a Monk dipping Cleric, Sacred Fist is a nice step forward for them even with the partial progression. Given a Cleric dipping Monk of course, it's total nerfsauce. Hence the difficulty. But when in doubt I went with what the book used, hence its favourable rating.

Rainbow Servant doesn't enjoy that, though. The listed entry is Sorcerer 6, and it's a pretty weak option for that, and just about as bad for Wizard. "Logical Entry" is unambigous, and (given the RAI interpretation as 6/10) it's a bad choice all around. You do get some toys, which saves it from being "down two", but it's not going to break even on a traditional arcanist.

Good explanation. I rest.

[sonofzeal]

What the...I didn't talk about the "No sane DM" thing, that was the post above me! What about my occasionally-hyperbolic mode of speaking contributed to this NTS fallacy thing?
Ah, my apologies. Copy-paste error. Fixing now...

[Swooper]

Technically, it's the No True Scotsman fallacy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman)
...Ah, that's the one I meant :smallredface: I guess I mixed up the definitions there. My bad.