9,988
edits
Changes
meta conversation comments
:::::And for the record, 26 in ANY stat is ungodly good for any character. Find a way to get that high of a con score at ECL 12 and be Xenotheric, and I'll think about amending my data based on your findings.--[[User:YX33A|YX33A]] 15:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
::::::Start with 18. Use your Wishes to get a +5 inherent bonus. Put a +1 into it from leveling up. Get [[SRD:Amulet of Health|an item so cheap there is no question that you can have it]]. As you can see, 26 is very much on the low end. --[[User:Foxwarrior|Foxwarrior]] 18:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Wow... Some meta-conversation things...
:::::::#Expecting someone to read the talk page to find rules is like expecting someone who just bought a shiny new book to take it home and immediately look up the errata in a forum somewhere while disregarding the inconsequential bits; in short it's expecting rather a lot of people. The rules are supposed to be on the rules page. If it's been explained or updated in talk, port it back to the rules page already. Even if you aren't the author, if it's his comments indicating this adjustment you can edit that in as it's a constructive edit under out definition. I'll probably go do that in a minute, assuming it's not too buried in the talk for me to find quickly.
:::::::#If someone has a history of finding something in your work doesn't mean that their comments are unhelpful, it means that your work has a history of including particular things. And if you don't like those things, you should be more cognizant of them. Telling someone that you don't care about their input because they have a track record of finding where it is exploitable is akin to telling the world that you don't want any negative input on the work at all. Seriously, what do you want input on, how awesome and great it is and how anyone with a problem with it is obviously wrong?
:::::::#Wizard level after level 9ish includes some amount of wish spam. People have high stats, as was just demonstrated. If this isn't something you want to account for (and I often don't) you should work towards a lower level of balance.
:::::::His example may be flawed, but this is still easily exploitable by a wizard level character. I haven't looked at all of the interconnected bits enough to have an opinion on whether it is ''too'' exploitable or not, as many wizard level characters have wealth loops and this is just another one, but I did want to chime in about your last response. - [[User:Tarkisflux|Tarkisflux]] 18:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
