How does one go about winning one of these debates, exactly?
Often I find that its just arguing for the sake of arguing. . .
*Sigh*
I mean there's no context for any of this, so how do you know when you've won, or even made a strong point?
I do think this. Umd + "I have enough" gp, is a thing far more powerful than most classes. So generally, if you want to use that skill to turn your class into something else, whatever your turned your class into is "better" than your class.
So Necromancer > Monk etc... its an honesty issue to me, when I hear someone say something like "Monks can be NECROMANCERS TOO!" I realize why it is so many people used to try to use "final destination" rules in these arguments. Its because it becomes impossible to judge the merits of a class when people argue outliers like umd, diplomacy etc... as being reasonable inclusions to the debate.
[spoiler]After reading:
I see no (legitimate) reason why people took issue with the monk UMDing wands
Well the key part is legitimate, there isn't it... people did though, like crazy. Again I imagine its because that makes umd stronger than anything else your class features do, and people recognize that and go "Doesn't seem legit" I do rember that crazy thread though.
and
What it does do, however, is make most of what any class with only 4-5 possible levels of spells non-unique (albeit lacking some consistency and versatility in doing so)
Mostly this, I'm just wondering how strong a caster can be built using umd at this point.
Roughly an adept? Greater than an adept?
If thats the game that needs to be played, how good a caster can you make with wands? How good a gish?[/spoiler]
Thats relavant because its seems like umd is the one thing bad classes seem to want to stand on when they have it.
Then again, I'm afb and I'm not sure the Swordsage even has umd.
Also did people agree to core +1 source? I missed that...
I'm thinking like what solo said in his guide, I'd prc out to get full, or near full casting.