Talk: Red dragon disciple

Level progression tables

FWIW, I prefer the tables with the feats, etc. explicitly noted at each level, rather than just the summary of the feats' effects at that level. E.g., the May 25, 2011 table is easier to follow than the version that follows. - MrZork 02:34, December 1, 2011 (UTC)

• Would you find it easier to follow if the table was sparser? Something like:

Level	BA	Saves			Specials	Hit die	AC bonus	Breath damage		Ability increases
		Fort	Ref	Will						Str	Con	Int	Cha
1	0	+2	+0	+2		d6	+1	-		-	-	-	-
2	1	+3	+0	+3				-		+2	-	-	-
3	2	+3	+1	+3				2d10			-	-	-
4	3	+4	+1	+4		d8				+2	-	-	-
5	3	+4	+1	+4			+2				-	-	-
6	4	+5	+2	+5		d10					-	-	-
7	5	+5	+2	+5				4d10			+2	-	-
8	6	+6	+2	+6			+3					-	-
9	6	+6	+3	+6	gets wings							+2	-
10	7	+7	+3	+7	darkvision immunity to fire immunity to paralysis immunity to sleep		+4	6d10		+4			+2

This could make it easier to see where the increases happen without essentially listing the feats twice. (One thing I do not like about the old table is that it makes it harder to pick out the non-repeating feats. They are mashed in with 5 mentions of dragon abilities, 4 draconic armors, 3 dragon breaths, and 2 hit die increases. That's 14 entries for four feats, crowding out the 5 entries for the four feats plus wings that do not repeat.) One issue with this is that some of the columns are cumulative, while others are not, but that could possibly be worked around. --The Krit 00:17, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

• I like the density of the current version of the table; I just prefer that there be a Feats column with all the feats in it and links the first time they are mentioned. That way, it's easy to see the connection between the effect and the feat the player will see at level-up that caused the effect, and more details are just a click away. But, I do see what you mean in that there was a fair amount of duplication in the table and maybe some of it could go away. E.g., the Feats column could just say "dragon abilities" instead of "dragon abilities (+2 Str)", since the Abilities columns make clear what ability is increased. Ditto for draconic armor, fire breath, hit dice increase, etc. Something like the following:

Level	BA	Saves			Feats	Hit die	HP range		AC bonus	Breath damage		Ability increases
		Fort	Ref	Will								Str	Dex	Con	Wis	Int	Cha
1	0	+2	+0	+2	draconic armor	d6	3-6		+1	-		-	-	-	-	-	-
2	1	+3	+0	+3	dragon abilities	d6	6-12		+1	-		+2	-	-	-	-	-
3	2	+3	+1	+3	dragon breath	d6	9-18		+1	2d10		-	-	-	-	-	-
4	3	+4	+1	+4	dragon abilities, hit die increase	d8	13-26		+1	2d10		+2	-	-	-	-	-
5	3	+4	+1	+4	draconic armor	d8	17-34		+2	2d10		-	-	-	-	-	-
6	4	+5	+2	+5	hit die increase	d10	22-44		+2	2d10		-	-	-	-	-	-
7	5	+5	+2	+5	dragon abilities, dragon breath	d10	27-54		+2	4d10		-	-	+2	-	-	-
8	6	+6	+2	+6	draconic armor	d10	32-64		+3	4d10		-	-	-	-	-	-
9	6	+6	+3	+6	dragon abilities, gets wings	d10	37-74		+3	4d10		-	-	-	-	+2	-
10	7	+7	+3	+7	draconic armor, dragon abilities, dragon breath, half-dragon: darkvision, immunity to fire, immunity to paralysis, immunity to sleep	d10	42-84		+4	6d10		+4	-	-	-	-	+2

I agree that having some columns of cumulative effects and others of the marginal effect isn't entirely consistent, but it seems pretty clear what is implied. If it's a problem, maybe changing the column headers might help. E.g. "Total AC Bonus". But, even the mixed effects are pretty clear, IMO.

(BTW, this is unrelated, but the editor is putting my comments above the previous ones when I preview or publish, even though I am putting them below when I am WYSIWYG editing. I have to go into Source mode to move them to where they belong.) -MrZork 02:03, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

• Would this be a compromise?

Level	BA	Saves			Specials	Hit die	AC bonus	Breath damage		Ability increases
		Fort	Ref	Will						Str	Con	Int	Cha
1	0	+2	+0	+2	draconic armor	d6	+1	-		-	-	-	-
2	1	+3	+0	+3	dragon abilities			-		+2	-	-	-
3	2	+3	+1	+3	dragon breath			2d10			-	-	-
4	3	+4	+1	+4	hit die increase	d8				+2	-	-	-
5	3	+4	+1	+4			+2				-	-	-
6	4	+5	+2	+5		d10					-	-	-
7	5	+5	+2	+5				4d10			+2	-	-
8	6	+6	+2	+6			+3					-	-
9	6	+6	+3	+6	gets wings							+2	-
10	7	+7	+3	+7	half-dragon darkvision immunity to fire immunity to paralysis immunity to sleep		+4	6d10		+4			+2

WhiZard 02:24, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

• I could accept WhiZard's version as a compromise. --The Krit 12:31, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

• I am fine with getting rid of the repeated listing of feats that have effects at different levels, as per WhiZard's Special column above. But, why get rid of showing the Hit Point Range, Hit Die, AC Bonus, etc. in each row? It makes for an emptier looking table, but no one was complaining about that, were they? If that's supposed to address the cumulative/non-cumulative effect issue, it doesn't. I'd rather those stats were listed at each row, as they are in the current version. How's this?

Level	BA	Saves			Feats	Hit die	HP range		AC bonus	Breath damage		Ability increases
		Fort	Ref	Will								Str	Dex	Con	Wis	Int	Cha
1	0	+2	+0	+2	draconic armor	d6	3-6		+1	-		-	-	-	-	-	-
2	1	+3	+0	+3	dragon abilities	d6	6-12		+1	-		+2	-	-	-	-	-
3	2	+3	+1	+3	dragon breath	d6	9-18		+1	2d10		-	-	-	-	-	-
4	3	+4	+1	+4	hit die increase	d8	13-26		+1	2d10		+2	-	-	-	-	-
5	3	+4	+1	+4		d8	17-34		+2	2d10		-	-	-	-	-	-
6	4	+5	+2	+5		d10	22-44		+2	2d10		-	-	-	-	-	-
7	5	+5	+2	+5		d10	27-54		+2	4d10		-	-	+2	-	-	-
8	6	+6	+2	+6		d10	32-64		+3	4d10		-	-	-	-	-	-
9	6	+6	+3	+6		d10	37-74		+3	4d10		-	-	-	-	+2	-
10	7	+7	+3	+7	half-dragon: darkvision, immunity to fire, immunity to paralysis, immunity to sleep	d10	42-84		+4	6d10		+4	-	-	-	-	+2

-MrZork 19:39, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

• Leaving out the repeated values can make it easier to spot where those values increase, making the progression easier to follow, which is something that someone was complaining about way back in the opening comment. :P --The Krit 03:07, December 3, 2011 (UTC)

• Huh? I was trying to comment that the newest table had things missing that made it harder to see which feat was responsible for which effect, not that the new table had too much in it. I didn't mention anything in that first comment about repeated values, or spotting where values increase, and the preferred example I linked to (and the later ones I gave here) actually had all the repeated values. Goes to show how easy it is to miscommunicate. Anyway, to clarify: I have no issue with repeated values in any column that shows a cumulative effect. If folks think that listing the feats every time they repeat makes for too busy a table, then maybe just list them the first time, as per the last example. But, while it's not a big deal either way, I prefer having things like current AC bonus and hit die listed in each row, since that's how tables are usually read. -MrZork 03:16, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

• You haven't read the introductory paragraph (to the section; right before the table) that was added with the new table format? --The Krit 11:36, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

• I read it. I think it's better to have the feats listed (at least once) in the table so that it's quick and clear to see which feat is providing the effect listed at the given level and linked so that someone wanting more detail can click on the feat right there. -MrZork 21:20, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

• Why is "at the given level" so important when these feats basically provide increasing benefits as class level increases (so no longer "given level" but "given levels", getting closer to "all levels")? I think that is giving too many duties to the table. The intro paragraph provides a clear explanation of which feat is providing the effects listed (in the same order that they appear in the table even), with links so that someone wanting more detail can click on the feat right there. The only aspect that might be missing is "quick", but might that be more a factor of people getting used to a new layout rather than a shortcoming of the layout itself? --The Krit 23:00, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

• This thread has focused on a few areas and I get the impression I am not communicating as clearly as I should. So, I would like to (hopefully) clarify that what I am proposing for the table is exactly the table that is currently up, but with the feats listed as they are in WhiZard's compromise table above. Would that be okay? -MrZork 04:42, December 5, 2011 (UTC)

• That would be okay with me. I still view it as an inferior compromise, but it works for me. We don't have to press for a clearer and detailed discussion of what people like and don't like about the various layouts (or of why a specific change was proposed). --The Krit 18:16, December 6, 2011 (UTC)

• I am still thinking that the dexterity and wisdom columns should be dropped since there are no bonuses to those abilities. --The Krit 22:55, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

Abbreviating intelligence in skill point line?

Is the style rule to avoid abbreviating "intelligence" to "int" in the skill point descriptions? E.g. 

Skill points: 2 + intelligence modifier

instead of

Skill points: 2 + int modifier

I was curious about this at some point and checked several class articles and it appeared that the norm was to abbreviate. I see the latest change to RDD seems to be primariliy a switch to the unabbreviated version. Should we change the rest of the class descriptions? - MrZork (talk) 21:16, December 25, 2012 (UTC)

• Well, abbreviations are barriers to people who do not understand them, so I see no reason to use them needlessly. Plus, this wiki has plenty of storage space to accommodate the extra letters. :) The class articles were all written originally using the "int" abbreviation. I changed this article, and intended to change the others as well, but I got sidetracked somewhere along the line. --The Krit (talk) 21:31, January 21, 2013 (UTC)

Scripting

The Sinfar server has a working scripted solution for red dragon disciples making it the only known exception to the previous bullet point.

I've taken the above note off the article page until someone can produce the script in question, or explain how base ability scores can be modified in NWScript. (Sure, it can be done via Letoscript/NWNX, but "scripting" means NWScript specifically.) --The Krit (talk) 15:18, July 30, 2013 (UTC)

Hit die progression changes?

Is there a reason for 211.209.208.194's changes on July 15, 2015 to the levels at which the hit dice increases occur? As best I can tell, these new increases (at levels 5 and 7) are incorrect and the previous version (at levels 4 and 6) were correct. I just leveled a RDD toon and the HD increases took place at levels 4 and 6. I would propose that the changes be reverted, but I assume there was some reason that they were made in the first place. - MrZork (talk) 19:53, July 15, 2015 (UTC)

• I just tested it in-game, and with a 10 constitution, I was able to get 3-6 hp at RDD level 1, 4-8 at RDD level 4, and 5-10 at RDD level 6. Reverting the edits. --The Krit (talk) 05:37, July 16, 2015 (UTC)

• Not related to the disputed edit, but should a +1/+1 be added to hit points for level 7 and above due to the +2 to constitution? WhiZard (talk) 01:46, July 17, 2015 (UTC)

• Good point. I don't think the level progression table should be changed. But, perhaps a note that the +2 CON bump at RDD level 7 can result in a large HP gain at that level would help explain what a player will see in the level-up summary for that level. - MrZork (talk) 04:01, July 17, 2015 (UTC)

Dragon disciple that follows the D&D rules?

  Anyone knows a hakpak that adds a Dragon Disciple that follows the D&D Rules??

For example >

- Be able to be a silver/white/green/etc dragon disciple

- Change your race to half dragon at lv 10

- Gain caster level

- Have dragonform

-  Be able to use breath weapon(and spells) in dragon form

(...)

Spells that shapechange you to dragon are in game, silver/green/blue dragons are in game... Everyone who read the monster manual knows that red dragons tends to be chaotic evil and don't interact well with humans. Silver Dragons are probably the mostly like dragon to interbreed with humans or elves, they don't devour intelligent creatures, "an unusual trait they offer is the love of human dining," source > http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Silver_dragon Have a silver dragon in festivals drinking and having ~fun~ with woman isn`t "rare" compared to a Red Dragon doing the same of falling in love with humans is extreme rare. 2001:1284:F019:329:E8A3:4BB5:D98D:25EA 19:40, September 24, 2017 (UTC)Victor

Increasing skill points

Regarding edit 70474 (and a similar edit to dragon abilities), which added the note

The increase to Intelligence does apply increased skill point gain for the 9th level of Red Dragon Disciple, which if taken as soon as possible (14th Character Level) results in 27 extra skill points as of character level 40.

Why is this worthy of being a note? Is there some reason to think that increasing intelligence would not increase skill points? --The Krit (talk) 00:51, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

It was something I wasn't entirely sure of myself, as I was designing a build using the RDD class and wanted to calculate the exact number of skill points available ultimately for it. In the event that the extra skill points from the increased Intelligence wouldn't be available until the next level (as a quirk of design), I would have added a note about that instead. Stranger things in design have happened. Bushwhacker2k (talk) 13:02, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Upon rereading it I think I see what you mean, I may have put too much emphasis in an odd place. If you want to rephrase it to make it more natural and objective, please feel free. Bushwhacker2k (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2021 (UTC)