Quote:
Originally Posted by snakeman830
No kidding. You just tried to twist words all over the place.
|
Only because you want to see them that way.
Quote:
Truenamers use it ONLY because the Truenaming system itself is broken: you get worse at your main schtick as you level up (the Truespeak DC's increase faster than your check modifier). This has nothing to do with the viability of the feat, but is instead a weakness of the class/system in that they HAVE to go bonus-hunting everywhere just to do their main thing.
|
Sure seems it's about the viability of the feat since, you know, they're using it to "fix" the problem. If it was so useless, even Truenamers would be shunning it. Not that it matters because the discussion isn't actually about Skill Focus. It's about Nymph's Kiss. But, please, feel free to keep trying to twist the discussion to Skill Focus all you like. It's not going to work, but it's amusing watching you try so valiantly.
Quote:
Also, you're forgetting that Nymph's Kiss is an Exalted feat, with all the baggage that comes with it (Supernatural, so it goes away in an AMF, you're stuck acting at the epitome of Good or you lose it, etc.)
|
Oh no, roleplaying conditions! The horror! That doesn't seem to stop optimizers from recommending two-level dips into the Paladin class. Or recommending Ur-Priest even for builds that actively worship a deity or to players with no interest in playing an evil character. Or, as previously mentioned in the thread, the Saint template and select prestige classes and other options from the
Book of Exalted Deeds. Which, again, is what the sub-discussion is about.
Quote:
Chuck was explicitly a Theoretical Optimization exercise. These are never meant to be used in an actual game, they are tests to see how far the system limits extend to see just what is actually possible under the rules.
|
And that's not trying to break the game... how exactly?
Quote:
This allows us to know what is and isn't possible so we can better ourselves in Practical Optimization, which is the focus of those boards. The point of Practical Optimization is to make a character who is capable at his chosen role in a normal game. [...]
The goal of optimization boards is not to break the game. The goal is to learn what is possible within the game and apply it in reasonable manners.
|
And yet I don't think I've ever come across a single one of these "practical optimizations" threads (a phrase I can't help but notice that you guys just started throwing around in the discussion now that your arguments that Nymph's Kiss isn't overpowered have been blown to the wind) in which they
don't suggest broken concepts one way or another. Precocious Apprentice is a shining example of that in nearly any thread talking about caster prestige classes. Dragonwrought Kobolds come up very, very often, along with derogatory comments such as "if your DM is stupid enough to allow this." And Hell, I can link to a ton of threads
here in the game ads section where people voice a desire to play one. The aforementioned Nightstick cheese is another example. So is using a Binder dip to get around the Hellfire Warlock limitation. Should I keep going?
And by optimization threads, I'm specifically talking about the so-called Handbooks. As I've linked to several times in a previous post. You know, the one first Greyfeld dismissed because he had no real arguments left, and the one you're jumping on the bandwagon with for God knows whatever reason.