Legacy Champion and Advance Past Maximum

[Morithias]

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!

[ThiagoMartell]

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

[Aeryr]

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.

[Answerer]

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.

[prufock]

For reference:

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.


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?

[Answerer]

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*

[ThiagoMartell]

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. (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19860738/The_Ten_Commandments_of_Practical_Optimization)

[Answerer]

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.

[ThiagoMartell]

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.

[Answerer]

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.

[Draz74]

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.

[Mnemnosyne]

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.

[Answerer]

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.


Nor are they completely without basis.
And when people justify their claims I'll have no problem with them.


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.


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.


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.


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...


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.


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.

[ThiagoMartell]

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.

[Draz74]

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.

[Aeryr]

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?

[Morithias]

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.

[Answerer]

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.


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."


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.

[Draz74]

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.

[Answerer]

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.


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.


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...


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.

[Snowbluff]

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.

[Answerer]

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.

[Snowbluff]

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".

[The-Mage-King]

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.

[Snowbluff]

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.

[NeedsAnswersNao]

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.

[hex0]

Link to proving thread withheld.

Oh lordy, Legacy Champion thread. :smallsigh:

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

[Andorax]

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.

[Answerer]

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.

[Ashtagon]

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.

[Morph Bark]

Oh lordy, Legacy Champion thread. :smallsigh:

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

With 10-level PrCs there are actual rules for advancing beyond the 10th level though, as with other PrCs there is no Epic progression.

[Calanon]

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... :smalleek:

[Din Riddek]

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.

[mattie_p]

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 (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060308a&page=4)capital costs wrong?


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 (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#multiplying), it indicates that when referring to real-world values, normal math rules apply. Capital costs in gp are a real-world value.


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.

[Answerer]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consensus

Dictionary disagrees.
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.


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.


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.


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.


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,

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.


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).


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.

[Aeryr]

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 grab a cookie, you earned it.

[Answerer]

Mattie's right that it's ambiguous, but the statement that "you gain a 10% reduction per class level" implies to me that it is

Final_Price = Initial_Price * (1 - 0.1*Class_Level)

Which leads to the original problem.

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.

[ThiagoMartell]

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]

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.

Further reading:
Wikipedia: Appeals to Inappropriate Authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority#Fallacious_appeals_to_authorit y)
A fairly-decent page from a university course describing the problems with common sense (http://www.mcckc.edu/longview/socsci/psyc/westra/CommonSense/cs4.html)

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.

[ThiagoMartell]

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, facts (http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/8727) don't (http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/564094) exist (http://ethicalrealism.wordpress.com/2012/05/21/what-are-facts-do-facts-exist/).


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.

[Din Riddek]

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."

[Answerer]

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, facts (http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/8727) don't (http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/564094) exist (http://ethicalrealism.wordpress.com/2012/05/21/what-are-facts-do-facts-exist/).
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.


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.


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."

[mattie_p]

Oh Lady Mathematics is there something that you can't solve?

Mattie grab a cookie, you earned it.

Thanks, I will.


Mattie's right that it's ambiguous, but the statement that "you gain a 10% reduction per class level" implies to me that it is

Final_Price = Initial_Price * (1 - 0.1*Class_Level)

Which leads to the original problem.

It implies, but because of the ambiguity of this whole topic it is an equally valid interpretation.


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.


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.

[Andorax]

Response to Answerer:

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.

[Snowbluff]

Response to Answerer:


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.


You are either sadly misinformed or intentionally ignorant. (www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20061207a&page=3)



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.

[ThiagoMartell]

You're complaining about my use of standards of debate, while you simultaneously include those links? Fun.
That was sarcasm, actually.


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.

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.

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.



It's been studied, and been found useless.
I'm not saying it's useful. I'm saying it exists.


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.


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.

[Malachei]

No, I'm not stating opinions, but facts

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:


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.

[Tyndmyr]

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.

[Morph Bark]

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.


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 "-".

[Din Riddek]

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."

[Andorax]

You are either sadly misinformed or intentionally ignorant. (www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20061207a&page=3)

Um...can I pick C: Half-blind and too tired to post?

I read that paragraph three times, and missed the "each class level" phrase each time through. I'll admit that I completely whiffed that one.

[Calanon]

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 :smallconfused: 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)

[mattie_p]

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.

[tyckspoon]

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.

[Snowbluff]

Um...can I pick C: Half-blind and too tired to post?

I read that paragraph three times, and missed the "each class level" phrase each time through. I'll admit that I completely whiffed that one.

That alright. Happens to the best of us. :smalltongue:

[Essence_of_War]

Um...can I pick C: Half-blind and too tired to post?

I read that paragraph three times, and missed the "each class level" phrase each time through. I'll admit that I completely whiffed that one.

If I had a dollar for everytime I did this...

Well, let's just say I wouldn't be on gitp while I was at work :smallbiggrin: