Post/Author/DateTime	Post
deathbane 01-06-08, 07:03 PM	Someone on a thread said the archivist was one of the more powerful classes(top 3). I do not see how. Can anyone explain?
CryoSilver 01-06-08, 07:11 PM	Archivist potentially has access to every divine spell in the game: all druid, cleric, ranger, paladin and domain spells (and domain spells are foten arcane spells, too) giving it probably the broadest spell access in the game, at the best progression.
The_Shaman 01-06-08, 07:59 PM	Plus, the dark secrets features aren't too bad either. Dark knowledges can be quite decent, and the dread secret feature makes the class worthwhile taking more than a few levels in. That you can use those and cast a spell (and maybe a quickened one) in the same round makes it all the sweeter. On the other hand, the MAD issue (while they require mostly intelligence for their spells, Wisdom determines their bonus spell slots) is a bit of a problem. Still, they're nothing to sneer at... especially if you have access to non-standard domains (i.e. Spell) or classes (i.e. Divine Bard, Runescarred Bersker) they can get the spells of.
Sinfire Titan 01-06-08, 09:13 PM	Remember:Archivists can even access the PrCs from BoED for Divine Spells. Hell, if it has a separate spell list and is divine, the Archivist can leech off of them. That is the key to making them more powerful than they look.
JulesCARV 01-06-08, 09:24 PM	I'd say an archivist in practice is... oh... maybe a bit more powerful than a favored soul, a bit behind a standard cleric? Certainly a quite powerful class. I think it is possible to exaggerate that power, though.
JaronK 01-07-08, 12:02 AM	An Archivist with a one level dip into Sacred Exorcist can use Divine Metamagic: Persistant Spell to the cast persistant Shapechange (Animal Domain 9), Persistant Swift Haste (Ranger 2), and Giant Size (Hero Domain) or a variety of other super powered personal melee buffs and stomp all over Tokyo. Use that persistant shapechange to turn into a Solar and cast as a 20th level cleric (starting at level 17!) if anyone tells you Clerics are stronger than Archivists. Turn into a Black Ethergaunt to cast as a level 20 Wizard too, if you feel like it. Here's a quick list of some of the spell lists they have access to: Cleric Druid Ranger Paladin Divine Bard Sorcerer/Wizard (via the Hexer PrC, the cleric varient that casts Wizard/Sorc spells as domain spells, the Southern Magician Feat, Favoured Soul varient, etc) Adept Apostle of Peace Beloved of Valarian Emissary of Barachiel Slayer of Domiel Sanctified Spells Shujjena Blighter Consecrated Harrier Holy Liberator Temple Raider of Oliadammara Note that a lot of the caster classes that are traditionally worse get some spells earlier than normal, making them incredible for a full casting class. For example, Adept gets Heal one level early, and Freedom of Movement is Holy Liberator 4. And don't forget that you can now cast Anyspell (Magic Domain)... just make sure you take a PrC that gives you actual domain slots. Of course, it can be hard to find a Divine Bard, or a Cleric that casts the various Wizard/Sorc spells you want... enter the Warlock, who can supply you with any spell you like for purposes of crafting scrolls, starting at level 12. Any Warlock will do, but getting a cohort is well advised. So now the Archivist is a Wizard that has more special abilities, two fewer bonus feats, the ability to cast in armour, and an even bigger spell selection. Yeah. If you feel like it, PrC into Shadowcraft Mage and fling the entire Wiz/Sorc Evocation school at your enemies if you like. JaronK
Cartigan 01-07-08, 12:06 AM	If you allow absurdly argued and admit some questionable stuff, it will lead to extremely broken Archivist that can cast everything.
JaronK 01-07-08, 12:11 AM	If you allow absurdly argued and admit some questionable stuff, it will lead to extremely broken Archivist that can cast everything. How is it questionable? Name a powerful spell that isn't on any divine list. Go ahead. Most of the best Wizard/Sorc spells don't even require the Cleric varient/Hexer/Southern Magician route... you can just get them off Shujjena or Domains (Time stop is Time Domain 9, for example. Shapechange is Druid 9 or Animal Domain 9). Just because Archivists are absurdly powerful doesn't mean it's not legal by RAW. They're just stupidly powerful. JaronK
Sinfire Titan 01-07-08, 12:45 AM	How is it questionable? Name a powerful spell that isn't on any divine list. Go ahead. Most of the best Wizard/Sorc spells don't even require the Cleric varient/Hexer/Southern Magician route... you can just get them off Shujjena or Domains (Time stop is Time Domain 9, for example. Shapechange is Druid 9 or Animal Domain 9). Just because Archivists are absurdly powerful doesn't mean it's not legal by RAW. They're just stupidly powerful. JaronK Hence why they are a part of the Power 5.
JaronK 01-07-08, 12:51 AM	Exactly. Though the OP said top 3, which isn't appropriate. There are 5 top level base classes: Wizard, Druid, Cleric, Artificer, Archivist. They can all, with some tricks, cast off each other's lists (except that no one can cast Artificer infusions except the Artificer, but those aren't where the power of that class lies). As such, they're all very close in power level, and it really just comes down to player skill and creativity. It's like comparing the speed of various things... a car, a bicycle, a truck, the Starship Enterprise, a naval destroyer, and an Imperial Star Destroyer. Two of those are off in their own catagory and while you can argue back and forth until you're blue in the face about which is faster, the truth is that they're both way too fast to be compared to everyone else. In D&D class power, the big 5 are like those two ships, and everyone else is just not in the running. JaronK
Cartigan 01-07-08, 10:14 AM	How is it questionable? Name a powerful spell that isn't on any divine list. Go ahead. Most of the best Wizard/Sorc spells don't even require the Cleric varient/Hexer/Southern Magician route... you can just get them off Shujjena or Domains (Time stop is Time Domain 9, for example. Shapechange is Druid 9 or Animal Domain 9). Just because Archivists are absurdly powerful doesn't mean it's not legal by RAW. They're just stupidly powerful. Using the Divine Bard and Hexer to say you can get all spells is absurdly argued and questionable.
JaronK 01-07-08, 12:58 PM	Using the Divine Bard and Hexer to say you can get all spells is absurdly argued and questionable. Divine Bard is easy. The class is just a divine caster that uses the Bard spell list as his spell list. That makes it very clear that such spells exist as divine spells As for the Hexer, if you don't like that method (why, because it's unupdated 3.0?) would you prefer the Favoured Soul varient that adds any Sorcerer spell to their spell list explicitly as a divine spell (Dragon Magic)? How about the Complete Mage Cleric varient that adds any Sorc/Wiz spell, one of each level, to their class list instead of a domain (but it has to be of a few specific schools)? Or should we get them in via Southern Magician? How about Domains (which have every powerful Wizard/Sorc spell I know except perhaps Wraithstrike and Celerity)? Shujjenas (which have tons of traditionally Wiz/Sorc spells)? Anyspell, which works on, well, any spell? There are tons of ways to get all your favorite Wiz/Sorc spells as divine spells (especially the core ones... at this point they all exist as domain spells). All of them legal (except perhaps Southern Magician, that one feels weird to me). And the end result is that people who don't think Archivists are powerful are the ones who are randomly nerfing the class by saying things like "oh, it was only intended to get Cleric and Druid spells" or some such. JaronK
LSMFT 01-07-08, 01:23 PM	Archivists can add any divine spell to their prayerbook, but the spells they get for free when they level up must come from the cleric list. So, it is very easy for a DM to limit access to all those other spells, whether they come from something core like the druid, or something that is a bit more “out there” like divine bards. If there are no divine bards or hexers in the campaign, there are no spell-lists for divine bards or hexers. Having a campaign without things like that is not automatically an attempt to "nerf" the archivist.
Cartigan 01-07-08, 01:42 PM	And the end result is that people who don't think Archivists are powerful are the ones who are randomly nerfing the class by saying things like "oh, it was only intended to get Cleric and Druid spells" or some such. Saying the class is "nerfed" because you are saying it can't have every spell ever is absurd.
JaronK 01-07-08, 02:04 PM	Archivists can add any divine spell to their prayerbook, but the spells they get for free when they level up must come from the cleric list. So, it is very easy for a DM to limit access to all those other spells, whether they come from something core like the druid, or something that is a bit more “out there” like divine bards. If there are no divine bards or hexers in the campaign, there are no spell-lists for divine bards or hexers. Having a campaign without things like that is not automatically an attempt to "nerf" the archivist. Are there no Adepts? No Clerics? Even with just core possibilities (clerics, domains, adepts, druids, rangers, and paladins) you've got every good core spell out there. Timestop, Shapechange, Polymorph... they're all in a domain somewhere in core. I mean sure, a DM can limit things to core only + heroes of horror, but then an Archivist can still potencially get all the best core spells... and remember, by RAW you can actually find scrolls of these spells if they exist, simply by looking around in any large city. The only thing you're missing at that point is a few specific bard only spells. So yes, in such a game if the DM simply removes some spell lists, it's the same as saying "it's core only, except you can't take these feats, Archivist." As soon as it becomes Core + Completes + Heroes of Horror, we've now thrown in the Shujjena, the Cleric varient that grants most Wizard/Sorc spells, the Blighter, etc. Frankly, I can't think of a single arcane spell I'd want other than Giant Size and Glibness which isn't covered by Domains and which exists in that environment. More importantly, at this point you can have a Warlock in your party (or get one via Leadership) and in this way have every scroll out there. At each stage of books allowed, the Archivist can cast everything that matters... unless the DM specifically removes spell lists, and which point he's nerfing them just the same as saying "I think Frenzied Berserkers suck. In other news, I removed Shock Trooper, Leap Attack, and Battle Jump, because they're cheesy. Anyway, Frenzied Berserkers are really underpowered." So yes, if a DM removes the ability to go to a large town and find scrolls, or removes whole spell lists from the preexisting books allowed, Archivists won't be very strong. In other news, if a DM removes Wild Shape, Druids won't be that strong. They can also make Wizards unable to find scrolls too. JaronK
JaronK 01-07-08, 02:05 PM	Saying the class is "nerfed" because you are saying it can't have every spell ever is absurd. I'm only saying the class is "nerfed" if you remove the RAW methods that allow it to cast every spell for the given books. Just like a Wizard is nerfed if you remove the RAW methods for them to gain their spells, too. JaronK
LSMFT 01-07-08, 02:30 PM	Are there no Adepts? No Clerics?I said that it was easy for a DM to control access. That’s all I meant. and remember, by RAW you can actually find scrolls of these spells if they exist, simply by looking around in any large city.I was unaware that there was a written rule telling DMs they had to make certain items available. Could I get the source and page number please? As soon as it becomes Core + Completes + Heroes of Horror, we've now thrown in the Shujjena, the Cleric varient that grants most Wizard/Sorc spells, the Blighter, etc. Frankly, I can't think of a single arcane spell I'd want other than Giant Size and Glibness which isn't covered by Domains and which exists in that environment.Just because I allow some material from the Complete books doesn't then mean that there are also Shujjena and Blighters. More importantly, at this point you can have a Warlock in your party (or get one via Leadership) and in this way have every scroll out there.That's true, in theory. Assuming that the spell lists exist, you can use a warlock to make a scroll of any such spell. But that is also limited by cost. Look, I'm a pretty liberal DM. I don't see much of an issue with Archivists getting access to all the spells they can. It's a class ability. If you spent the time and the money, you earned it. But you seems to be pushing the idea of some sort of free-for-all where players can freely pick and choose from any divine list anywhere and DMs are bound by RAW to let that happen (or they are unreasonably limiting the class.) If that is how your games go, more power to you, but I don't think that point of view is going to go over well in a considerable number of other campaigns.
JaronK 01-07-08, 02:51 PM	I was unaware that there was a written rule telling DMs they had to make certain items available. Could I get the source and page number please? Actually, the rules state the DM can do whatever they like. However, they also run under the assumption that in a large metropolis you can find what you want. DMG Page 197: "The rules in the Players Handbook assume that characters have access to everything they need to advance in level-libraries where they can research new spells..." Also, see page 137 of the DMG for expected values of treasure you can find in a large city. A metropolis, for example, has enough of an economy that you can reasonably find things worth less than 100000gp, and according to that same page "Anything under that limit is most likely available, whether it be mundane or magical." Good enough? Just because I allow some material from the Complete books doesn't then mean that there are also Shujjena and Blighters. Usually, people pick a book and allow it. Obviously, if you restrict specific stuff, you can keep Archivists down, but that goes for any class. Just because I allow Wizards doesn't mean I allow Polymorph, Gate, and Shapechange... but I don't turn around and say "Wizards are weak" because the general assumption is that those things are available. I, as a DM, have nerfed wizards by removing certain available spells. So yes, if you say "this will be a game using the Core and Complete books, plus Heroes of Horror for character creation" you are generally going to be allowing those classes, unless you're specifically trying to nerf the party Artificer who wants those spells. That's true, in theory. Assuming that the spell lists exist, you can use a warlock to make a scroll of any such spell. But that is also limited by cost. Not really. Scrolls are cheap and you only need to make one. Look, I'm a pretty liberal DM. I don't see much of an issue with Archivists getting access to all the spells they can. It's a class ability. If you spent the time and the money, you earned it. But you seems to be pushing the idea of some sort of free-for-all where players can freely pick and choose from any divine list anywhere and DMs are bound by RAW to let that happen (or they are unreasonably limiting the class.) Not at all. I'm simply discussing what the general rules are. I make house rules that limit casters, because I know how game breakingly powerful they are. Nor am I saying that it is unreasonable to limit Archivists... I do it myself. I am, however, saying that as the rules are written Archivists do have these abilities, and for a DM to nerf them and then claim they are weak without making reference to said nerfs is silly. In other words, I'm saying that when discussion on a message boards why a class is powerful, we can't be throwing in our house rules. None of us play by the same house rules, I'd guess, so they're irrelevant. We should discuss the rules as written, or state "okay, they're powerful by RAW. How can we contain them?" And yes, any class can be contained with enough house rules. A DM can simply make divine scrolls much much harder to find than the DMG suggests, and make warlock scrolls not work for this purpose. They can also make it much harder for Druids to be considered familiar with an animal for Wild Shape than RAW suggests to limit that class. They cannot, however, claim that Druids are super weak as a class under the assumption that every DM will nerf Wild Shape like that. If that is how your games go, more power to you, but I don't think that point of view is going to go over well in a considerable number of other campaigns. Since I never actually discussed my own house rules previously, don't assume what they are. Since you have never played in one of my campaigns, don't assume how well they go. JaronK
Cartigan 01-07-08, 02:54 PM	I'm only saying the class is "nerfed" if you remove the RAW methods that allow it to cast every spell for the given books. Which is the holier than thou way of saying what I said. Limiting the Archivist to base spell list of only non-variant base classes, or even just Cleric, Druid, Paladin, and Ranger is in no way 'nerfing' it. Not making that limitation was a likely oversight by the editors and authors. Just like a Wizard is nerfed if you remove the RAW methods for them to gain their spells, too. Wizards can't gain every spell in the game by "RAW." Usually, people pick a book and allow it. Obviously, if you restrict specific stuff, you can keep Archivists down, but that goes for any class. Just because I allow Wizards doesn't mean I allow Polymorph, Gate, and Shapechange... but I don't turn around and say "Wizards are weak" because the general assumption is that those things are available. Listen, your crap about "if you don't allow Archivist to use every spell ever, you are limiting them by RAW" is getting tiresome. Polymorph, Gate, and Shapechange are on the Wizard's spell list. The Archivist only has flat access to the Cleric spell list. You are using a Pun-pun class argument to say that Archivists can cast every spell ever made by RAW, which is a load of crap. When the Wizard has to find a 3.0 prestige class with ambiguous rules and questionably thought out variants in conjunction with a liberal use of some Warlock abilities that are sketchy in hindsight to learn Polymorph, then you have an argument. Until then, stop putting forth your argument in a holier than thou fashion laced with logical fallacy.
JaronK 01-07-08, 03:29 PM	Which is the holier than thou way of saying what I said. Limiting the Archivist to base spell list of only non-variant base classes, or even just Cleric, Druid, Paladin, and Ranger is in no way 'nerfing' it. Not making that limitation was a likely oversight by the editors and authors. The class says "any divine spell." A DM ruling that "any divine spell" means "only the standard (non-domain) cleric, druid, paladin, and ranger spells" is very clearly a nerf, as you've now changed the class. Whether it's an appropriate one or not is a different issue. Be aware that Heroes of Horror (the book the Archivist is from) was released long after BoED, and I believe even Complete Divine (certainly after the DMG, where the Adept is found), so the authors knew about those things when they made the class. Wizards can't gain every spell in the game by "RAW." No, but they can cast most of the best ones. Removing their best core spells in a core only game would be a nerf to the class. The same goes for the Archivist. Listen, your crap... Remainder of post ignored due to improper tone. This is a discussion, it is not a time for person insults. Calm down, and if you want to continue this discussion, let's do it in a civil manner. If you cannot remain detached, then there's no point in a shouting match. JaronK
LSMFT 01-07-08, 03:38 PM	Actually, the rules state the DM can do whatever they like. However, they also run under the assumption that in a large metropolis you can find what you want.Well, assumptions aren't exactly RAW. There's a lot of room for DM discretion here. DMG Page 197: "The rules in the Players Handbook assume that characters have access to everything they need to advance in level-libraries where they can research new spells..."Dude, really, that is talking about the rules for research new spells; it is clearly not saying that there is the assumption that any item which can theoretically exist does and is assumed to be available to players. Also, see page 137 of the DMG for expected values of treasure you can find in a large city. A metropolis, for example, has enough of an economy that you can reasonably find things worth less than 100000gp, and according to that same page "Anything under that limit is most likely available, whether it be mundane or magical."Again, these rules discuss the maximum value of the items you can find. They do not state in any way shape or form which items can be found. Good enough?Not by a long shot. Like I said before, I’m a very liberal DM. The idea of archivists with access to a scroll with a Divine Timestop on it doens’t scare me. But the fact is that I, as a DM and like any other DM, have complete control over what scrolls are available, where, and when. There is no written rule saying players can assume otherwise. Period. Usually, people pick a book and allow it. Not in my experience. Not really. Scrolls are cheap and you only need to make one. To gain access to one spell. Again, this is only my experience, but having played many wizards, the other class that can pay to increase their spells known, the time and money involved adds up very, very quickly. No, one single scroll of a ninth-level spell is chump change to a wizard/archivist of high level. But in order to have the big, thick spell/prayerbook that these classes really need, it takes a considerable chunk of your resources. (In my experience, it is about 15-20% of my total wealth at any level, and I’m not trying to access 15 different spell lists, just the one.) You can’t have it both ways: you either get all those spells, and pay, or you keep your money and have 1/100th the spells a cleric or druid of your level could access. The reality of the Archivist is that even with access to all those spell-lists, he is still going to end up knowing fewer spells than a plain old cleric would. The fact that some of them are more powerful than average by virtue of having come from a variety of different lists makes up for that to some degree. It doesn’t make them uber powerful. Not at all. I'm simply discussing what the general rules are.And all I’m saying is that the position you are describing, unlimited and unfettered access to any and all theoretically divine spells, just isn’t really going to happen in many games. Even when it does, the costs, in time and gold, is still a significant limitation. When you are discussing the power of a class, the theoretical limits might be interesting, but the realities of the game are far more important.
rjsilverthorn 01-07-08, 03:59 PM	Honestly, the biggest issue I have is not the Archivist having access to all of these spells, its getting all of these spells with no work other than having a 12th level Warlock in the party. Independent of the whole Archivist issue I'd likely rule that scrolls created by a Warlock are neither arcane or divine, the same way a scroll created by an Artificier is treated. It doesn't really make sense for the Warlock to be better at item creation than an Artificer. I'm not really concerned with an Archivist having access to pretty much any spell in the game as long as they are going to put more work into it than blowing a feat on Leadership or having a Warlock in their party.
CryoSilver 01-07-08, 04:06 PM	To gain access to one spell. Again, this is only my experience, but having played many wizards, the other class that can pay to increase their spells known, the time and money involved adds up very, very quickly. No, one single scroll of a ninth-level spell is chump change to a wizard/archivist of high level. But in order to have the big, thick spell/prayerbook that these classes really need, it takes a considerable chunk of your resources. (In my experience, it is about 15-20% of my total wealth at any level, and I’m not trying to access 15 different spell lists, just the one.) You can’t have it both ways: you either get all those spells, and pay, or you keep your money and have 1/100th the spells a cleric or druid of your level could access. Chances are though, he doesn't NEED every spell; just the few best. The strength of an archivist is less that he can learn EVERY spell, but that he can learn ANY spell. Tons of spells out there are total crap, and no one ever really needs them, but there's some real gems, and those few dozen spells are well worth the investment.
JaronK 01-07-08, 04:08 PM	Well, assumptions aren't exactly RAW. There's a lot of room for DM discretion here. If the book states that something is assumed, then as written it's assumed. Obviously, you can change things for your campaign, but it's assumed in the rules. Dude, really, that is talking about the rules for research new spells; it is clearly not saying that there is the assumption that any item which can theoretically exist does and is assumed to be available to players. It's saying research libraries are readily accessable to players, or at least that the DMG assumes that. Again, these rules discuss the maximum value of the items you can find. They do not state in any way shape or form which items can be found. Let me repeat: ""Anything under that limit is most likely available, whether it be mundane or magical." I'm pretty sure that counts as stating which items can be found. The DMG is assuming that you can most likely find magic items which are under the limit, and a scroll is well under the 100000gp limit (so it should be available). Like I said before, I’m a very liberal DM. The idea of archivists with access to a scroll with a Divine Timestop on it doens’t scare me. But the fact is that I, as a DM and like any other DM, have complete control over what scrolls are available, where, and when. There is no written rule saying players can assume otherwise. Period. Yes, the DM has control of the whole game (though they shouldn't railroad, but that's a whole other issue). However, the rules (including the rules for the Archivists) are written with the assumptions given in the DMG. Thus, the Archivist class is written with the assumption that you can go to the capital of the country, or some other approrpriately sized city, and simply buy scrolls of the spells you want. Or, if you prefer, you can find an Adept (supposed to be extreamly common), Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Ranger, or whatever and pay them to help you scribe a scroll (remember, they don't need the feat, as another spellcaster can contribute a spell when making a scroll... see the beginning of the DMG section on magic items for reference). So yes, unless you specifically state otherwise, the players can assume that you're playing by the given assumptions within the DMG, in this case that ""Anything under that limit is most likely available, whether it be mundane or magical." Again, this is only my experience, but having played many wizards, the other class that can pay to increase their spells known, the time and money involved adds up very, very quickly. No, one single scroll of a ninth-level spell is chump change to a wizard/archivist of high level. But in order to have the big, thick spell/prayerbook that these classes really need, it takes a considerable chunk of your resources. (In my experience, it is about 15-20% of my total wealth at any level, and I’m not trying to access 15 different spell lists, just the one.) True, it does add up. However, it's cheap enough that any Wizard or Archivist will gladly spend the necessary resources. While we're at it, it's easy by RAW for any of the big 5 to generate plenty of wealth (why helo thar, Flesh to Salt and Fabricate). Of course, that's another stunt most DMs won't allow, but it's still legal. And if you're making your own scrolls (warlock supplies the spell, you create the scroll) it's really not that expensive, especially once Boccob's Blessed Book becomes available. You can’t have it both ways: you either get all those spells, and pay, or you keep your money and have 1/100th the spells a cleric or druid of your level could access. Sure, you have to buy them, and you have to raise the money to do it. All part of the class. Just like the Artificer really... you have to know how to get the money to make the class work. But once you've got said resources, you can dominate the world, which is sort of the point. After all, the fighter has to spend resources too for his nifty +X Sword of Awesome. Everyone has to spend something. You just get a heck of a lot more bang for your buck... after all, spending 4,400gp to scribe a scroll of gate (plus the trivial cost to write it into your Blessed Book) gives you a heck of a lot more than the 6lgp the monk had to plunk down for an Amulet of Mighty Fists +1 (since the monk doesn't get Craft Wonderous Item for free, nor could he use it if he did). The reality of the Archivist is that even with access to all those spell-lists, he is still going to end up knowing fewer spells than a plain old cleric would. The fact that some of them are more powerful than average by virtue of having come from a variety of different lists makes up for that to some degree. It doesn’t make them uber powerful. It really does. This is not to say Clerics are weak... they're not. But remember, the Archivist could use Divine Persistant Shapechange (Animal Domain 9, Druid 9) to turn into a Solar and cast as a level 20 cleric (he'll need a one level dip into Sacred Exorcist of course). Some spells really are that game breakingly powerful. The fact that Archivists can take the best of the best is what makes them so strong. After all, they can save money by not getting Purify Food and Drink, Diminish Plants, and all that, and instead grab Wraithstrike, Swift Haste, Giant Size, Venomfire, and other brutal persistable and long duration spells. And then they can grab a few Nightsticks, shapechange into a Collosal Godzilla beastie, and smash Tokyo. And all I’m saying is that the position you are describing, unlimited and unfettered access to any and all theoretically divine spells, just isn’t really going to happen in many games. Even when it does, the costs, in time and gold, is still a significant limitation. Sure, there's costs. They're not as big as you're making out, but they exist. But the point is, once you pay said costs, you become a god (almost literally, with Genesis you get your own plane of existance. Yay). And I'm certainly not claiming that Wizards, Clerics, Druids, and Artificers are weak by comparison. All of the big 5 can do rediculous crap. Clerics can't cast as many awesome spells as Archivists, but they get their spells free. Artificers can cast even more stuff than Archivists, but it costs them more. Druid casting is even worse, but they make up for it with Wild Shape. And then there's Wizards, which you seem to have enough experience with to understand that they can break games all over the place too ("I buy 50 cows. Now I cast flesh to salt. Sell cows. Profit. Now I cast Genesis"). When you are discussing the power of a class, the theoretical limits might be interesting, but the realities of the game are far more important. Not really. Because the realities of any specific game are going to be so different that discussing them online is pointless. In my games, for examples, I very specifically nerf casters so much that they don't get played (except Druids, who are strong enough without casting... *sigh*). And it's fun, and it means that the skill monkeys and melee classes get to shine (and I don't have to worry about fabricate or flesh to salt infinite money tricks, or dragons getting one shotted by annoying 3rd level spells, or exploding papers that can take out castles). But when I'm talking on an online forum, I'm going to assume RAW, because that's all we really can do unless we're discussing a specific house rule. I mean heck, we can talk all we want about how we can limit Archivists to more reasonable levels of power, and that's fine... but even the fact that we have to do that shows how rediculous they are by RAW. JaronK
JaronK 01-07-08, 04:12 PM	Honestly, the biggest issue I have is not the Archivist having access to all of these spells, its getting all of these spells with no work other than having a 12th level Warlock in the party. Independent of the whole Archivist issue I'd likely rule that scrolls created by a Warlock are neither arcane or divine, the same way a scroll created by an Artificier is treated. It doesn't really make sense for the Warlock to be better at item creation than an Artificer. I'm not really concerned with an Archivist having access to pretty much any spell in the game as long as they are going to put more work into it than blowing a feat on Leadership or having a Warlock in their party. I do that too, when I'm not nerfing casters outright. RAW it's not right, obviously, but it's a darned helpful house rule to say that Warlock scrolls can't be written into a prayerbook. I also make it so you can only buy scrolls listed in the DMG in town, so you have to actually go find the appropriate cleric or adept and convince them to help you if you want your nifty spells. It makes for a great quest hook, actually... that Adept will help you scribe Heal, but first he's got this problem with a Dragon... JaronK
Cartigan 01-07-08, 04:16 PM	The class says "any divine spell." A DM ruling that "any divine spell" means "only the standard (non-domain) cleric, druid, paladin, and ranger spells" is very clearly a nerf, as you've now changed the class. Whether it's an appropriate one or not is a different issue. Be aware that Heroes of Horror (the book the Archivist is from) was released long after BoED, and I believe even Complete Divine (certainly after the DMG, where the Adept is found), so the authors knew about those things when they made the class. Weak argument, at best. Look at all the editing mistakes in Complete Warrior. You can't expect the authors to know by heart every rule and technical ability in the game and guess how they would be abused by people such as yourself. No, but they can cast most of the best ones. Irrelevant. They can't cast every spell in the game, even with pun-pun interpretations of RAW. Equating the Wizard to the Archivist in this argument is like equating the Ninja to the Rogue. They are not the same class despite their similarities and the continued assertion that you can make an argument for one based on the other and use that to insult our intelligence needs to stop. Removing their best core spells in a core only game would be a nerf to the class. The same goes for the Archivist. Load of hooey. You need at least four supplements for your argument that the Archivist can cast every spell. Not including the one Archivist is in. There is no nerf to say your argument is ridiculous and shoot it down. There is no nerf to the class by saying it isn't allowed to cast all the arcane magic because of pun-pun interpretations of RAW. Remainder of post ignored due to improper tone. This is a discussion, it is not a time for person insults. Calm down, and if you want to continue this discussion, let's do it in a civil manner. If you cannot remain detached, then there's no point in a shouting match. Everything that could be said has, by both sides. You just continue talking down to us through the use of absurd and fallacious arguments. I assume this comes from too much time at the CharOp boards.
rjsilverthorn 01-07-08, 04:24 PM	I do that too, when I'm not nerfing casters outright. RAW it's not right, obviously, but it's a darned helpful house rule to say that Warlock scrolls can't be written into a prayerbook. I also make it so you can only buy scrolls listed in the DMG in town, so you have to actually go find the appropriate cleric or adept and convince them to help you if you want your nifty spells. It makes for a great quest hook, actually... that Adept will help you scribe Heal, but first he's got this problem with a Dragon... JaronK Well RAW it never specifically says the resulting item is either Arcane or Divine, so either way you are assuming something. So I'm just going with the most recent related decision, which was the errata to the Artificer in ECS. I agree with you on the quest hooks part. I can definitely see some Gather Information and Diplomacy checks needed to locate higher level scrolls or scrolls from a more obscure spell list and some questing to actually gain a copy. As an aside to something in one of the other posts, which I'm not going to bother digging through to quote, the most recent FAQ does give the Archivist explicit access to clerical domains. The archivist's prayerbook ability (Heroes of Horror 83) states, "An archivist can also add spells found on scrolls containing divine spells to his prayerbook." Does this include domain spells found on scrolls? Yes. The archivists are masters of drawing power from esoteric holy sources. By definition, there are few things more esoteric than a cleric’s domain spells.
JulesCARV 01-07-08, 04:47 PM	At any rate, can we all agree that the idea that using shapechange to turn into an astral deva to cast as a 20th level cleric is a misinterpretation of the fact that "You gain all extraordinary and supernatural abilities (both attacks and qualities) of the assumed form," and that actually refers only to (su) abilities, not spellcasting? I know that's an old issue from over twenty posts ago, but I assumed someone would correct JaronK on it, and no one did, so I just thought I'd mention it.
JaronK 01-07-08, 04:48 PM	Well RAW it never specifically says the resulting item is either Arcane or Divine, so either way you are assuming something. So I'm just going with the most recent related decision, which was the errata to the Artificer in ECS. The Artificer one is different (and I'm aware of it, which is why I haven't suggested using the Artificer to generate scrolls). As far as the Warlock goes, you do have to chose when making the scrolls whether they are arcane or divine, as it affects the DC of the UMD check to make the scroll (it's higher for divine scrolls). So yes, if you go for the higher DC, you are in fact making a divine scroll, and it's pretty straightforward. Check over the Warlock level 12 ability for details. I agree with you on the quest hooks part. I can definitely see some Gather Information and Diplomacy checks needed to locate higher level scrolls or scrolls from a more obscure spell list and some questing to actually gain a copy. Absolutely. Once you remove the Warlock trick, as well as the ability to just buy all the best ones in town, there's suddenly a lot of potencial, and now your Archivist really does have to go around and collect nifty ancient scrolls. The lost library of thus and such, the mystic hermit who lives on top of dragon mountain, quests for the god of magic... it opens up a heck of a lot of potencial. By RAW, none of that is necessary, but a little house ruling can make the game a lot more fun. JaronK
JaronK 01-07-08, 04:49 PM	At any rate, can we all agree that the idea that using shapechange to turn into an astral deva to cast as a 20th level cleric is a misinterpretation of the fact that "You gain all extraordinary and supernatural abilities (both attacks and qualities) of the assumed form," and that actually refers only to (su) abilities, not spellcasting? I know that's an old issue from over twenty posts ago, but I assumed someone would correct JaronK on it, and no one did, so I just thought I'd mention it. They do, by the most recent errata, get spells. It's insane, but it's legal and explictly true. JaronK
LSMFT 01-07-08, 04:52 PM	Chances are though, he doesn't NEED every spell; just the few best. The strength of an archivist is less that he can learn EVERY spell, but that he can learn ANY spell. Tons of spells out there are total crap, and no one ever really needs them, but there's some real gems, and those few dozen spells are well worth the investment.There are some gems out there. That's true, but it still adds up. And quickly. If the book states that something is assumed, then as written it's assumed. Obviously, you can change things for your campaign, but it's assumed in the rules.The, ah, “W” in RAW stands for “Written.” Rules As Written. While there are a great number of people who think “Written” applies to “Assumptions,” “Intentions,” “Inferences,” “Imaginings" based on the written, I still always interpret it as those rules that are, well, you know, actually written. It's saying research libraries are readily accessible to players, or at least that the DMG assumes that.No, it is saying that those rules in the PHB are based on certain assumptions. It is not saying that you have to assume that these institutions exist. What this paragraph does in fact is demonstrate that the rules in the PHB might not apply in every situation because they are based on assumptions that might not be true. Let me repeat: ""Anything under that limit is most likely available, whether it be mundane or magical." I'm pretty sure that counts as stating which items can be found. The DMG is assuming that you can most likely find magic items which are under the limit, and a scroll is well under the 100000gp limit (so it should be available). “Most likely available” sure seems to leave a lot of wiggle room for a DM. If you want to say this means that any DM who puts a metropolis in his campaign is also putting in any and every item from every source he uses fine. Good luck with that. If you want to call my claim that the DM has the authority to decide which items are for sale a “house rule,” so be it. I think you are going to be in the minority on that one though. especially once Boccob's Blessed Book becomes available.And those are useful to archivists how? Or are similar divine books also assumed somewhere? :D Not really. Because the realities of any specific game are going to be so different that discussing them online is pointless.Then everything is broken because it is theoretically breakable with some fast and loose rules as assumed? Sorry, I think reality is a pretty reasonable basis for most discussions of power. And the reality is that while archivists can add many, many really great spells to their prayerbooks, time, cost, and availability provide very real limitations. He still a full caster, and that still makes him way up there in power even if he's severely restricted, but he's only a "god" in theoretical campaigns, which, since they don’t exist, aren’t really of much consequence.
JaronK 01-07-08, 05:06 PM	Weak argument, at best. Look at all the editing mistakes in Complete Warrior. You can't expect the authors to know by heart every rule and technical ability in the game and guess how they would be abused by people such as yourself. Please calm down your tone. I am not abusing any rules (how could I? We're discussing on a message board, not playing), I am stating what they say. You're simply assuming that the writers wrote it wrong, but since you have no way of proving the writer's intent (and the FAQ that said that Archivists can indeed get Domain spells suggests that the intent is not what you're stating). Irrelevant. They can't cast every spell in the game, even with pun-pun interpretations of RAW. Equating the Wizard to the Archivist in this argument is like equating the Ninja to the Rogue. They are not the same class despite their similarities and the continued assertion that you can make an argument for one based on the other and use that to insult our intelligence needs to stop. I don't even know what you're talking about here. I have at no point suggested summoning Pazu, using Savage Species, or doing anything else that's vaguely like Pun Pun. And equating Ninjas to Rogues is a perfectly valdi thing to do when talking about skill monkeys (as they both are skill monkeys). When I talk about full casters though, I tend to equate full casters to other full casters. When we're talking about Int based prepared casters with spell books, saying that Archivist and Wizards are similar is, well, pretty straight forward. One's the arcane version, one's the divine version. I also haven't made any arguements for one based on the other. The only time I brought up Wizards was to point out that removing spells from their repretoir would be a house rule nerf to their class, and that doing the same to Archivists would be the same. How is that insulting your intelligence? At what point have I assumed you to be in any way unintelligent? I assure you, I never assume anything about the intelligence of someone I've never met and whom I've only talked to for a few minutes over the internet. Load of hooey. You need at least four supplements for your argument that the Archivist can cast every spell. Not including the one Archivist is in. There is no nerf to say your argument is ridiculous and shoot it down. There is no nerf to the class by saying it isn't allowed to cast all the arcane magic because of pun-pun interpretations of RAW. I need two. Complete Arcane and Master of the Wild. That's for the Sorcerer/Wizard spells. If you prefer, all of the good core spells are available with just core, since most of the best Sorcerer/Wizard spells are found in the domains anyway (Timestop, Shapechange, Polymorph... not sure about Glitterdust or Grease, though) and a few nice ones are in the Adept list. We don't actually need Master of the Wild though, as Complete Mage handles most of the Sorcerer Wizard spells too. Or did you want the Bard spells too? Because that does require Unearthed Arcana. And you're going to have to define "pun pun interpretations of RAW." Pun Pun himself requires nothing illegal, but involves using a certain outsider to gain infinite power through a power loop. Since none of my interpretations require large amounts of obscure books (the Completes are hardly obscure, and while Masters of the Wild makes it easier, it's by no means required). Everything that could be said has, by both sides. You just continue talking down to us through the use of absurd and fallacious arguments. I assume this comes from too much time at the CharOp boards. Actually, some new things have come up. But in what way have I been talking down to you, and who is this "us" you're refering to? At one point I refused to respond when you started flinging insults, but I thought that was better than just reporting you for inappropriate behavior. You're going to have to actually prove how my arguements are fallacious, instead of just claiming they are so. Which arguement is false? That 3.0 classes, if not updated, are valid for 3.5? This is true, and since Master of the Wild was never updated, nor was the Hexer updated, the original Hexer is valid (as are other PrCs that get used a good bit, such as the Iajuitsu Master and Ninja Spy). That Warlocks can create any divine spell scroll, so long as the spell exists in divine form? Read over their level 12 ability if you don't believe that part. I can back up any arguement I've made. As to the character op boards, I've rarely seen anyone acting as rude as you were earlier, and any false arguement gets shot down pretty fast over there, usually through factual arguements using the books as a basis. JaronK
JaronK 01-07-08, 05:19 PM	There are some gems out there. That's true, but it still adds up. And quickly. Boccab's Blessed Book, writing your own scrolls, Fabricate or Flesh to Salt for cash (or Wall of Iron, or Wall of Stone... whatever). It's easy to make getting the spells cheaper, and even easier to make money when you can cast the best spells. The, ah, “W” in RAW stands for “Written.” Rules As Written. While there are a great number of people who think “Written” applies to “Assumptions,” “Intentions,” “Inferences,” “Imaginings" based on the written, I still always interpret it as those rules that are, well, you know, actually written. The assumption is written in the book. They also assume you'll follow wealth by level, that there's 4 encounters between downtimes, etc. These are the basic assumptions under which the rules are written, and since the assumptions themselves are also written down, they're hardly "inferences" or "imaginings." You'd have a case here if the DMG didn't say outright that they're assuming these things. No, it is saying that those rules in the PHB are based on certain assumptions. It is not saying that you have to assume that these institutions exist. What this paragraph does in fact is demonstrate that the rules in the PHB might not apply in every situation because they are based on assumptions that might not be true. “Most likely available” sure seems to leave a lot of wiggle room for a DM. It's not much. Obviously, you can change anything. You can remove rapiers and make Wizards Wis based if you want. But the framework of the game as written is, well, how it's written, and part of that includes the assumption that there are large cities where you can buy gear if you so desire. I mean, you could nerf fighters by saying that swords better than +1 are only "most likely available" and that thus the fighter can't buy any, too. But as written, the DMG assumes that fighter can walk in to town with his hard earned gems and pick up a +3 sword of smashing stuff. If you want to say this means that any DM who puts a metropolis in his campaign is also putting in any and every item from every source he uses fine. Good luck with that. If you want to call my claim that the DM has the authority to decide which items are for sale a “house rule,” so be it. I think you are going to be in the minority on that one though. I'm simply saying that the rules for the Archivists (and everyone else) are written with the assumption, which is given in the DMG, that metropolises have magic items available, including scrolls. You can make magic items super rare if you so desire, but the melee classes will be complaining as much as the Archivist. The Wizard, too. Only the Artificer will be sitting there giggling (along with the Druid). And those are useful to archivists how? Or are similar divine books also assumed somewhere? :D Archivist prayerbooks are said to work exactly like wizard books, so I would assume that the blessed book works for that. If we're not assuming anything though, then Archivists add spells to their books for free (it never says they have to pay costs, only time). However, I think it's pretty clear that Archivists are supposed to be exactly like Wizards in that respect, and as such they should pay the same costs, but also should be able to use the Blessed Book. So yes, by one interpretation of RAW, they can write their books free even because they're not Wizards, but I think we'll go with the more reasonable interpretation and say it usually costs them money, but the Blessed Book is fair game. Then everything is broken because it is theoretically breakable with some fast and loose rules as assumed? These aren't fast and loose rules. They're just the rules in the books. House rules are a whole different ballgame. Sorry, I think reality is a pretty reasonable basis for most discussions of power. And the reality is that while archivists can add many, many really great spells to their prayerbooks, time, cost, and availability provide very real limitations. He still a full caster, and that still makes him way up there in power even if he's severely restricted, but he's only a "god" in theoretical campaigns, which, since they don’t exist, aren’t really of much consequence. I don't know your house rules, you don't know mine. How are we supposed to discuss anything if everyone who contributes to the thread first sits down and says "okay, in my campaign I use house rules A, B, and C?" And we certainly can't compare class power across the board if we use the house rules of each individual GM. If we were I could say that Sorcerers are worse than Warriors (since in my games that's usually true), but that wouldn't make sense in your game, I'd imagine. JaronK
deathbane 01-07-08, 05:29 PM	I see where the power lies with the archivist now. It is stronger than it looks on paper at first glance, but as long as my players understand that divine spells mean spells that are on the class list, the it won't be an issue. About the spells from shapechange. I think it was an oversight, but I don't want to argue RAW vs what should have been so to each DM his own.
JaronK 01-07-08, 05:43 PM	I see where the power lies with the archivist now. It is stronger than it looks on paper at first glance, but as long as my players understand that divine spells mean spells that are on the class list, the it won't be an issue. Good, then you know what to look out for. Chose a few house rules to keep it in line, and make sure your players know what those are ahead of time (otherwise, you end up with very disappointed players blaming you for "ruining" their character... trust me on that one. *sigh*). Spells on the class list won't help much, since all those methods I gave for getting divine versions of the spells were in fact by putting the spells on the class list. I'd go with stating that the Warlock ability doesn't make scrolls that work for prayerbooks (because they're not really divine spells, but rather simulated spells created by evil entities... or whatever), and that the only scrolls you can find in town are the ones in the DMG. Everything else the Archivist has to personally locate. That should cover everything, since you can at that point just choose whether or not to have all those various varients meet the players or not. Heck, a quest just because someone heard a Divine Bard exists somewhere would be awfully fun. About the spells from shapechange. I think it was an oversight, but I don't want to argue RAW vs what should have been so to each DM his own. It was actually errataed, and they made it clear that spells were included in the package, so it's definitely not an oversight. That said, banning the entire Polymorph line (including Alter Self) works wonders. JaronK
JulesCARV 01-07-08, 05:52 PM	The only errata I see on shapechange is one that cuts the maximum hit dice of the assumed form in half, from 50 or twice caster level (which is lower) to 25 or caster level (whichever is lower). I see nothing suggesting that using shapechange allows you to gain spells or spell-like abilities of the assumed form -- it still looks like just (su) and (ex) abilities to me.
deathbane 01-07-08, 05:56 PM	Good, then you know what to look out for. Chose a few house rules to keep it in line, and make sure your players know what those are ahead of time (otherwise, you end up with very disappointed players blaming you for "ruining" their character... trust me on that one. *sigh*). Spells on the class list won't help much, since all those methods I gave for getting divine versions of the spells were in fact by putting the spells on the class list. I'd go with stating that the Warlock ability doesn't make scrolls that work for prayerbooks (because they're not really divine spells, but rather simulated spells created by evil entities... or whatever), and that the only scrolls you can find in town are the ones in the DMG. Everything else the Archivist has to personally locate. That should cover everything, since you can at that point just choose whether or not to have all those various varients meet the players or not. Heck, a quest just because someone heard a Divine Bard exists somewhere would be awfully fun. It was actually errataed, and they made it clear that spells were included in the package, so it's definitely not an oversight. That said, banning the entire Polymorph line (including Alter Self) works wonders. JaronK So shapechange gives everything? Does it take into account the nerf that was included in the PHB2? I know I am being lazy by not looking it up, but my players have never used the polymorph family of spells other than disguise self so it is not an issue yet.
larry_the_titan 01-07-08, 06:01 PM	@Cartigan, and anyone else who is Debating Power by RAI (Rules as Intended) When discussing the power of a class on the board the Class should be discussed with RAW (Rules as Written) there is no Assuming or saying that the Rules aren't Intended to do something when they do allow it. RAI debates never work because the way things were meant to work has no meaning when the RAW says other wise. Nerfing of the Archivist and the rest of Big 5 or any other class should be left up to an actual DM before he lets it in game. Applying Nerfs on the board while does nothing to the power of a class because the RAW still stands over your Nerf. In short RAW>RAI Please remember this in the future.
JaronK 01-07-08, 06:27 PM	So shapechange gives everything? Does it take into account the nerf that was included in the PHB2? I know I am being lazy by not looking it up, but my players have never used the polymorph family of spells other than disguise self so it is not an issue yet. The PHBII nerf doesn't actually effect anything written before PHBII. Notice it says that the specific description in the spell overwrites the PHBII entry where they conflict. Since Polymorph says everything that it does, it is unaffected. Since Shapechange says it works "as polymorph" it too is unaffected. The PHBII polymorph subschool bit only applies to future spells. Shapechange was nerfed to maxing out at 25HD (thank goodness!). Spells are a Special Attack (check out the Monster Manual, that's where they're listed... for example, a Planetar's special attacks are "spell like abilities, spells"). They're not listed as being extraordinary, supernatural or spell-like. Just special attacks. And you get those. JaronK
deathbane 01-07-08, 07:00 PM	The PHBII nerf doesn't actually effect anything written before PHBII. Notice it says that the specific description in the spell overwrites the PHBII entry where they conflict. Since Polymorph says everything that it does, it is unaffected. Since Shapechange says it works "as polymorph" it too is unaffected. The PHBII polymorph subschool bit only applies to future spells. Shapechange was nerfed to maxing out at 25HD (thank goodness!). Spells are a Special Attack (check out the Monster Manual, that's where they're listed... for example, a Planetar's special attacks are "spell like abilities, spells"). They're not listed as being extraordinary, supernatural or spell-like. Just special attacks. And you get those. JaronK I know they are special attacks. I guess I will have to come up with something in-house. Thanks.
Sinfire Titan 01-07-08, 07:24 PM	Now then, if only there were a way to give the Archivist a familiar...
JaronK 01-07-08, 07:35 PM	Now then, if only there were a way to give the Archivist a familiar... No can do, as far as I know. But if you want, Archivist 17/Sacred Exorcist 1/PrC Paladin 2 with the Holy Mount feat gets a paladin mount like a level 23 paladin. Close enough? You do lose a caster level though. JaronK
Cartigan 01-07-08, 08:51 PM	Please calm down your tone. I am not abusing any rules (how could I? We're discussing on a message board, not playing), I am stating what they say. You're simply assuming that the writers wrote it wrong, but since you have no way of proving the writer's intent (and the FAQ that said that Archivists can indeed get Domain spells suggests that the intent is not what you're stating). Domain spells != every arcane spell I don't even know what you're talking about here. I have at no point suggested summoning Pazu, using Savage Species, or doing anything else that's vaguely like Pun Pun. You are using a Pun-pun (Su) ability to interpret the RAW to break a class. And equating Ninjas to Rogues is a perfectly valdi thing to do when talking about skill monkeys (as they both are skill monkeys). When I talk about full casters though, I tend to equate full casters to other full casters. When we're talking about Int based prepared casters with spell books, saying that Archivist and Wizards are similar is, well, pretty straight forward. One's the arcane version, one's the divine version. Wrong. The Wizard does not have the same rules as the Archivist does. The Archivist's ability to copy spells is like the Wizard's abilities to copy spells in the same way Sudden Strike is like Sneak Attack. The mechanics are similar, but they are comparable straight. I also haven't made any arguements for one based on the other. The only time I brought up Wizards was to point out that removing spells from their repretoir would be a house rule nerf to their class, and that doing the same to Archivists would be the same. Which is a logical fallacy. You are arguing removing spells on the Wizard's list as a comparison to not allowing the Archivist to take every arcane spell, which is probably more fallacies than I can count on 1 hand. And you're going to have to define "pun pun interpretations of RAW." Pun Pun himself requires nothing illegal, Just read that a few times and I will presume you will get what I am saying. Which arguement is false? Removing spells from the Wizard's spell list != not allowing the Archivist to take arcane spells. That is a logical fallacy. False analogy at least. I could come up with more. Removing spells from the Wizard's given spell list == removing spells from the Archivist's given spell list (ie, the Cleric spell list).
JaronK 01-07-08, 09:35 PM	Domain spells != every arcane spell When did I claim Domain spells were every arcane spell? You're fighting strawmen. I did say that virtually every good arcane spell in core was also found in a domain somewhere, which is true. Or would you like to name a few of the stronger wizard/sorcerer spells that are not in a domain, within core? You are using a Pun-pun (Su) ability to interpret the RAW to break a class. Which Pun Pun ability? Name the Pun Pun ability I used. Generally, the (Su) ability that relates to Pun Pun is Manipulate Forum... but since I never mentioned it (or Pun Pun himself) I don't know what you're talking about. Be specific. You keep making general charges without facts or arguing against points I haven't made. Frankly, I can't think of any (su) abilities involved anywhere. Wrong. The Wizard does not have the same rules as the Archivist does. The Archivist's ability to copy spells is like the Wizard's abilities to copy spells in the same way Sudden Strike is like Sneak Attack. The mechanics are similar, but they are comparable straight. Right. Similar mechanics, which are comparable. I didn't say they were the same (though the Archivist Prayerbook rules are indeed the same as the Wizard Spellbook rules, because the Prayerbook says as much). Which is a logical fallacy. You are arguing removing spells on the Wizard's list as a comparison to not allowing the Archivist to take every arcane spell, which is probably more fallacies than I can count on 1 hand. Strawman, again. I never claimed Archivists could take every arcane spell. Once again you're arguing against a point I never made. I did say they could get the Wizard/Sorcerer list. They cannot, however, get Beguiler only spells, or Dread Necromancer only spells, or Warmage only spells. I have never claimed they could. It's the Wizard/Sorcerer and Bard spells they can get at. The Archivist spell list is, however, all divine spells. They can only chose standard cleric spells for their two free spells per level, but their actual spell list is all divine spells. Removing divine spells from their spell list is exactly like removing Wizard/Sorcerer spells from the Wizard/Sorcerer list. So... where's the logical fallacy? Surely you can name on I've made without claiming I made an arguement I didn't make. I've already caught you on two stawman arguements in this post alone. Just read that a few times and I will presume you will get what I am saying. Since Pun Pun does not actually require any illegal or even questionable rules (and you can feel free to find some), I guess what you're saying is that by Pun Pun rules, you mean rules that are complicated and which you don't understand, or maybe rules which allow for too much player power? You're the one who brought up Pun Pun for no apparent reason... you're going to have to define exactly why you're talking about him and what problems you have with him. Perhaps you mean drawing from a large number of source books? I really don't know. You're not being clear. Removing spells from the Wizard's spell list != not allowing the Archivist to take arcane spells. That is a logical fallacy. False analogy at least. I could come up with more. Removing spells from the Wizard's given spell list == removing spells from the Archivist's given spell list (ie, the Cleric spell list). You're right, that is a logical fallacy... a strawman arguement again. I never said Archivists could take Arcane spells. I said they could take divine spells, but then showed that the entire Wizard/Sorcerer spell list also exists as divine spells (as does the bard). Please make sure you're responding to my actual arguement. Are you contesting that the spells exist as divine spells? Even after all the various methods I've posted for divine classes to cast them as divine spells? Once again, the list is: Favoured Soul (add any 6th level or lower Wiz/Sorc spell to your spell list as a divine spell) Complete Mage Cleric (add one Wiz/Sorc spell of each level to your spell list as a divine spell instead of chosing a domain, must be of specific schools) Hexer PrC (add a few Wiz/Sorc spells to your spell list... Hexer can be a divine PrC, so a Cleric/Hexer would be adding such spells as divine spells to their spell list) Domains (Divine versions of all the strongest Wiz/Sorc spells) Shujjena (Complete Divine class, casts many traditionally Wiz/Sorc spells) Now, are you attempting to contest all of those? Or are you claiming the fallacy is that Warlocks can create divine scrolls of any divine spell that exists? If so I suggest you reread the 12th level ability of the Warlock. You're going to have to point out a logical fallacy in an arguement I actually made, or a factual error. Meanwhile, allow me to point out an error in yours: Removing spells from the Wizard's given spell list == removing spells from the Archivist's given spell list (ie, the Cleric spell list). The Archivist's spell list is not the Cleric spell list. It is all divine spells. They are restricted to taking their two free spells per level from the Cleric spell list, but their actual spell list is all divine spells. Thus, you should have written: Removing spells from the Wizard's given spell list == removing spells from the Archivist's given spell list (ie, all divine spell lists). And that was the point I was making to begin with. JaronK
Cartigan 01-07-08, 11:06 PM	When did I claim Domain spells were every arcane spell? You're fighting strawmen. I did say that virtually every good arcane spell in core was also found in a domain somewhere, which is true. Or would you like to name a few of the stronger wizard/sorcerer spells that are not in a domain, within core? Strawmen are all you are giving me to fight. Or were you not implying the fact that they can take domain spells means they could take all arcane spells as 'divine' spells? Which Pun Pun ability? Name the Pun Pun ability I used. Generally, the (Su) ability that relates to Pun Pun is Manipulate Forum... You appear a bit dense, so let's move on. Right. Similar mechanics, which are comparable. Similar general mechanics, but entirely different specific rules. didn't say they were the same (though the Archivist Prayerbook rules are indeed the same as the Wizard Spellbook rules, because the Prayerbook says as much). Which has nothing to do with the price of tea in China. Strawman, again. I never claimed Archivists could take every arcane spell. That is what you have been doing since the beginning of this thread :rolleyes: I did say they could get the Wizard/Sorcerer list. They cannot, however, get Beguiler only spells, or Dread Necromancer only spells, or Warmage only spells. I have never claimed they could. It's the Wizard/Sorcerer and Bard spells they can get at. What Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, and Warmage only spells are there? The Archivist spell list is, however, all divine spells. They can only chose standard cleric spells for their two free spells per level, but their actual spell list is all divine spells. Wrong. Their spell list is all Cleric spells. Their possible available spells are all divine spells. Removing divine spells from their spell list is exactly like removing Wizard/Sorcerer spells from the Wizard/Sorcerer list. What part of "false analogy" did you miss the first time? So... where's the logical fallacy? Surely you can name on I've made without claiming I made an arguement I didn't make. I've already caught you on two stawman arguements in this post alone. And I have had you on a straw man and false analogy for a while now. Since Pun Pun does not actually require any illegal or even questionable rules (and you can feel free to find some), I'm done. I'm tired of arguing with some one who is unable to understand that VERY OBVIOUS thing I was saying. You can go talk about how awesome your broken rules are with yourself.
Aleolus 01-07-08, 11:20 PM	Remember:Archivists can even access the PrCs from BoED for Divine Spells. Hell, if it has a separate spell list and is divine, the Archivist can leech off of them. That is the key to making them more powerful than they look. However, in order to gain those spells, they have to first find a scroll of that spell and spend time and money to scribe it into their prayerbook. I very much doubt that a Champion of Gwynharwyf would take the Scribe Scroll feat, making it difficult, if it's even possible, to find scrolls of their spells. Plus, Archivists do not get the best spell progression, because they only get 4 spells of any level per day. True, they get higher-level spells earlier that classes with other spell progressions, but they get the fewest per day.
Sinfire Titan 01-07-08, 11:36 PM	However, in order to gain those spells, they have to first find a scroll of that spell and spend time and money to scribe it into their prayerbook. I very much doubt that a Champion of Gwynharwyf would take the Scribe Scroll feat, making it difficult, if it's even possible, to find scrolls of their spells. Plus, Archivists do not get the best spell progression, because they only get 4 spells of any level per day. True, they get higher-level spells earlier that classes with other spell progressions, but they get the fewest per day. They get bonus spells, just like every other caster that isn't a Shadowcaster. And it is 5 per level, IIRC. My brother has my HoH, so I can't check.
JaronK 01-07-08, 11:46 PM	Strawmen are all you are giving me to fight. Or were you not implying the fact that they can take domain spells means they could take all arcane spells as 'divine' spells? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man I cannot give you strawmen. You are creating them. For example, you are stating this silly buisiness about domain spells meaning Archivists can take all arcane spells as divine spells. Read through this thread. I have never stated this. I in fact stated that was false on a number of occasions. You have missrepresented my position by stating this over and over, then tore down the false arguement that you created. That is a strawman. For the last time: I stated that almost all of the best core Wizard/Sorcerer spells existed as domain spells, which are divine. The Archivist could take those divine domain spells, since the Archivist can use any divine spell. For example, Shapechange is Animal Domain 9. Note the difference between "almost all of the best core Wizard/Sorcerer spells" and "all arcane spells." You have consistantly ignored this point. I have also stated that there are other methods of gaining the rest of the Wizard/Sorcerer list as divine spells, including (but not limited to) via Hexer, Complete Mage Cleric Varient, and Favoured Soul Dragon Magic Varient. I further stated that the Bard list was accessable due to the Divine Bard varient. At no time did I claim all arcane spells could be found as divine spells. I specifically stated that any spell which is exclusive to the Dread Necromancer, Beguiler, or Warmage list would still be off limits to the Archivist. You can add Wu Jen to that list (though the best Wu Jen spell, Giant Size, is also in the Hero Domain). You appear a bit dense, so let's move on. No, let's not. Stand and defend your point. I have defended against every one of your charges. But you have charged that I used a Pun Pun (su) ability to somehow give Archivist spells. When I asked what you were talking about, you insulted me, claiming I am dense. Personal insults are inappropriate. Once again, I ask: Which Pun Pun ability? Name the Pun Pun (su) ability I used or conceed the point. Similar general mechanics, but entirely different specific rules. Yes, which makes them comparable, but not the same (except in the case of the Spellbook/Prayerbook, which is the same). Yet your point was that they were not comparable. How so? Which has nothing to do with the price of tea in China. Your claim was that Wizards and Archivists were not comparable. I pointed out (and you have now admitted) that they have similar general mechanics, and I further showed that some of their mechanics were identical (and it's a major mechanic inhearent to both classes which is not found anywhere else). That may not have anything to do with tea prices, but it certainly makes the classes comparable. Waving away a counterpoint as irrelevant is not a valid response when it speaks directly to the question at hand. That is what you have been doing since the beginning of this thread :rolleyes: Really? Quote me doing so. Quote the time where I said all Arcane spells could be cast by an Archivist. Stand and defend your point or acknowledge that you're wrong... don't keep yelling it over and over again without proof. Let's see the proof. I can certainly quote myself multiple times stating the contrary. What Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, and Warmage only spells are there? Off the top of my head, Mass Harm (DN 9) is Dread Necromancer only. It is an arcane spell that is not available to Archivists (because no Divine version exists). Crappy spell, but that's hardly the point. Another list that's not accessable is the Trapsmith spell list from Complete Scoundrel, which has a bunch of spells at much lower levels than normal (but Archivists can't get those spells at those levels, because no divine version exists at that level). Wrong. Their spell list is all Cleric spells. Their possible available spells are all divine spells. Possible available spells == spell list. That is in fact the definition of a spell list... the list of spells that the class can cast. They are restricted to taking free spells off the Cleric's spell list, but they can cast off all spell lists, which means their spell list is in fact the set of all divine spell lists. Unless you'd like to quote any part of any book that states that the Archivist's spell list is the Cleric list? I just read over that section again, and it certainly says nothing of the sort. What part of "false analogy" did you miss the first time? Why is it false? You're going to have to show that the Archivist spell list is not the list of divine spells to prove the analogy false, and you're going to have to use quotes, or evidence, or something. Unless you're using "spell list" to mean something other than "the list of spells a class can cast." Prove your point. Stop just stating that you're right without basis. And I have had you on a straw man and false analogy for a while now. At what point did I "create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent" (wiki defninition of strawman)? You have just made another baseless accusation. Show me where I have created a false arguement, attributed that arguement to you and then tore it down. Show it. I'm done. I'm tired of arguing with some one who is unable to understand that VERY OBVIOUS thing I was saying. Okay, seriously, does anyone know what very obvious thing he was saying? Because I don't, and I want to know if I'm as dense as this poster claims I am. JaronK
JaronK 01-07-08, 11:53 PM	However, in order to gain those spells, they have to first find a scroll of that spell and spend time and money to scribe it into their prayerbook. I very much doubt that a Champion of Gwynharwyf would take the Scribe Scroll feat, making it difficult, if it's even possible, to find scrolls of their spells. Actually, if you check the beginning of the magic item creation rules, you'll find that any spellcaster can contribute the required spell when you make a magic item. As such, the Archivist himself (who gets Scribe Scroll free) makes the scroll. Said Champion would only need to supply the spell, and would not need the feat (nor would he need to spend exp). And yes, I know, the beginning of each section (including the scroll section) says you need to know the spell to create the item. But the earlier general section clarifies that another caster can handle that requirement for you. It's how classes that can get Craft feats without actual spells can craft (such as any non caster that joins the group in PHBII that gives you Craft Wonderous Item and a caster level, but no spells). So you don't need to find people with the feat. And of course, the Warlock trick works just fine and eliminates the need for even that. Also, in theory you can just find the scrolls in a metropolis by searching around. Plus, Archivists do not get the best spell progression, because they only get 4 spells of any level per day. True, they get higher-level spells earlier that classes with other spell progressions, but they get the fewest per day. 5 per day, actually, of all spell levels except 0. Which is interesting, because Wizards only get 4 per day of every level. Archivists are actually better than their arcane cousins in that respect. That's also more than a Druid (except for level 0 spells). With that said, Archivists do get bonus spells off Wisdom instead of Int, which means they generally get fewer bonus spells than a Wizard, but since they start with effectively one bonus spell of every level except 0, they're golden.
LSMFT 01-08-08, 11:14 AM	The assumption is written in the book. There is an assumption mentioned. If you want to stretch the mentioning of one assumption, about one rule, to the breaking point and claim that it means every thing is assumed, good luck with that. If you want to claim that “Anything under that limit is most likely available” means DMs are somehow obligated to include “every possible thing from every possible supplement without discretion” and that to not do so is a "house rule," fine. I don't know your house rules, you don't know mine. How are we supposed to discuss anything if everyone who contributes to the thread first sits down and says "okay, in my campaign I use house rules A, B, and C?" And we certainly can't compare class power across the board if we use the house rules of each individual GM. If we were I could say that Sorcerers are worse than Warriors (since in my games that's usually true), but that wouldn't make sense in your game, I'd imagine.The problem here is that you call anything that is not in accordance with your wild interpretations of what is written and everything that doesn’t jive with the assumptions you make (and then attribute to the writers) a “house rule.” To be honest, I don’t think you should really get involved in conversations about the power of a class, or anything else, when you insist that only the legitimate forum for these discussions is on the lunatic fringe of game and not one that is grounded in any kind of real, actual game that actually get played, a game where DMs, and the game writers and designers for that matter, aren’t obligated to follow your distinctive assumptions.
Enigmis 01-08-08, 11:44 AM	If you want to claim that “Anything under that limit is most likely available” means DMs are somehow obligated to include “every possible thing from every possible supplement without discretion” and that to not do so is a "house rule," fine. Thats the definition of a house rule, not following RAW because they are either overpowered or are not how they were intended to be. There is nothing wrong with house rules, they can often make the game better. However not everyone follows them the same way, so when discussing rules people discuss by RAW, so that everyone is looking at the same information. The problem here is that you call anything that is not in accordance with your wild interpretations of what is written and everything that doesn’t jive with the assumptions you make (and then attribute to the writers) a “house rule.” To be honest, I don’t think you should really get involved in conversations about the power of a class, or anything else, when you insist that only the legitimate forum for these discussions is on the lunatic fringe of game and not one that is grounded in any kind of real, actual game that actually get played, a game where DMs, and the game writers and designers for that matter, aren’t obligated to follow your distinctive assumptions. And i dont think that you should be involved in discussions of power if your archivist is not the same as the majoritys definition of archivist. Its like me saying that a rogue is overpowered because in my game they have full bab and full arcane casting (they don't, this is just for the sake of discussion). That rogue is not the same as everyone elses definition of rogue and therefore should not be used in comparing the powers of rogues with other classes.
LSMFT 01-08-08, 12:03 PM	Thats the definition of a house rule, not following RAW because they are either overpowered or are not how they were intended to be. “Most likely available” is not synonymous with “definitely available.” Even if there is a real, really, really, really good chance to find what you want, there is still a chance you won’t. Who determines if it is there or not? The gd DM does. Period. That’s not a house rule. It's merely reading what is actually written. And i dont think that you should be involved in discussions of power if your archivist is not the same as the majoritys definition of archivist. Its like me saying that a rogue is overpowered because in my game they have full bab and full arcane casting (they don't, this is just for the sake of discussion). That's, like JaronK's nonsense, founded on the ridiculous and unfounded interpretation that the DM’s power to decide if there is a divine scroll of Timestop is as much a house rule as giving rogues full arcane casting would be. Clearly, they are not the same.
Cartigan 01-08-08, 12:24 PM	And i dont think that you should be involved in discussions of power if your archivist is not the same as the majoritys definition of archivist. The majority is not arguing that the Archivist can cast 99% of arcane spells because of some pun-pun class rule use.
larry_the_titan 01-08-08, 12:56 PM	The majority is not arguing that the Archivist can cast 99% of arcane spells because of some pun-pun class rule use. Well by RAW Pun Pun is legal and so is the claim that Archivist can get most if not all Arcane spells. I mean Clerics can get a lot of them through domains and Druids actually get some Arcane spells a level before Wizards. You really don't need to go much further then that to get the rest of the list and that leaves only a few of the spells ever wrote that never got put on any list besides Artificer which casts nontyped spells in the first place.
Einvaldurinn_mikli 01-08-08, 01:18 PM	Removed by poster.
Cartigan 01-08-08, 02:09 PM	Well by RAW Pun Pun is legal I dare some one to point out where I said it wasn't. and so is the claim that Archivist can get most if not all Arcane spells. Which also has nothing to do with the point.
teshen 01-08-08, 02:17 PM	The majority is not arguing that the Archivist can cast 99% of arcane spells because of some pun-pun class rule use. No. What is being argued is that the archivist can access divine versions of many useful arcane spells, whether through domains or classes or prestige classes with some sort of early spell acquisition. Like JaronK, I'm confused at what you are refering to... is it the spells as special attacks? If polymorph grants you the special attacks of creatures and spells are listed as special attacks, you get them, no matter how silly it is... because it is the Rules As Written. I'm not really certain why this has gone on as long as it has since the first three posters gave brief and accurate reasons for the power of the archivist. JaronK has pointed out what seems to be some legal and exploitable things for the archivist. If anything, he's preping you for some of the more creative players that have a head for synergies... so instead of being antagonistic, you might just thank the man and move on. If you still don't like his arguments, it could be because you are interpreting his arguments rather than taking what his argument actually is... or is it possible that one of your personal assumptions is interfering with acceptance of his arguments? And as a side note, I understand why they did it (for mechanical reasons) but if an artificer's scrolls are neither arcane nor divine, then what the :censored: are they? and so is the claim that Archivist can get most if not all Arcane spells. Which also has nothing to do with the point.Then what is your/the point? :confused:
deathbane 01-08-08, 02:26 PM	I have only skimmed over the recent debate. It seems the availability of arcane spells is the issue. If that is the issue, under normal circumstances the archivist can not cast arcane spells, but if he can get another divine caster that can cast arcane spells such as a favored soul, or clerics with certain domains so scribe them as spells then he can use them. I don't think it was intended to work that way, but it is legal, however I would never allow them to cast an arcane spell unless it was specifically on a divine casters list. If I have sped read into the wrong conclusion then I aplogize.
Cartigan 01-08-08, 02:37 PM	Like JaronK, I'm confused at what you are refering to... is it the spells as special attacks? If polymorph grants you the special attacks of creatures and spells are listed as special attacks, you get them, no matter how silly it is... because it is the Rules As Written. Spells are (Ex) attacks? I'm pretty sure that is wrong. Even if they are Ex qualities (like DR), they arn't attacks (ie, swallow whole, pounce, rake, etc). Then what is your/the point? :confused: Some one said the majority's definition of archivist was that it can use ~all arcane spells because of exploitation of the rules, which might be correct if everyone were CharOp board people, but they arn't. The majority of people arn't going to see or argue that the Archivist can access all those spells because of pun-pun level rules use. I have only skimmed over the recent debate. It seems the availability of arcane spells is the issue. If that is the issue, under normal circumstances the archivist can not cast arcane spells, but if he can get another divine caster that can cast arcane spells such as a favored soul, or clerics with certain domains so scribe them as spells then he can use them. I don't think it was intended to work that way, but it is legal, however I would never allow them to cast an arcane spell unless it was specifically on a divine casters list. If I have sped read into the wrong conclusion then I aplogize. That is the exact debate. Through a very liberal use of the rules, the Archivists get an absurd boost in power by having access to all arcane spells as divine spells using Warlock/divine class casting arcane spells with Scribe Scroll. On a side note, why the hell does the Warlock even get the ability to randomly create magic items?
larry_the_titan 01-08-08, 02:43 PM	And as a side note, I understand why they did it (for mechanical reasons) but if an artificer's scrolls are neither arcane nor divine, then what the :censored: are they? They are unTyped which makes them simular to Unnamed Bonuses. And just be glad they made an rules change to make them that way because originally if memory serves they could be either. Which means that Wizards and Archivists every where would have a much easier way to fill there spell books.
larry_the_titan 01-08-08, 02:55 PM	Some one said the majority's definition of archivist was that it can use ~all arcane spells because of exploitation of the rules, which might be correct if everyone were CharOp board people, but they arn't. The majority of people arn't going to see or argue that the Archivist can access all those spells because of pun-pun level rules use. The fact isn't that the CO boards says it correct, it is correct because by RAW Archivists are able to do it. Being a Tactic from CO doesn't have any effect on how Valid a Rule is. CO boards members have in fact Worked towards fixing the game system to a point of balance more then anyone else. They do it by pointing out flaws in the rules and by Researching Multi Book Rule Interaction. And they have already Vowed to Break 4th ed when ever possible just so DMs can go there and know what can break their games and know to Ban it before the player gets his hand on it. On a side note, why the hell does the Warlock even get the ability to randomly create magic items? I have no idea what the guy who gave them that was thinking. I don't even think it is fitting for the class but it is there and only DMs can stop the effect.
teshen 01-08-08, 03:51 PM	Spells are (Ex) attacks? I'm pretty sure that is wrong. Even if they are Ex qualities (like DR), they arn't attacks (ie, swallow whole, pounce, rake, etc). ...Ok. Shapechange Transmutation Level: Animal 9, Drd 9, Sor/Wiz 9 Components: V, S, F Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Personal Target: You Duration: 10 min./level (D) This spell functions like polymorph, except that it enables you to assume the form of any single nonunique creature (of any type) from Fine to Colossal size. The assumed form cannot have more than your caster level in Hit Dice (to a maximum of 25 HD). Unlike polymorph, this spell allows incorporeal or gaseous forms to be assumed. You gain all extraordinary and supernatural abilities (both attacks and qualities) of the assumed form, but you lose your own supernatural abilities. You also gain the type of the new form in place of your own. The new form does not disorient you. Parts of your body or pieces of equipment that are separated from you do not revert to their original forms. You can become just about anything you are familiar with. You can change form once each round as a free action. The change takes place either immediately before your regular action or immediately after it, but not during the action. If you use this spell to create a disguise, you get a +10 bonus on your Disguise check. . . Angel, Solar Size/Type: Large Outsider (Angel, Extraplanar, Good) Hit Dice: 22d8+110 (209 hp) Initiative: +9 Speed: 50 ft. (10 squares), fly 150 ft. (good) Armor Class: 35 (-1 size, +5 Dex, +21 natural), touch 14, flat-footed 30 Base Attack/Grapple: +22/+35 Attack: +5 dancing greatsword +35 melee (3d6+18/19-20) or +2 composite longbow (+5 Str bonus) +28 ranged (2d6+7/×3 plus slaying) or slam +30 melee (2d8+13) Full Attack: +5 dancing greatsword +35/+30/+25/+20 melee (3d6+18/19-20) or +2 composite longbow (+5 Str bonus) +28/+23/+18/+13 ranged (2d6+7/×3 plus slaying) or slam +30 melee (2d8+13) Space/Reach: 10 ft./10 ft. Special Attacks: Spell-like abilities, spells Special Qualities: Change shape, damage reduction 15/epic and evil, darkvision 60 ft., low-light vision, immunity to acid, cold, and petrification, protective aura, regeneration 15, resistance to electricity 10 and fire 10, spell resistance 32, tongues Saves: Fort +18 (+22 against poison), Ref +18, Will +20 Abilities: Str 28, Dex 20, Con 20, Int 23, Wis 25, Cha 25 Skills: Concentration +30, Craft or Knowledge (any five) +33, Diplomacy +34, Escape Artist +30, Hide +26, Listen +32, Move Silently +30, Search +31, Sense Motive +32, Spellcraft +31, Spot +32, Survival +7 (+9 following tracks), Use Rope +5 (+7 with bindings) Feats: Cleave, Dodge, Great Cleave, Improved Initiative, Improved Sunder, Mobility, Power Attack, Track Environment: Any good-aligned plane Organization: Solitary or pair Challenge Rating: 23 Treasure: No coins; double goods; standard items Alignment: Always good (any) Advancement: 23-33 HD (Large); 34-66 HD (Huge) Level Adjustment: — . . . Spell-Like Abilities At will—aid, animate objects, commune, continual flame, dimensional anchor, greater dispel magic, holy smite (DC 21), imprisonment (DC 26), invisibility (self only), lesser restoration (DC 19), remove curse (DC 20), remove disease (DC 20), remove fear (DC 18), resist energy, summon monster VII, speak with dead (DC 20), waves of fatigue; 3/day—blade barrier (DC 23), earthquake (DC 25), heal (DC 23), mass charm monster (DC 25), permanency, resurrection, waves of exhaustion; 1/day—greater restoration (DC 24), power word blind, power word kill, power word stun, prismatic spray (DC 24), wish. Caster level 20th. The save DCs are Charisma-based. The following abilities are always active on a solar’s person, as the spells (caster level 20th) detect evil, detect snares and pits, discern lies (DC 21), see invisibility, true seeing. They can be dispelled, but the solar can reactivate them as a free action. Spells Solars can cast divine spells as 20th-level clerics. A solar has access to two of the following domains: Air, Destruction, Good, Law, or War (plus any others from its deity). The save DCs are Wisdom-based. . . Again, going to Rules As Written. You can think this is abusive all you want, but by the rules, it's allowed. In real life, it's about the same as a criminal walking on a technicality... But it happens all the time because systems aren't perfect. Some one said the majority's definition of archivist was that it can use ~all arcane spells because of exploitation of the rules, which might be correct if everyone were CharOp board people, but they arn't. The majority of people arn't going to see or argue that the Archivist can access all those spells because of pun-pun level rules use. 2 problems with that... 1) No body actually said that. And if they did, you are misreading intent. They meant that many of the useful arcane spells can be acquired legally and easily through domain spells... and it becomes even more easy for an archivist because he can access multiple domains with enough time and also divine spells from classes that get spells at lower levels than a cleric normally would. Example: Adept = 5th Lv Heal, rather than 6th lv. 1) I'm not a CO board person, and I can understand where JaronK is getting his ideas. I don't contribute to the CO board. I don't have the time or the inclination to research ways in which the rules allow for naughtiness. He's using regular prestige classes and alternate class features. Sure you don't have to allow them... and in most cases it's if divine bard is available or if you have access to favored soul alternate class features, but those are not necessary to make a very strong archivist that can take advantage of some improved spell synergies. That is the exact debate. Through a very liberal use of the rules, the Archivists get an absurd boost in power by having access to all arcane spells as divine spells using Warlock/divine class casting arcane spells with Scribe Scroll.The archivist gets scribe scroll at first level. If, in a metropolis, he hunts down a member of a divine casting class who will contribute a spell for item creation, or if such a spell exists in a library, or if he researches the spell as a wizard can... then it is his. No warlock needed. A warlock just makes it easier. And to borrow from JaronK, look at warlock. He can make the spell divine if he wants. It just entails making a higher skill check.
Cartigan 01-08-08, 03:55 PM	Spell-like abilities are separate from extraordinary and supernatural abilities. I don't know what spells count as, I'm going to have to look it up.
JaronK 01-08-08, 04:18 PM	“Most likely available” is not synonymous with “definitely available.” Even if there is a real, really, really, really good chance to find what you want, there is still a chance you won’t. Who determines if it is there or not? The gd DM does. Period. That’s not a house rule. It's merely reading what is actually written. But let's face it. If you go to two or three metropolises and they don't have any of the 50 scrolls you want, you're not going to buy "they're most likely available, but we just happen to be out today." Because you, as a DM, have changed "most likely available" into "most likely available, unless it would overpower the Archivist." Scrolls, after all, are not giant legendary items. If Archivists had to find a +3 Flaming Sword created by a crippled elf with a gland problem to get new spells, it would be understandable that the players couldn't just find one of those in a city... that would be a rare and special thing, which would probably have to be made by first questing about to find an appropriate elf. But when you're looking for any of a huge number of very strong scrolls, you're pretty much supposed to be able to find a good number of them in any metropolis, because each one is "most likely available" by RAW, and scrolls are not so weird and uncommon. Now, I too would house rule that "most likely available" bit away for non standard divine scrolls if I had to deal with an Archivist, and I'd tell the player ahead of time that I was going to do it for balance reasons. It's a good idea. Keeps the game balanaced. But it's an alteration of what the DMG says, so it's a house rule. That's, like JaronK's nonsense, founded on the ridiculous and unfounded interpretation that the DM’s power to decide if there is a divine scroll of Timestop is as much a house rule as giving rogues full arcane casting would be. Clearly, they are not the same. He was giving a more extreame example of what you were doing. Taking the rules as written in the DMG (or in his case the PHB, I guess) and changing them. Your rules would not follow the rule that any item under 100,000gp is "most likely available", since none of the huge number of powerful spell scrolls are going to be available in metropolises. It's like going to a city trying to find a car and suddenly finding that they just don't sell any decent cars in your city, despite the fact that you're rich beyond anyone's dreams (which PCs tend to be, compared to random NPCs). Consider the number of level 2 scrolls that an Archivist would want. Wraithstrike. Swift Haste. Alter Self. Glitterdust. If there was no Archivist in the party, and the party just wanted to buy any one of 4 level 2 scrolls, would you honestly say that none exist in a whole metropolis? Of course not. Level two scrolls are supposed to be, well, "most likely available" and you might roll some kind of rarity, but they'd find it. When an Archivist does it, however, and you outright say "nope, they're not here" you've changed something. You've moved away from the DMG rules for magic item availablity in a population center. You've changed a rule. Is it wrong that you've done so? No. It's smart. It's what many sane DMs would do, if they're not running a monty haul sort of game. But it's still a change from the initial rules, and while you'd do that in your game, you can't assume that's what's going on in everyone else's game. We discuss RAW on the boards, not your special campaign world, not your house rules. JaronK
larry_the_titan 01-08-08, 04:19 PM	Spell-like abilities are separate from extraordinary and supernatural abilities. I don't know what spells count as, I'm going to have to look it up. Yes Spell-Like abilities are. I don't remember the ruling on creatures that actually get spells though. Any body know where that was covered. Because at the moment the only place I can think to look is in the reaches of the Pun Pun thread itself.
Cartigan 01-08-08, 04:40 PM	Yes Spell-Like abilities are. I don't remember the ruling on creatures that actually get spells though. Any body know where that was covered. Because at the moment the only place I can think to look is in the reaches of the Pun Pun thread itself. Well they can't be Ex by default because they are obviously magical, that just leaves Su and Sp. I'm sure it has to be clarified somewhere. I would guess spell-like since Su abilities seem to be some sort of unique action or persistent effect that arn't spells.
JaronK 01-08-08, 04:44 PM	There is an assumption mentioned. If you want to stretch the mentioning of one assumption, about one rule, to the breaking point and claim that it means every thing is assumed, good luck with that. If you want to claim that “Anything under that limit is most likely available” means DMs are somehow obligated to include “every possible thing from every possible supplement without discretion” and that to not do so is a "house rule," fine. Strawman, again. What I said was that everything from every suppliment that you are currently using was available. I specifically talked about restrictions to specific book sets. I at no point said that it's a house rule not to use specific books. In fact, this Metropolis thing was to demonstrate how an Archivist in a core (+Heroes of Horror, obviously) game could get the spells he wants, since he'd lack a Warlock to help him out. My point was that if you are restricting everything to core rules, by RAW an Archivist could walk into a Metropolis and hunt around a while, and then find most of those tasty core domain spell scrolls that he wants (if each scroll is "most likely available" then he can probably find most of them in any given metropolis). That's what the DMG says about going shopping for magic items. I even gave a page number so you can look it up. If you change the DMG rules, you are making a house rule. So seriously, why did you create the strawman? Why did you attribute an arguement I never used to me (namely, that failing to let the archivist have every spell from every suppliment ever was a house rule)? Yes, it's easier to shoot down positions that you make, but it's getting really annoying and there's already one guy in this thread who's doing it... let's not all start! The problem here is that you call anything that is not in accordance with your wild interpretations of what is written and everything that doesn’t jive with the assumptions you make (and then attribute to the writers) a “house rule.” Which wild assumption? That the spells which already exist in your campaign should have scrolls that are "most likely available" in any metropolis? Are you claiming that is a wild assumption? Read the page I quoted if you doubt that. To be honest, I don’t think you should really get involved in conversations about the power of a class, or anything else, when you insist that only the legitimate forum for these discussions is on the lunatic fringe of game and not one that is grounded in any kind of real, actual game that actually get played, a game where DMs, and the game writers and designers for that matter, aren’t obligated to follow your distinctive assumptions. Then ignore me, if you so desire. With that said, I break systems for a living to fix them. Game design is one more such thing. You go in, you find how the rules are written, you find where those rules break. You figure out exactly how those rules break. And then you learn how to fix those rules. The problem most designers get into is the problem you're having right now. They look at a broken rule, and they automatically fix it in their head. They think "clearly, it must mean this, because that's not broken. If it meant anything else, it would be broken. Only a rules lawyering lunatic fringe type would think otherwise" and they happily move on. And then the game gets released, and sure enough people read that part and go "wow, you can do what?" And their game has a little break. And the problem in D&D is that in your games you may get players who just assume you're playing as the rule is written (and yeah, having the ability to just buy whatever magic item is quite strong. Some of the most overpowered items in the game are cheap core items, like Decanters of Endless Water or Candles of Summoning). And they base their character on using that rule, not because they want to break your game, but because they honestly think that's how the game should be played. And you didn't tell them that actually, you've got a house rule that any magic item that you think is strong isn't going to be found. And then 10 sessions in they go to town to finally get that thing that they've based their character concept around, and you say no, and they say darn. And they go to the next metropolis. And pretty soon they realize that you're not playing as the DMG says, and they get mad because their character is ruined, all because of you (and throw a little fit). Not fun. Do you realize why we do this? Why the Character Ops boards finds these little holes? Why the Theoretical Ops boards exists at all? Sometimes, it's to help someone make a character that does what they want. "I want to be a magical rogue, so I made a Rogue 4/Sorcerer 4." Except his character won't be fun, it won't be able to do what they expect it to do. So he's told "try a Beguiler 8." And sometimes, it's for fun. I was just involved in an awesome thread about making an exploding zombie chicken army. Heck, I know how to build a rocket ship within the rules of D&D that has full radiation shielding, atmospheric controls, unlimited fuel, and gets faster as it approaches reletivistic speeds, using only cheap magic items (that was a fun thread too!). But why do we discuss power and breakage? Why make the ubermount, a character that gets a 54 HD animal companion by level 20? Why make Shadowcraft Mage builds that can create new plains of existance in 6 seconds with no material costs? Because by finding these things, by finding the ways to break the game, we're making sure that any one of us who's DMing sees these things a mile off. If a player of mine says "I'm playing a gnome beguiler" my first question is "what PrCs are you heading for?" If a player of mine says "I want to use bloodlines" I can say "are you headed for Hellfire warlock or getting a mount?" And then instead of that horrible fight 10 sessions in when I realize what he's up to and now he's blaming me for ruining his character, or worse the realization 15 sessions in that I can't challenge his character because anything that could hurt him would annihilate the whole party, I can check right when he first comes to me with the idea and see where he's headed and deal with the consequences. And you know what? Every player in my current group has the same power level, and I know their entire planned builds from level 1-20 (despite the fact that they're level 2), and I can be absolutely sure that their power level due to classes is going to be close enough to each other to make the group work for all 20 levels. Because I know what their classes can do. And hey, when the designers want to check game balance, they go to the Char Ops boards. We just had one come through, asking the Char Ops boards for advice about erratas to make in the Complete Series (and a lot of people jumped in to help, myself included). It's a shame he didn't ask about heroes of horror, because the Dread Necromancer Fear Pulse needs an errata, but whatever. Anyway, the point is, yes, I know game balance. I know it quite well because I don't just fix the rule in my head as you've done. I take it, I push it to where it goes, and by breaking it in my head in every way possible I can come back and say "okay, here's how to prevent that." JaronK
JaronK 01-08-08, 04:47 PM	The majority is not arguing that the Archivist can cast 99% of arcane spells because of some pun-pun class rule use. You keep saying this, but you've never stated what a pun pun class rule is. You've also stated that Archivists gaining spells requires a pun pun (su) ability. For the last time, clarify what you mean. JaronK
JaronK 01-08-08, 04:52 PM	Well they can't be Ex by default because they are obviously magical, that just leaves Su and Sp. I'm sure it has to be clarified somewhere. I would guess spell-like since Su abilities seem to be some sort of unique action or persistent effect that arn't spells. They're natural abilities. They are not Supernatural, as per page 141 of the PHB supernatural abilities do not require concentration checks, do not provoke attacks of opportunity, and cannot be disrupted. They're not Spell Like, as per page 180 of the PHB. Spell like abilities never require verbal, somatic, or material components, as spells do. They're not extraordinary either, from the same page. They're Natural Abilities, also as per 180. Anything that is not one of the other 3 is a Natural Ability. They're also special attacks. JaronK
Malicea 01-08-08, 05:04 PM	I have only skimmed over the recent debate. It seems the availability of arcane spells is the issue. If that is the issue, under normal circumstances the archivist can not cast arcane spells, but if he can get another divine caster that can cast arcane spells such as a favored soul, or clerics with certain domains so scribe them as spells then he can use them. I don't think it was intended to work that way, but it is legal, however I would never allow them to cast an arcane spell unless it was specifically on a divine casters list. If I have sped read into the wrong conclusion then I aplogize. Why would you think it was not intended to work that way? The FAQ clarification clearly states that divine versions of arcane spells found as domain spells are 'esoteric', so much as to be exemplary of the type of spells an archivist might seek to learn. Regardless, it isn't going to be productive trying to guess at the intentions of the designers of the class. JaronK: Despite Cartigan being rather rude, he does have a point about the comparison between limiting wizard and archivist spell access. The wizard happens to be able to use his automatic spells learned to pick any spell on his list, while the archivist is not. Thus there is a difference in how you can 'nerf' each class. An archivist can be limited by any situation where there is limited availability of scrolls, denying him access to some powerful arcane spells. A wizard can still access these spells by automatically learning them. This is different from summarily banning say, Time Stop. In a low-magic (item) world for example, a wizard could still access Time Stop, but an archivist would have problems. In both cases of course, limiting scroll availability limits the flexibility of each class, which comes from having many spells available to pick from and prepare. However, the nerf to the ability of each class to 'cherry-pick' the best spells is quite different. The distinction between these two abilities should probably be noted. As was mentioned, cost is a serious consideration towards flexibility, but it is actually the cherry-picking of powerful spells from almost all available spells that is the archivist's strength. Thus the archivist is in this sense, more easily limited. It doesn't take a house rule (such as banning Time Stop), but can depend simply on the game world you play in, which can hardly be called a house rule. As an example, DMG or no, a divine scroll of Time Stop would be well-nigh impossible to find in any city in Eberron. A wizard need only hit level 17 :) In summary: Limited scroll access does not (effectively) remove spells from a wizard's spell list, but it does for the archivist.
JaronK 01-08-08, 05:13 PM	JaronK: Despite Cartigan being rather rude, he does have a point about the comparison between limiting wizard and archivist spell access. The wizard happens to be able to use his automatic spells learned to pick any spell on his list, while the archivist is not. Thus there is a difference in how you can 'nerf' each class. An archivist can be limited by any situation where there is limited availability of scrolls, denying him access to some powerful arcane spells. A wizard can still access these spells by automatically learning them. This is different from summarily banning say, Time Stop. In a low-magic (item) world for example, a wizard could still access Time Stop, but an archivist would have problems. In both cases of course, limiting scroll availability limits the flexibility of each class, which comes from having many spells available to pick from and prepare. However, the nerf to the ability of each class to 'cherry-pick' the best spells is quite different. The distinction between these two abilities should probably be noted. As was mentioned, cost is a serious consideration towards flexibility, but it is actually the cherry-picking of powerful spells from almost all available spells that is the archivist's strength. Thus the archivist is in this sense, more easily limited. It doesn't take a house rule (such as banning Time Stop), but can depend simply on the game world you play in, which can hardly be called a house rule. As an example, DMG or no, a divine scroll of Time Stop would be well-nigh impossible to find in any city in Eberron. A wizard need only hit level 17 :) In summary: Limited scroll access does not (effectively) remove spells from a wizard's spell list, but it does for the archivist. Well, right. So banning a spell from the Wizard spell list and simply making it impossible for an Archivist to find a (non-cleric) scroll has the same in game effect, namely removing a spell from the list of available spells. Which was what I said earlier. I'm not saying it's unreasonable to do so, mind you. I'm only saying that by RAW, an Archivist should be able to get those scrolls, either by purchasing them in a city or by finding a friendly Warlock (or making said Warlock friendly. Yay dominate person). You can chose to ignore the part in the DMG about those scrolls being "most likely available" thus fixing much of the problem (and smiting all Warlocks instantly. That helps too). And it's a good idea. But it's not what the DMG says. Fine. That said, I wasn't talking as much about spells like Time Stop. You're right, a 9th level divine version of a normally arcane spell might not be in town, and that's reasonable. I'm more thinking about all those low level goodies... there's a huge number of them that an Archivist would want, that should in theory be available. I'm talking spells like Explosive Runes and Polymorph and Swift Haste. Level 1-5 scrolls, which should be there. Which the writers of the Archivist class almost definitely assumed would be there. After all, Time Stop isn't a campaign smasher, but Fabricate, Explosive Runes, and Polymorph Other... now those can break campaigns... and they're level 5 and lower. Having none of those available when the DMG says they should be is, well, changing the rules in the DMG. Not saying it's wrong (heck, I take the polymorph line of spells out entirely in my games), just that it's not RAW. JaronK
LSMFT 01-08-08, 05:14 PM	But let's face it. If you go to two or three metropolises and they don't have any of the 50 scrolls you want, you're not going to buy "they're most likely available, but we just happen to be out today." Because you, as a DM, have changed "most likely available" into "most likely available, unless it would overpower the Archivist." Or I could have simply decided that scrolls with domain spells, Hextor spells, Shujjena spells, Blighter spells, etc. are, for some reason, far less common than say cleric spells. As such, they could very reasonably fall into the category of things that are less likely to be found. Scrolls, after all, are not giant legendary items. That doesn't mean that all scrolls of all spells must be easily available. At least we seem to finally agree that there is no written rule requiring them to be available. But it's an alteration of what the DMG says, so it's a house rule.Oh, christ. The damn rule doesn't define most likely. Clearly, what is actually written allows for a great deal of DM discretion. Any player who believes that every possible thing is automatically going to be available doesn’t need a warning; he needs a reality check. He was giving a more extreame example of what you were doing. Taking the rules as written in the DMG (or in his case the PHB, I guess) and changing them. No. That was not an example of the same thing I was doing. My whole point was that it is entirely different. You are arguing that the rules explicitly say that a player should be able to find any item he wants as long as he is in a large enough city. They don't. “Most likely available” means that some things might not be available. Period. Ascribe what ever motive you like as to why a DM might say some thing isn't available, but don't call it a house rule. If you want an example of a house rule, one saying that the DM is obligated to make any scroll available would be an example. "Most likely" does not mean "must be." Until it does, your "must be" interpretation is not a written rule. I wouldn’t be arguing about a stupid name (I mean really, who cares if it's legitimate DM discretion or a house rule?) except that your assertion of the godlike power of the archivist rests on your flawed interpretations of what is written and the consequent unrealistic assumptions about the availability of things. When people (me in this case) dare mention that maybe, perhaps, you might not automatically be able to find a particular scroll, you call it a deliberate nerf and a house rule, therefore an irrelevant issue. That’s crap. These aren’t house rules that you can dismiss as beside the point. Being able to find all these excellent spells is an issue. Then finding the time and resources to scribe them is another limitation. I’m comparing the archivist to the cleric or druid, who, though their spell-lists may be more limited, have access each day to far, far more spells than any realistic archivist. An archivist with unfettered access to every spell he desires and unlimited time and resources to scribe them is, hands down, the most versatile caster by such a wide margin that comparisons can’t help but fail. But there is no such archivist. So I see little point in devoting much discussion to his merely theoretical existence.
JaronK 01-08-08, 05:23 PM	Or I could have simply decided that scrolls with domain spells, Hextor spells, Shujjena spells, Blighter spells, etc. are, for some reason, far less common than say cleric spells. As such, they could very reasonably fall into the category of things that are less likely to be found. Less likely? But you're removing them entirely. That doesn't mean that all scrolls of all spells must be easily available. No, but scrolls in general should be "most likely available" so if you're looking for 50 of them you should be able to find at least a few. But you're saying "nope, none of the good ones are there." At least we seem to finally agree that there is no written rule requiring them to be available. Most likely available. That's the rule. Which means if I search for 50 and find none, the rule isn't being followed. Oh, christ. The damn rule doesn't define most likely. Clearly, what is actually written allows for a great deal of DM discretion. Any player who believes that every possible thing is automatically going to be available doesn’t need a warning; he needs a reality check. Did I say every possible one? No. Stop with the strawmen. I said if you look for 50, you should be able to find, well, more than 25 if each scroll is "most likely available." I'd say "most likely available" means it's going to be available more than half the time. Otherwise, it wouldn't be "most likely." It would be "possibly" or "every once in a while." If you seach for 50 and find none, that's a lot of stuff that's not available. No. That was not an example of the same thing I was doing. My whole point was that it is entirely different. You are arguing that the rules explicitly say that a player should be able to find any item he wants as long as he is in a large enough city. They don't. Wrong. I did not say that. I said if a player looks for 50 items in a city, all of which are supposed to be "most likely available" he ought to find a few. Debate me on the points I made, not the ones you made and attributed to me. When people (me in this case) dare mention that maybe, perhaps, you might not automatically be able to find a particular scroll, you call it a deliberate nerf and a house rule, therefore an irrelevant issue. Didn't say that, did I? Did I EVER say the word "automatically?" Did I ever say he can find them all? Nope. You just made that point, just now, so you could argue against it. You're arguing with yourself. When you'd like to debate me, please read my points and argue against those. JaronK
Malicea 01-08-08, 05:26 PM	Well, right. So banning a spell from the Wizard spell list and simply making it impossible for an Archivist to find a (non-cleric) scroll has the same in game effect, namely removing a spell from the list of available spells. Which was what I said earlier. JaronK I would have to say that no, it does not have quite the same in-game effect. If you banned the best say 10 spells of each spell level from the wizard list, and made scrolls of the 10 best non-cleric divine spells of each spell level unavailable, the wizard would clearly be a lot worse off than the archivist, who still has the entire cleric list to fall back on.
JaronK 01-08-08, 05:37 PM	I would have to say that no, it does not have quite the same in-game effect. If you banned the best say 10 spells of each spell level from the wizard list, and made scrolls of the 10 best non-cleric divine spells of each spell level unavailable, the wizard would clearly be a lot worse off than the archivist, who still has the entire cleric list to fall back on. Well yeah, you've banned the 10 best wizard spells, and then banned some of the best Archivist spells (but not the 10 best, assuming that some of the 10 best are on the Cleric list). Still, the general point is that removing a spell from the Wizard list is basically the same as making a divine spell scroll unavailable for an Archivist. In both cases, it takes a spell that's on their spell list and makes it unavailable. And yeah, Archivists have more total spells that they can cast, so there's probably some other spell that does something similar, but the concept is the same. *shrug* JaronK
JaronK 01-08-08, 05:43 PM	Another method of gaining those spells, from page 180 of the PHB is independent research. All divine casters can do it, and it references the Wizard section, which says they can create a new spell that duplicates the effects of another spell. So in theory, they can actually just sit down and say "hey, you know what would be awesome? Timestop." With that said, neither the PHB or the DMG give any rules for independent research, other than a few guidelines as to what sorts of spells should be possible to invent (so a DM would have to invent any necessary spellcraft checks or what have you). JaronK
Malicea 01-08-08, 05:46 PM	With regards to the discussion concerning the availability of scrolls in cities: It could be reasonably argued that the description of item availability in the DMG does not extend to scrolls, or any items in fact, from non-core sources. After all, that was written before the existence of non-core material. Of possible relevance also, is the fact that scrolls of domain spells (divine) are not found on the random treasure generator tables, thus implying a far greater rarity. This is true even of the MIC tables.
Malicea 01-08-08, 05:56 PM	Well yeah, you've banned the 10 best wizard spells, and then banned some of the best Archivist spells (but not the 10 best, assuming that some of the 10 best are on the Cleric list). Still, the general point is that removing a spell from the Wizard list is basically the same as making a divine spell scroll unavailable for an Archivist. In both cases, it takes a spell that's on their spell list and makes it unavailable. And yeah, Archivists have more total spells that they can cast, so there's probably some other spell that does something similar, but the concept is the same. *shrug* JaronK I mentioned this point specifically because there seems to be some implication that it is 'wrong' to make scrolls unavailable to archivists, because doing so is as crippling (or limiting, unfair?) as banning a wizard spell. At least, that is what I gathered from your making that statement. Your pardon if I am mistaken about your intention there, but I can't see any other reason for trying to make them comparable. EDIT: Keep in mind I agree with most of the rest of your points. I'm in no doubt that the archivist is one of the top 5. I merely saw an actual arguable point in Cartigan's posts and thought it needed/deserved elaboration ;)
JaronK 01-08-08, 06:07 PM	I mentioned this point specifically because there seems to be some implication that it is 'wrong' to make scrolls unavailable to archivists, because doing so is as crippling (or limiting, unfair?) as banning a wizard spell. At least, that is what I gathered from your making that statement. Your pardon if I am mistaken about your intention there, but I can't see any other reason for trying to make them comparable. EDIT: Keep in mind I agree with most of the rest of your points. I'm in no doubt that the archivist is one of the top 5. I merely saw an actual arguable point in Cartigan's posts ;) Actually, I never said it was wrong. In fact, I suggested it. I even suggested the very thing you said in the post before, that it might be wise to limit scrolls found in town to those found in the DMG. I further suggested making a house rule that Warlock scrolls do not work in Prayerbooks. I was, however, maintaining that RAW says otherwise. By RAW, you can reasonably expect to find most magic items that are well under the price limits of various sized settlements. Doing otherwise means the DM is changing the game. This is not wrong... in fact at numerous points I said this would be a very good idea. It is, however, not how the books are written, and thus should not be assumed in any discussion of the Archivist's power levels. By RAW, if an Archivist walks into a Metropolis sized city and searches for a large number of scrolls, he ought to be able to find a few of them (and then be able to do the same thing in other large cities). So yes, by RAW an Archivist can do all that stuff, but a wise DM would do well to nerf them in this respect, to preserve the balance of the game. JaronK
deathbane 01-08-08, 06:14 PM	Why would you think it was not intended to work that way? The FAQ clarification clearly states that divine versions of arcane spells found as domain spells are 'esoteric', so much as to be exemplary of the type of spells an archivist might seek to learn. Regardless, it isn't going to be productive trying to guess at the intentions of the designers of the class. JaronK: Despite Cartigan being rather rude, he does have a point about the comparison between limiting wizard and archivist spell access. The wizard happens to be able to use his automatic spells learned to pick any spell on his list, while the archivist is not. Thus there is a difference in how you can 'nerf' each class. An archivist can be limited by any situation where there is limited availability of scrolls, denying him access to some powerful arcane spells. A wizard can still access these spells by automatically learning them. This is different from summarily banning say, Time Stop. In a low-magic (item) world for example, a wizard could still access Time Stop, but an archivist would have problems. In both cases of course, limiting scroll availability limits the flexibility of each class, which comes from having many spells available to pick from and prepare. However, the nerf to the ability of each class to 'cherry-pick' the best spells is quite different. The distinction between these two abilities should probably be noted. As was mentioned, cost is a serious consideration towards flexibility, but it is actually the cherry-picking of powerful spells from almost all available spells that is the archivist's strength. Thus the archivist is in this sense, more easily limited. It doesn't take a house rule (such as banning Time Stop), but can depend simply on the game world you play in, which can hardly be called a house rule. As an example, DMG or no, a divine scroll of Time Stop would be well-nigh impossible to find in any city in Eberron. A wizard need only hit level 17 :) In summary: Limited scroll access does not (effectively) remove spells from a wizard's spell list, but it does for the archivist. If they intended for the class to have access to divine, and arcane spells they would have just made it stated it in the HoH instead of people having to discover it. The class is specifically focused on divine spell because that is how it was intended to be played. It does not take .00001 seconds of playtesting to know that a caster than can cast arcane and divine spells(at full progression) can break a campaign. The only other classes that can do this are PrC's. WoTC has a habit of not playtesting their ideas to well. I think it is an issue of this is your deadline make a book, and the writers check the block. It took me about less than one minute to break the splitting ability for ranged weapons. Even without greater many shot, all you need is skirmish and poison. Someone is bound to fail a save(but that is another story for another time).
JaronK 01-08-08, 06:16 PM	If they intended for the class to have access to divine, and arcane spells they would have just made it stated it in the HoH instead of people having to discover it. The class is specifically focused on divine spell because that is how it was intended to be played. It does not take .00001 seconds of playtesting to know that a caster than can cast arcane and divine spells(at full progression) can break a campaign. The only other classes that can do this are PrC's. WoTC has a habit of not playtesting their ideas to well. I think it is an issue of this is your deadline make a book, and the writers check the block. It took me about less than one minute to break the splitting ability for ranged weapons. Even without greater many shot, all you need is skirmish and poison. Someone is bound to fail a save(but that is another story for another time). You're going to have to explain away the specific statement that Archivists get access to domain spells because they should be looking for esoteric spells, and domain spells are just that. That's a very clear and straightforward statement of intent... that Archivists really should be looking for the wacky hidden spells. JaronK
Malicea 01-08-08, 06:43 PM	If they intended for the class to have access to divine, and arcane spells they would have just made it stated it in the HoH instead of people having to discover it. The class is specifically focused on divine spell because that is how it was intended to be played. It does not take .00001 seconds of playtesting to know that a caster than can cast arcane and divine spells(at full progression) can break a campaign. The only other classes that can do this are PrC's. WoTC has a habit of not playtesting their ideas to well. I think it is an issue of this is your deadline make a book, and the writers check the block. It took me about less than one minute to break the splitting ability for ranged weapons. Even without greater many shot, all you need is skirmish and poison. Someone is bound to fail a save(but that is another story for another time). By 'discover it' I assume you mean searching through the various splatbooks to find sources of arcane spells in divine form? I find it rather spurious to speculate that the class was 'intended' to be played with all divine spells that aren't from domains and PrCs. If anything, I would lean more towards: 'the class was meant to have the potential of great power through the diligent location of hard-to-find spells. The fluff certainly supports it, even moreso than the wizard's. I have taken an RAI detour here, but just in response to an RAI post :) Certainly it is a potentially broken class. A spellbook based full-caster with a spell list of 'all divine spells' is asking for it. Imagine a similarly designed wizard, that had the spell list 'all arcane spells' and the Arcane Disciple madness that would go along with that. Perhaps it should have been worded: all Cleric, Druid, Ranger and Paladin spells, but it was not, and hence it is one of the top 5. That's the entire point of this thread: to show why it really is potentially a very powerful class.
deathbane 01-08-08, 06:44 PM	You're going to have to explain away the specific statement that Archivists get access to domain spells because they should be looking for esoteric spells, and domain spells are just that. That's a very clear and straightforward statement of intent... that Archivists really should be looking for the wacky hidden spells. JaronK I am assuming you want to know why I don't think archivist should be getting arcane spells. That domain statement was in the FAQ. The only thing I take as official are the books and errata. The FAQ provides good supporting arguments, and has gotten me to change my perception of things, but it does not make a rule or add to anything that is in the books. That FAQ is an interpretation of intent. It does not make rules, and the opinion on things has changed in it several times(which is why I don't give it the authority some others do). Whether their opinion changes or not it does not change original intent, so until errata comes out the RAW says they can get pretty much any arcane by various methods. Example: In other words if my brother says something(you have no direct communication) I can probably tell you what he meant because I know him so well, but there is always the chance my interpretation is wrong, so unless you get an answer from him my answers which would be right about 95% of the time are probably good enough for most people. Another thing is even if domain spells are intended to be used as divine spells, despite not being on the cleric list that does not main all the other arcane spells are intended even though it is possible due to the favored soul, bard, and possibly other classes.
JaronK 01-08-08, 06:53 PM	I am assuming you want to know why I don't think archivist should be getting arcane spells. That domain statement was in the FAQ. The only thing I take as official are the books and errata. The FAQ provides good supporting arguments, and has gotten me to change my perception of things, but it does not make a rule or add to anything that is in the books. That FAQ is an interpretation of intent. It does not make rules, and the opinion on things has changed in it several times(which is why I don't give it the authority some others do). Whether their opinion changes or not it does not change original intent, so until errata comes out the RAW says they can get pretty much any arcane by various methods. Example: In other words if my brother says something(you have no direct communication) I can probably tell you what he meant because I know him so well, but there is always the chance my interpretation is wrong, so unless you get an answer from him my answers which would be right about 95% of the time are probably good enough for most people. Another thing is even if domain spells are intended to be used as divine spells, despite not being on the cleric list that does not main all the other arcane spells are intended even though it is possible due to the favored soul, bard, and possibly other classes. You said it yourself: The FAQ shows intent. RAW gives us the rule. So RAI and RAW are in agreement here: Archivists should get lots of spells, including the hard to find ones, the ones you have to get from weird places like the magic varient Cleric or the Divine Bard. That said, even though I think the intent was that they get weird and wacky ones, I don't for a second believe the designers realized quite how many spells that would open up. Saying "All Divine Spells" was just asking for it. Bad idea. As bad as the Artificer's "I can make a wand of anything and use it endless times per day!" nonsense. Anyone who has access to that many 9th level spells is going to be broken, there's just no way around it. And when you add in all the places Archivists can get spells even lower than normal (Heal is Adept 5, for example), plus the fact that Archivists actually have more spells per day than Wizards... it just get nuts. JaronK
deathbane 01-08-08, 06:57 PM	You said it yourself: The FAQ shows intent. RAW gives us the rule. So RAI and RAW are in agreement here: Archivists should get lots of spells, including the hard to find ones, the ones you have to get from weird places like the magic varient Cleric or the Divine Bard. That said, even though I think the intent was that they get weird and wacky ones, I don't for a second believe the designers realized quite how many spells that would open up. Saying "All Divine Spells" was just asking for it. Bad idea. As bad as the Artificer's "I can make a wand of anything and use it endless times per day!" nonsense. Anyone who has access to that many 9th level spells is going to be broken, there's just no way around it. And when you add in all the places Archivists can get spells even lower than normal (Heal is Adept 5, for example), plus the fact that Archivists actually have more spells per day than Wizards... it just get nuts. JaronK I did not say it shows intent. I said it shows interpretation of intent, and interpretations can be wrong. Do you mean the NPC adept? They have to be at least 16th level to cast heal, and since so he would most likely have to be a 15 level PC to find one, and Heal could be gotten by a 13th level cleric 2 levels prior.
Malicea 01-08-08, 07:02 PM	I am assuming you want to know why I don't think archivist should be getting arcane spells. That domain statement was in the FAQ. The only thing I take as official are the books and errata. The FAQ provides good supporting arguments, and has gotten me to change my perception of things, but it does not make a rule or add to anything that is in the books. That FAQ is an interpretation of intent. It does not make rules, and the opinion on things has changed in it several times(which is why I don't give it the authority some others do). Whether their opinion changes or not it does not change original intent, so until errata comes out the RAW says they can get pretty much any arcane by various methods. Example: In other words if my brother says something(you have no direct communication) I can probably tell you what he meant because I know him so well, but there is always the chance my interpretation is wrong, so unless you get an answer from him my answers which would be right about 95% of the time are probably good enough for most people. Another thing is even if domain spells are intended to be used as divine spells, despite not being on the cleric list that does not main all the other arcane spells are intended even though it is possible due to the favored soul, bard, and possibly other classes. As far as I could tell, you're talking about the intent behind the class as opposed to the RAW. Well, casting most arcane spells is certainly in the RAW for archivists, whether or not the scrolls are hard to locate. The point made about the FAQ (both mine and JaronK's) addresses the intent, hence it's not necessary to state that the FAQ is not RAW. As far as intent goes, you're well within your rights to 'decide' on what that intent was for your own games :) Like I already said however, it isn't going to be very productive to discuss intent here; certainly not to force your opinion of intent down others' throats.
Cartigan 01-08-08, 07:03 PM	I would have to say that no, it does not have quite the same in-game effect. If you banned the best say 10 spells of each spell level from the wizard list, and made scrolls of the 10 best non-cleric divine spells of each spell level unavailable, the wizard would clearly be a lot worse off than the archivist, who still has the entire cleric list to fall back on. That is the reason I stopped arguing with him. He keeps falling back on the false analogy of "if you don't allow the Archivist access to all spells it potentially has access to [ie, all arcane spells as divine spells], then that is like preventing the Wizard from using spells on the Wizard's list" which is patently wrong.
deathbane 01-08-08, 07:11 PM	As far as I could tell, you're talking about the intent behind the class as opposed to the RAW. Well, casting most arcane spells is certainly in the RAW for archivists, whether or not the scrolls are hard to locate. The point made about the FAQ (both mine and JaronK's) addresses the intent, hence it's not necessary to state that the FAQ is not RAW. As far as intent goes, you're well within your rights to 'decide' on what that intent was for your own games :) Like I already said however, it isn't going to be very productive to discuss intent here; certainly not to force your opinion of intent down others' throats. The intent is in the fact that the designers wrote the class as a class that studies divine spells. The fluff, while not rules normally gives insight into intent. The RAW says if I can find a divine caster who can give me arcane spells then I can have my everything. I am not trying to force my view down anyone's throats. I have already said it was legal by raw, and I said for my games I would not allow them to cast spells that were not specifically on a divine casters class list. Then someone asked me to explain so I did. On another note, does this mean miracle and wish can be used for similar means?
archerpwr 01-08-08, 07:24 PM	Okay, the full list (ignoring anything voted for only once): Cnt. Avg. SD Med. Mode Min/Max Spread archivist 38 9.63 0.62 10.00 10.00 7/10 3 ardent 12 7.07 1.31 7.00 6.00 5/9 4 artificer 37 9.39 0.76 10.00 10.00 8/10 2 barbarian 39 4.99 1.16 5.00 5.00 2/8 6 bard 38 5.45 1.52 6.00 6.00 1/8 7 beguiler 34 7.79 0.73 8.00 8.00 6/9 3 binder 28 5.96 1.37 6.00 6.00 3/8 5 cleric 42 9.16 0.76 9.00 9.00 7/10 3 crusader 37 6.62 1.12 7.00 7.00 4/8 4 divine mind 11 3.67 2.30 3.00 3.00 1/8 7 dragon shaman 26 4.61 1.44 5.00 5.00 2/7 5 dragonfire adept 23 6.29 0.92 6.00 7.00 4/8 4 dread necromancer 30 7.10 1.16 7.00 7.00 3/10 7 druid 41 9.38 0.65 9.50 10.00 8/10 2 duskblade 34 6.09 0.87 6.00 6.00 4/8 4 erudite 11 8.15 1.35 9.00 9.00 5/9.5 4.5 factotum 31 5.98 1.02 6.00 6.00 4/8 4 favored soul 30 7.23 1.03 7.00 8.00 5/9 4 fighter 41 3.88 1.41 4.00 4.00 1/8 7 healer 29 3.21 2.06 3.00 2.00 1/9 8 hexblade 36 3.81 1.33 3.50 3.00 2/7 5 incarnate 11 4.94 1.14 5.00 4.00 3/7 4 knight 37 4.27 1.03 4.00 4.00 3/6 3 lurk 11 4.79 1.64 4.00 4.00 2/8 6 marshal 29 3.66 1.17 4.00 3.00 2/6 4 monk 41 3.51 1.38 3.00 3.00 2/8 6 ninja 33 3.97 1.29 4.00 4.00 2/8 6 paladin 40 4.22 1.15 4.00 5.00 1/6 5 psion 32 8.35 0.73 8.00 8.00 7/10 3 psychic warrior 32 6.02 1.18 6.00 6.00 3/8 5 ranger 39 4.94 1.07 5.00 5.00 2/7 5 rogue 39 5.62 1.27 5.00 5.00 3/8 5 samurai 37 1.69 0.66 2.00 2.00 1/3 2 scout 36 5.27 1.03 5.00 6.00 3/7 4 shadowcaster 22 5.03 1.79 5.13 4.00 2/8 6 shugenja 19 6.44 1.26 7.00 7.00 4/8 4 sorcerer 39 8.20 1.01 8.00 8.00 4/10 6 soulborn 11 4.15 1.15 4.00 4.00 3/7 4 soulknife 25 2.35 1.22 2.00 2.00 0/5 5 spellthief 29 3.16 1.20 3.00 4.00 1/6 5 spirit shaman 21 7.29 1.95 7.00 9.00 3/10 7 swashbuckler 37 4.24 1.36 4.00 5.00 1/7 6 swordsage 34 6.55 0.89 6.82 6.00 5/8 3 totemist 14 5.64 1.28 5.50 5.00 3/7 4 truenamer 18 2.66 1.68 2.93 3.00 0/6 6 warblade 35 6.88 0.90 7.00 7.00 4/8 4 warlock 38 6.00 0.90 6.00 6.00 4/8 4 warmage 37 5.41 1.62 6.00 7.00 1/9 8 wilder 16 6.46 1.76 7.00 7.00 3/10 7 wizard 42 9.67 0.45 10.00 10.00 9/10 1 wu jen 20 7.58 0.94 8.00 8.00 5/9 4 adept 5 3.60 1.52 3.00 3.00 2/6 4 aristocrat 5 1.40 0.55 1.00 1.00 1/2 1 commoner 5 0.60 0.55 1.00 1.00 0/1 1 expert 5 2.40 0.55 2.00 2.00 2/3 1 warrior 6 1.67 0.82 1.50 1.00 1/3 2 Now... sorted! The average (because everyone loves an average guy): Cnt. Avg. SD Med. Mode Min/Max Spread wizard 42 9.67 0.45 10.00 10.00 9/10 1 archivist 38 9.63 0.62 10.00 10.00 7/10 3 artificer 37 9.39 0.76 10.00 10.00 8/10 2 druid 41 9.38 0.65 9.50 10.00 8/10 2 cleric 42 9.16 0.76 9.00 9.00 7/10 3 psion 32 8.35 0.73 8.00 8.00 7/10 3 sorcerer 39 8.20 1.01 8.00 8.00 4/10 6 erudite 11 8.15 1.35 9.00 9.00 5/9.5 4.5 beguiler 34 7.79 0.73 8.00 8.00 6/9 3 wu jen 20 7.58 0.94 8.00 8.00 5/9 4 spirit shaman 21 7.29 1.95 7.00 9.00 3/10 7 favored soul 30 7.23 1.03 7.00 8.00 5/9 4 dread necromancer 30 7.10 1.16 7.00 7.00 3/10 7 ardent 12 7.07 1.31 7.00 6.00 5/9 4 warblade 35 6.88 0.90 7.00 7.00 4/8 4 crusader 37 6.62 1.12 7.00 7.00 4/8 4 swordsage 34 6.55 0.89 6.82 6.00 5/8 3 wilder 16 6.46 1.76 7.00 7.00 3/10 7 shugenja 19 6.44 1.26 7.00 7.00 4/8 4 dragonfire adept 23 6.29 0.92 6.00 7.00 4/8 4 duskblade 34 6.09 0.87 6.00 6.00 4/8 4 psychic warrior 32 6.02 1.18 6.00 6.00 3/8 5 warlock 38 6.00 0.90 6.00 6.00 4/8 4 factotum 31 5.98 1.02 6.00 6.00 4/8 4 binder 28 5.96 1.37 6.00 6.00 3/8 5 totemist 14 5.64 1.28 5.50 5.00 3/7 4 rogue 39 5.62 1.27 5.00 5.00 3/8 5 bard 38 5.45 1.52 6.00 6.00 1/8 7 warmage 37 5.41 1.62 6.00 7.00 1/9 8 scout 36 5.27 1.03 5.00 6.00 3/7 4 shadowcaster 22 5.03 1.79 5.13 4.00 2/8 6 barbarian 39 4.99 1.16 5.00 5.00 2/8 6 ranger 39 4.94 1.07 5.00 5.00 2/7 5 incarnate 11 4.94 1.14 5.00 4.00 3/7 4 lurk 11 4.79 1.64 4.00 4.00 2/8 6 dragon shaman 26 4.61 1.44 5.00 5.00 2/7 5 knight 37 4.27 1.03 4.00 4.00 3/6 3 swashbuckler 37 4.24 1.36 4.00 5.00 1/7 6 paladin 40 4.22 1.15 4.00 5.00 1/6 5 soulborn 11 4.15 1.15 4.00 4.00 3/7 4 ninja 33 3.97 1.29 4.00 4.00 2/8 6 fighter 41 3.88 1.41 4.00 4.00 1/8 7 hexblade 36 3.81 1.33 3.50 3.00 2/7 5 divine mind 11 3.67 2.30 3.00 3.00 1/8 7 marshal 29 3.66 1.17 4.00 3.00 2/6 4 adept 5 3.60 1.52 3.00 3.00 2/6 4 monk 41 3.51 1.38 3.00 3.00 2/8 6 healer 29 3.21 2.06 3.00 2.00 1/9 8 spellthief 29 3.16 1.20 3.00 4.00 1/6 5 truenamer 18 2.66 1.68 2.93 3.00 0/6 6 expert 5 2.40 0.55 2.00 2.00 2/3 1 soulknife 25 2.35 1.22 2.00 2.00 0/5 5 samurai 37 1.69 0.66 2.00 2.00 1/3 2 warrior 6 1.67 0.82 1.50 1.00 1/3 2 aristocrat 5 1.40 0.55 1.00 1.00 1/2 1 commoner 5 0.60 0.55 1.00 1.00 0/1 1 The median and the mode seem to be tracking the average pretty well, suggesting there's not much point in removing the outliers (like the vote for healer as a 9). Okay, the "We're all in agreement" award goes to (i.e., sorted by Standard Deviation): Cnt. Avg. SD Med. Mode Min/Max Spread wizard 42 9.67 0.45 10.00 10.00 9/10 1 expert 5 2.40 0.55 2.00 2.00 2/3 1 aristocrat 5 1.40 0.55 1.00 1.00 1/2 1 commoner 5 0.60 0.55 1.00 1.00 0/1 1 archivist 38 9.63 0.62 10.00 10.00 7/10 3 druid 41 9.38 0.65 9.50 10.00 8/10 2 samurai 37 1.69 0.66 2.00 2.00 1/3 2 beguiler 34 7.79 0.73 8.00 8.00 6/9 3 psion 32 8.35 0.73 8.00 8.00 7/10 3 artificer 37 9.39 0.76 10.00 10.00 8/10 2 cleric 42 9.16 0.76 9.00 9.00 7/10 3 warrior 6 1.67 0.82 1.50 1.00 1/3 2 duskblade 34 6.09 0.87 6.00 6.00 4/8 4 swordsage 34 6.55 0.89 6.82 6.00 5/8 3 warblade 35 6.88 0.90 7.00 7.00 4/8 4 warlock 38 6.00 0.90 6.00 6.00 4/8 4 dragonfire adept 23 6.29 0.92 6.00 7.00 4/8 4 wu jen 20 7.58 0.94 8.00 8.00 5/9 4 sorcerer 39 8.20 1.01 8.00 8.00 4/10 6 factotum 31 5.98 1.02 6.00 6.00 4/8 4 knight 37 4.27 1.03 4.00 4.00 3/6 3 scout 36 5.27 1.03 5.00 6.00 3/7 4 favored soul 30 7.23 1.03 7.00 8.00 5/9 4 ranger 39 4.94 1.07 5.00 5.00 2/7 5 crusader 37 6.62 1.12 7.00 7.00 4/8 4 incarnate 11 4.94 1.14 5.00 4.00 3/7 4 paladin 40 4.22 1.15 4.00 5.00 1/6 5 soulborn 11 4.15 1.15 4.00 4.00 3/7 4 dread necromancer 30 7.10 1.16 7.00 7.00 3/10 7 barbarian 39 4.99 1.16 5.00 5.00 2/8 6 marshal 29 3.66 1.17 4.00 3.00 2/6 4 psychic warrior 32 6.02 1.18 6.00 6.00 3/8 5 spellthief 29 3.16 1.20 3.00 4.00 1/6 5 soulknife 25 2.35 1.22 2.00 2.00 0/5 5 shugenja 19 6.44 1.26 7.00 7.00 4/8 4 rogue 39 5.62 1.27 5.00 5.00 3/8 5 totemist 14 5.64 1.28 5.50 5.00 3/7 4 ninja 33 3.97 1.29 4.00 4.00 2/8 6 ardent 12 7.07 1.31 7.00 6.00 5/9 4 hexblade 36 3.81 1.33 3.50 3.00 2/7 5 erudite 11 8.15 1.35 9.00 9.00 5/9.5 4.5 swashbuckler 37 4.24 1.36 4.00 5.00 1/7 6 binder 28 5.96 1.37 6.00 6.00 3/8 5 monk 41 3.51 1.38 3.00 3.00 2/8 6 fighter 41 3.88 1.41 4.00 4.00 1/8 7 dragon shaman 26 4.61 1.44 5.00 5.00 2/7 5 adept 5 3.60 1.52 3.00 3.00 2/6 4 bard 38 5.45 1.52 6.00 6.00 1/8 7 warmage 37 5.41 1.62 6.00 7.00 1/9 8 lurk 11 4.79 1.64 4.00 4.00 2/8 6 truenamer 18 2.66 1.68 2.93 3.00 0/6 6 wilder 16 6.46 1.76 7.00 7.00 3/10 7 shadowcaster 22 5.03 1.79 5.13 4.00 2/8 6 spirit shaman 21 7.29 1.95 7.00 9.00 3/10 7 healer 29 3.21 2.06 3.00 2.00 1/9 8 divine mind 11 3.67 2.30 3.00 3.00 1/8 7 And, finally, by number of votes: Cnt. Avg. SD Med. Mode Min/Max Spread wizard 42 9.67 0.45 10.00 10.00 9/10 1 cleric 42 9.16 0.76 9.00 9.00 7/10 3 druid 41 9.38 0.65 9.50 10.00 8/10 2 monk 41 3.51 1.38 3.00 3.00 2/8 6 fighter 41 3.88 1.41 4.00 4.00 1/8 7 paladin 40 4.22 1.15 4.00 5.00 1/6 5 sorcerer 39 8.20 1.01 8.00 8.00 4/10 6 ranger 39 4.94 1.07 5.00 5.00 2/7 5 barbarian 39 4.99 1.16 5.00 5.00 2/8 6 rogue 39 5.62 1.27 5.00 5.00 3/8 5 archivist 38 9.63 0.62 10.00 10.00 7/10 3 warlock 38 6.00 0.90 6.00 6.00 4/8 4 bard 38 5.45 1.52 6.00 6.00 1/8 7 samurai 37 1.69 0.66 2.00 2.00 1/3 2 artificer 37 9.39 0.76 10.00 10.00 8/10 2 knight 37 4.27 1.03 4.00 4.00 3/6 3 crusader 37 6.62 1.12 7.00 7.00 4/8 4 swashbuckler 37 4.24 1.36 4.00 5.00 1/7 6 warmage 37 5.41 1.62 6.00 7.00 1/9 8 scout 36 5.27 1.03 5.00 6.00 3/7 4 hexblade 36 3.81 1.33 3.50 3.00 2/7 5 warblade 35 6.88 0.90 7.00 7.00 4/8 4 beguiler 34 7.79 0.73 8.00 8.00 6/9 3 duskblade 34 6.09 0.87 6.00 6.00 4/8 4 swordsage 34 6.55 0.89 6.82 6.00 5/8 3 ninja 33 3.97 1.29 4.00 4.00 2/8 6 psion 32 8.35 0.73 8.00 8.00 7/10 3 psychic warrior 32 6.02 1.18 6.00 6.00 3/8 5 factotum 31 5.98 1.02 6.00 6.00 4/8 4 favored soul 30 7.23 1.03 7.00 8.00 5/9 4 dread necromancer 30 7.10 1.16 7.00 7.00 3/10 7 marshal 29 3.66 1.17 4.00 3.00 2/6 4 spellthief 29 3.16 1.20 3.00 4.00 1/6 5 healer 29 3.21 2.06 3.00 2.00 1/9 8 binder 28 5.96 1.37 6.00 6.00 3/8 5 dragon shaman 26 4.61 1.44 5.00 5.00 2/7 5 soulknife 25 2.35 1.22 2.00 2.00 0/5 5 dragonfire adept 23 6.29 0.92 6.00 7.00 4/8 4 shadowcaster 22 5.03 1.79 5.13 4.00 2/8 6 spirit shaman 21 7.29 1.95 7.00 9.00 3/10 7 wu jen 20 7.58 0.94 8.00 8.00 5/9 4 shugenja 19 6.44 1.26 7.00 7.00 4/8 4 truenamer 18 2.66 1.68 2.93 3.00 0/6 6 wilder 16 6.46 1.76 7.00 7.00 3/10 7 totemist 14 5.64 1.28 5.50 5.00 3/7 4 ardent 12 7.07 1.31 7.00 6.00 5/9 4 incarnate 11 4.94 1.14 5.00 4.00 3/7 4 soulborn 11 4.15 1.15 4.00 4.00 3/7 4 erudite 11 8.15 1.35 9.00 9.00 5/9.5 4.5 lurk 11 4.79 1.64 4.00 4.00 2/8 6 divine mind 11 3.67 2.30 3.00 3.00 1/8 7 warrior 6 1.67 0.82 1.50 1.00 1/3 2 expert 5 2.40 0.55 2.00 2.00 2/3 1 aristocrat 5 1.40 0.55 1.00 1.00 1/2 1 commoner 5 0.60 0.55 1.00 1.00 0/1 1 adept 5 3.60 1.52 3.00 3.00 2/6 4 So, clearly, the wizard wins, with top scores in most votes, most consistent, and most game-breaking! YAY! Just a poll, but it's one of the big five.
JaronK 01-08-08, 08:11 PM	I did not say it shows intent. I said it shows interpretation of intent, and interpretations can be wrong. Do you mean the NPC adept? They have to be at least 16th level to cast heal, and since so he would most likely have to be a 15 level PC to find one, and Heal could be gotten by a 13th level cleric 2 levels prior. Yes, I meant the NPC Adept. And you're right... if you're an Adept, you have to wait longer than normal to cast Heal. But if you're an Archivist who grabs Heal off the Adept list, you can cast Heal at level 9, well ahead of a Cleric. Nifty. JaronK
JaronK 01-08-08, 08:14 PM	That is the reason I stopped arguing with him. He keeps falling back on the false analogy of "if you don't allow the Archivist access to all spells it potentially has access to [ie, all arcane spells as divine spells], then that is like preventing the Wizard from using spells on the Wizard's list" which is patently wrong. False? If you don't allow the Archivist all spells it has access to, that is like preventing a Wizard from using all spells it has access to. Show how it is patently wrong that it is "like." Show how that is dissimilar. Meanwhile, you can also back up your previous false statements: That a Pun Pun (su) ability is used to gain Archivist spells. Also, you made another strawman. You once again claimed " all arcane spells as divine spells." Are you even trying? JaronK
deathbane 01-08-08, 08:20 PM	Yes, I meant the NPC Adept. And you're right... if you're an Adept, you have to wait longer than normal to cast Heal. But if you're an Archivist who grabs Heal off the Adept list, you can cast Heal at level 9, well ahead of a Cleric. Nifty. JaronK I never realized the adept had spells that good(nice point). I was about to argue against it(rules wise), but I remembered the dread necromancer does the same thing with the necromancy spell list. I guess I will have to knock the adept's spell list out of the equation.
JaronK 01-08-08, 08:20 PM	The intent is in the fact that the designers wrote the class as a class that studies divine spells. The fluff, while not rules normally gives insight into intent. The RAW says if I can find a divine caster who can give me arcane spells then I can have my everything. I am not trying to force my view down anyone's throats. I have already said it was legal by raw, and I said for my games I would not allow them to cast spells that were not specifically on a divine casters class list. Then someone asked me to explain so I did. On another note, does this mean miracle and wish can be used for similar means? Wish won't work, as it just casts the spell, it doesn't make it divine. You could, however, wish for a scroll of X, where X is that tasty divine spell you've always wanted. Or did you mean that Miracle and Wish can be on the spell list? Miracle is Cleric 9, Wish is on a domain list too (though I'm blanking as to where). You can also cast many arcane spells (even ones that aren't divine anywhere) using Anyspell and Greater Anyspell, off the Spell domain, but you need to have domain slots to do it (Holt Warden will give you this). That works up to 5th level. JaronK
JaronK 01-08-08, 08:27 PM	I never realized the adept had spells that good(nice point). I was about to argue against it(rules wise), but I remembered the dread necromancer does the same thing with the necromancy spell list. I guess I will have to knock the adept's spell list out of the equation. Many of the slower casters (Paladin, Adept, Ranger, the various BoED classes) get spells at lower levels than normal. This is balanced for them, as they get those spell levels later than normal, so it evens out. But Archivists get those spell levels at full speed, and then can grab the spells off their list. Some of the best Archivist spells come off those lists, including Heal, Swift Haste (ranger 2), and Holy Sword (Paladin 4). That said, it's pretty hard to knock Adepts out of the equation, simply because they're so common and it's such an obvious source of spells (unless you chuck Adepts entirely). They've got a few nasty ones too (Baleful Polymorph, Heal, Major Creation). However, their list is quite limited, so it's not really that bad, just a few fun ones. Most players would balk at being told Adepts don't exist (they're supposed to be really common), so I'd allow it, but then again I throw out the entire Polymorph subschool anyway, so grabbing Heal and Major Creation isn't that bad. Honestly, I'd be more worried about Archivists using Divine Metamagic: Persistant Spell to power Paladin and Ranger self buffs (Swift Haste is the big one for that). JaronK
Istaran 01-08-08, 09:15 PM	Just to help summarize. Power of the archivist: As many spells/day as a cleric, but none are locked into the domain slot restriction. Can build a prayerbook out of cleric spells (some free for leveling) plus any spell you can find on a divine scroll. In many campaigns this will include at least every divine spell in the DMG scroll list. - Already gives you all cleric + druid spells giving a superior spell list to draw from as compared to either class. For instance, you have access to both SNA and SM type summon spells and all buffs from both cleric and druid lists to augment your summons with. - Already gives you all paladin + ranger only spells at lower levels than they were intended. For instance, bless weapon, at character level 1. - By Core RAW, if you can get a divine caster to cooperate with you, you can scribe any scroll that that caster could cast and then copy it into your prayerbook; so any divine spell in your campaign that can be cast by a caster willing to donate thier time and a spell slot to you can be added to your spellbook, including domain spells and potentially other spells from arcane lists (see the examples provided throughout the threads). This source of access is the easiest for the DM to restrict, but it will be hard for the DM to prevent you from gaining any spells that your party members (including cohorts) have as divine spells. For example, lesser restoration and resist energy will become 1st level spells for you with the help of a paladin 4 and a ranger 4. - It is theoretically possible to gain any wiz/sorc or bard spell as a divine spell; so in a poorly controlled game an archivist's power could grow even greater by poaching the best arcane spells to add to his collection of divine spells. - Downside is that collecting these spells costs gp and possibly xp (if you use the option to scribe the scroll, having the other character cast the spell to meet the requirement). Your power may be constrained by the availability of helpful casters with the desired spells as divine spells at the desired levels. You should learn as much as possible about the availability of spells in your campaign before chosing this class. In addition, you gain minor knowledge based class features unique to the class. However, you do not gain domain powers, turn/rebuke undead, animal companion, wild shape, or a variety of other class perks from the other divine classes. You also suffer minor multiple attribute dependance, and a significant gp outlay to build your prayerbook.
deathbane 01-08-08, 09:15 PM	False? If you don't allow the Archivist all spells it has access to, that is like preventing a Wizard from using all spells it has access to. Show how it is patently wrong that it is "like." Show how that is dissimilar. Meanwhile, you can also back up your previous false statements: That a Pun Pun (su) ability is used to gain Archivist spells. Also, you made another strawman. You once again claimed " all arcane spells as divine spells." Are you even trying? JaronK In response to the all spells statement. That is not equivalent due to the consequences. The wizards loses everything, while the archivist can still stay in the game.
deathbane 01-08-08, 09:23 PM	Many of the slower casters (Paladin, Adept, Ranger, the various BoED classes) get spells at lower levels than normal. This is balanced for them, as they get those spell levels later than normal, so it evens out. But Archivists get those spell levels at full speed, and then can grab the spells off their list. Some of the best Archivist spells come off those lists, including Heal, Swift Haste (ranger 2), and Holy Sword (Paladin 4). That said, it's pretty hard to knock Adepts out of the equation, simply because they're so common and it's such an obvious source of spells (unless you chuck Adepts entirely). They've got a few nasty ones too (Baleful Polymorph, Heal, Major Creation). However, their list is quite limited, so it's not really that bad, just a few fun ones. Most players would balk at being told Adepts don't exist (they're supposed to be really common), so I'd allow it, but then again I throw out the entire Polymorph subschool anyway, so grabbing Heal and Major Creation isn't that bad. Honestly, I'd be more worried about Archivists using Divine Metamagic: Persistant Spell to power Paladin and Ranger self buffs (Swift Haste is the big one for that). JaronK The archivist takes advantage of everyone else's spell list, so I would just tell the player he cant play with the adept's spell list, and the ranger and paladin don't get spells that are as powerful as the adept so I would not care if he took from their list.
JaronK 01-08-08, 09:56 PM	In response to the all spells statement. That is not equivalent due to the consequences. The wizards loses everything, while the archivist can still stay in the game. How does the Wizard lose everything if some spells are removed from his list? How does the Archivist? Removing certain spells from either list, well, removes some spells. I mean, I take out all of the polymorph line of spells from Wizards (and Archivists). The result is the same for both classes... they can no longer cast polymorph spells. Neither is removed from the game. It is, however, a nerf to both classes, which is actually what that whole thing was originally about (Cartigan claimed that removing some spells from the Archivist was in no way a nerf to Archivists. I said it was, just like removing some spells from Wizards is a nerf to Wizards. He claimed Archivists and Wizards were not comparable. That's how we got to this point). JaronK
deathbane 01-08-08, 10:39 PM	How does the Wizard lose everything if some spells are removed from his list? How does the Archivist? Removing certain spells from either list, well, removes some spells. I mean, I take out all of the polymorph line of spells from Wizards (and Archivists). The result is the same for both classes... they can no longer cast polymorph spells. Neither is removed from the game. It is, however, a nerf to both classes, which is actually what that whole thing was originally about (Cartigan claimed that removing some spells from the Archivist was in no way a nerf to Archivists. I said it was, just like removing some spells from Wizards is a nerf to Wizards. He claimed Archivists and Wizards were not comparable. That's how we got to this point). JaronK I apologize. I thought you were saying taking all of a wizard's arcane spells, and taking all of a archivist's arcane spells were the same. I do agree, taking the archivist spell is a nerf(powering a character down). I am sure Cartigan will respond to explain how it is not a nerf, or he/she will say he/ahw never said that. I will throw my 2 cents in tomorrow.
Cartigan 01-08-08, 10:53 PM	I apologize. I thought you were saying taking all of a wizard's arcane spells, and taking all of a archivist's arcane spells were the same. I do agree, taking the archivist spell is a nerf(powering a character down). I am sure Cartigan will respond to explain how it is not a nerf, or he/she will say he/ahw never said that. I will throw my 2 cents in tomorrow. Removing Wizard spells from the core Wizard spell list != not letting the Archivist cast all arcane spells. End. Of. Story.
JaronK 01-08-08, 10:57 PM	In response to the all spells statement. That is not equivalent due to the consequences. The wizards loses everything, while the archivist can still stay in the game. How does the Wizard lose everything if some spells are removed from his list? How does the Archivist? Removing certain spells from either list, well, removes some spells. I mean, I take out all of the polymorph line of spells from Wizards (and Archivists). The result is the same for both classes... they can no longer cast polymorph spells. Neither is removed from the game. It is, however, a nerf to both classes, which is actually what that whole thing was originally about (Cartigan claimed that removing some spells from the Archivist was in no way a nerf to Archivists. I said it was, just like removing some spells from Wizards is a nerf to Wizards. He claimed Archivists and Wizards were not comparable. That's how we got to this point). JaronK
JaronK 01-08-08, 10:58 PM	Removing Wizard spells from the core Wizard spell list != not letting the Archivist cast all arcane spells. End. Of. Story. Strawman. Cartigan. Stop it. JaronK
deathbane 01-08-08, 10:59 PM	Removing Wizard spells from the core Wizard spell list != not letting the Archivist cast all arcane spells. End. Of. Story. :confused: I will just go back and read all the posts after edit: I am to tired to make a full statement, but it seems like saying the best way to nerf the archivist is to nerf the wizard/sorcerer, and this time I really am gone until tomorrow. bye everyone
Aleolus 01-08-08, 11:43 PM	Oh for Pelor's sake! All of these arguments that the Archivist is overpowered because of this PrC or that feat fail to take into account one single rule which is so elementary that it's only mentioned once in all of the books ever published by WotC, the DMG. To paraphrase it, "I, the DM, am the ultimate authority on everything that will or will not be allowed in this campaign, regardless of any and all rules to the contrary in any book or source you may have. If I say something is not allowed, you will not attempt it! If you do not happen to like a decision that I make in this regard, you are free to leave the group at any time." Now, if you have a good DM, they will usually tack on "I am open to compromise, if you can convince me to do so. Compromise will result in you receiving either what it is you desire, or a lesser version, with the limitations I decide to impose. If you do not like the limitations I put on, or attempt to argue with me, your character will experience swift, painful, and embarrassing death".
JaronK 01-08-08, 11:57 PM	Oh for Pelor's sake! All of these arguments that the Archivist is overpowered because of this PrC or that feat fail to take into account one single rule which is so elementary that it's only mentioned once in all of the books ever published by WotC, the DMG. To paraphrase it, "I, the DM, am the ultimate authority on everything that will or will not be allowed in this campaign, regardless of any and all rules to the contrary in any book or source you may have. If I say something is not allowed, you will not attempt it! If you do not happen to like a decision that I make in this regard, you are free to leave the group at any time." Now, if you have a good DM, they will usually tack on "I am open to compromise, if you can convince me to do so. Compromise will result in you receiving either what it is you desire, or a lesser version, with the limitations I decide to impose. If you do not like the limitations I put on, or attempt to argue with me, your character will experience swift, painful, and embarrassing death". Um, what was the point of that? Yes, a DM can nerf any class. And they should do so if it's necessary. That point has been agreed upon by all sides this entire time. The arguement was "by RAW, they're overpowered" vs "by RAW, they're not." JaronK
Enigmis 01-08-08, 11:58 PM	Oh for Pelor's sake! All of these arguments that the Archivist is overpowered because of this PrC or that feat fail to take into account one single rule which is so elementary that it's only mentioned once in all of the books ever published by WotC, the DMG. To paraphrase it, "I, the DM, am the ultimate authority on everything that will or will not be allowed in this campaign, regardless of any and all rules to the contrary in any book or source you may have. If I say something is not allowed, you will not attempt it! If you do not happen to like a decision that I make in this regard, you are free to leave the group at any time." Now, if you have a good DM, they will usually tack on "I am open to compromise, if you can convince me to do so. Compromise will result in you receiving either what it is you desire, or a lesser version, with the limitations I decide to impose. If you do not like the limitations I put on, or attempt to argue with me, your character will experience swift, painful, and embarrassing death". NO SH!T. Thats what rule 0 does. But it's not the same for everyone because it's DM dependant and thus should not be used when discussing rules.
Aleolus 01-09-08, 01:20 AM	Well, I'm sorry, but arguments where people refuse to give ground to logic irritate and anger me to no end. Per RAW, there's probably a way to get a Commoner invincible and Immortal, if you munchkin enough. Going by the Core books and HoH, the Archivist is not overpowered. Now, if you're going to include every book WotC has ever published for 3.5, then probably. But that applies to just about every base and PrC they've ever come out with. Most likely, they were not thinking about how people can overpower and misuse stuff when they publish their books, they were thinking "What would be enjoyable and fun when used properly?" I know that's how I'd be thinking, if I were playtesting this stuff.
Aleolus 01-09-08, 01:56 AM	Well, I'm sorry, but arguments where people refuse to give ground to logic irritate and anger me to no end. Per RAW, there's probably a way to get a Commoner invincible and Immortal, if you munchkin enough. Going by the Core books and HoH, the Archivist is not overpowered. Now, if you're going to include every book WotC has ever published for 3.5, then probably. But that applies to just about every base and PrC they've ever come out with. Most likely, they were not thinking about how people can overpower and misuse stuff when they publish their books, they were thinking "What would be enjoyable and fun when used properly?" I know that's how I'd be thinking, if I were playtesting this stuff.
Malicea 01-09-08, 02:59 AM	How does the Wizard lose everything if some spells are removed from his list? How does the Archivist? Removing certain spells from either list, well, removes some spells. I mean, I take out all of the polymorph line of spells from Wizards (and Archivists). The result is the same for both classes... they can no longer cast polymorph spells. Neither is removed from the game. It is, however, a nerf to both classes, which is actually what that whole thing was originally about (Cartigan claimed that removing some spells from the Archivist was in no way a nerf to Archivists. I said it was, just like removing some spells from Wizards is a nerf to Wizards. He claimed Archivists and Wizards were not comparable. That's how we got to this point). JaronK Now you're being a bit stubborn. Yes it is a nerf to both classes, but it isn't a nerf to the same degree, and so not quite comparable. Nor is it accomplished in the same way and hence the relevance of it in this discussion is not the same. From the perspective of design intent, it's clear that a wizard was 'intended' to have every spell on her spell list, but it isn't at all clear that is the same for archivists. The discussion on the validity of archivist spell access being limited by scroll availability thus cannot be dismissed as a 'house-rule' nerf similar to removing spells from the wizard list.
JaronK 01-09-08, 03:51 AM	Now you're being a bit stubborn. Yes it is a nerf to both classes, but it isn't a nerf to the same degree, and so not quite comparable. Nor is it accomplished in the same way and hence the relevance of it in this discussion is not the same. From the perspective of design intent, it's clear that a wizard was 'intended' to have every spell on her spell list, but it isn't at all clear that is the same for archivists. The discussion on the validity of archivist spell access being limited by scroll availability thus cannot be dismissed as a 'house-rule' nerf similar to removing spells from the wizard list. How can you be sure of degree? The question was "is removing some spells from Wizards comparable to removing some spells from Archivists?" Without even knowing which spells are being removed, how can you say who is effected more? If I remove meteor shower from Wizards and from Archivists, were Wizards really hurt more? Cartigan's position was that removing some spells from the Archivist available spells was in no way a nerf to Archivists, and further that it wasn't even at all comperable to removing some spells from Wizards. Later, he started that whole "all arcane spells" nonsense, which he's still doing. But let's be clear, that position wasn't just reducing availablity of scrolls... it was outright saying "no, you can't get those spells, it's not legal to do so, because they're arcane. The fact that there are also divine versions is not relevant." So yeah. That said, I don't see how removing all Polymorph from Wizards is somehow more of a nerf than removing all Polymorph spells from Archivists. They both lose that entire aspect. JaronK
JaronK 01-09-08, 03:57 AM	Well, I'm sorry, but arguments where people refuse to give ground to logic irritate and anger me to no end. Per RAW, there's probably a way to get a Commoner invincible and Immortal, if you munchkin enough. Going by the Core books and HoH, the Archivist is not overpowered. Now, if you're going to include every book WotC has ever published for 3.5, then probably. But that applies to just about every base and PrC they've ever come out with. Most likely, they were not thinking about how people can overpower and misuse stuff when they publish their books, they were thinking "What would be enjoyable and fun when used properly?" I know that's how I'd be thinking, if I were playtesting this stuff. Perhaps you should read this thread before commenting. You're going over stuff that's been shown wrong already. For example, with just core books, you can get almost all of the best Wizard/Sorcerer spells as divine spells through Adepts and Domains. Shapechange at Animal Domain 9, Time Stop at Trickery 9, etc. The issue is in fact that with any given amount of books, the Archivist can still get almost all the best spells (except a few of the fun low level ones). So yes, there's an issue even in core. Core is, after all, the most broken area of the rules. They hadn't gotten balance down yet and it really shows (Hi polymorph!) What they were thinking when playtesting core, by the way, was "blasting is powerful!" That's why the casters ended up so overpowered... the vast majority of the playtesters thought that the most powerful spells were blast spells, which is why Wizards who focus on blast spells only are pretty balanced (War Mages are generally considered the weakest spellcasters, except perhaps Healers). They didn't even consider the uses of save or suck spells like Grease and Glitterdust, or out of combat spells like Fabricate and Wall of Iron. *shrug* It's sort of a shame that 3.5 is ending now, as the really started to get it by the end (Tome of Battle is awesome, with only one truly broken trick but a ton of solid, fun classes. Even that one trick requires finding another sourcebook. Core, meanwhile, has tons of self contained campaign breakers). JaronK
Trevan0 01-09-08, 08:12 AM	How can you be sure of degree? The question was "is removing some spells from Wizards comparable to removing some spells from Archivists?" Without even knowing which spells are being removed, how can you say who is effected more? If I remove meteor shower from Wizards and from Archivists, were Wizards really hurt more? That said, I don't see how removing all Polymorph from Wizards is somehow more of a nerf than removing all Polymorph spells from Archivists. They both lose that entire aspect. JaronK This isn't meant to be a well thought out carefully prepared reply (durr insomnia). That said, I believe that wizards would in effect be hurt to a larger degree simply due to a larger proportional reduction in spell utility, because they technically have a smaller spell list available to them than Archivist. Effectively, they have lost a greater percentage of their options than Archivists had (who have the full cleric list and more to fall back on), and thusly it is arguable that they have been hurt more than Archivists have. I will admit, it is hard to quantify the degree of "hurt", but i'm willing to believe that given that wizards and archivists do not have exactly the same spell list or even the same size spell list, someone must have been hurt more by the lost of a line of spells. And i'm going to bet that it's the class with d4 HD, 1 good save, Less skill points, Less spells per day, and mediocre at best compartively class features.
LSMFT 01-09-08, 12:56 PM	Strawman, again. What I said was that everything from every suppliment that you are currently using was available.If I were to make a strawman, it would look a lot like that statement. Using some material from a source does not, automatically obligate me to allow all material from that source. Does allowing a feat from CA mean I also allow Wu-gen? Hell no it doesn't. Your claims are ludicrous enough that I don't have to make up easily toppled versions of them. Didn't say that, did I? Did I EVER say the word "automatically?" Did I ever say he can find them all? Nope. You just made that point, just now, so you could argue against it. You're arguing with yourself. When you'd like to debate me, please read my points and argue against those. Bullsiht. You don’t use the word “automatically,” but you call it a house rule if they aren’t found. You didn’t say have to use that exact word; you just made it the underlying assumption of your whole case. So seriously, why did you create the strawman?I'm really, really happy you googled a new term and learned how to paraphrase it. But, sadly, you are arguing that if I use a single thing from a book, players get to assume that everything in the book is not only de facto allowed in the game, but de jure must be available to them. I've only pointed out that that's just not true. Did you not make both of those claims? That the spells which already exist in your campaign should have scrolls that are "most likely available" in any metropolis? Are you claiming that is a wild assumption? Read the page I quoted if you doubt that.I've read how you have equated "most likely" with "must be." (if each scroll is "most likely available" then he can probably find most of them in any given metropolis). That's what the DMG says about going shopping for magic items. I even gave a page number so you can look it up. If you change the DMG rules, you are making a house rule.You speak of "probabilities." Does the DMG give any hard numbers on what "most likely" means? 99%? 51%? No. Are there any written rules that define the basis for determining what items are certain to be found and which are not? No, there isn't. It is therefore, as freaking written, up to the DM do decide on what those probabilities are. It is not a house rule to say the he decides how many of what items are where and why. If you seach for 50 and find none, that's a lot of stuff that's not available. If you really really want 50 different scrolls, and more that half are not available, hell if none of them are available, it does not automatically mean this “iron-clad” most like rule was violated. It can be as simple as the fact that what made one of the spells hard to find, e.g. its rarity, is true of the other 49 as well. If you are looking for 50 items that are all rare, you don’t get to cry foul just because you misinterpreted the situation and assumed that the likelihood of finding a common item was equal to the likelihood of finding an exotic one. Less likely? But you're removing them entirely. Didn't say that. There are things that DM's can not include in their games. I can, quite legitimately, decide that there are no Shugenja in my game, even if I use other things from Complete Divine. It is not a house rule to make that decision. The decision is not necessity a deliberate nerf of the archivist. Among items (such as scrolls) I can, as written, exercise complete control over how hard they are to find. There are something like 5,000 different types of magical items. Is saying that 90% of them, 4500 of them are in this particular city a "most likely available" scenario? That leaves 500 items that aren't. Is there a written rule telling me which ones are in that five hundred? Why they are on that list and not the other? No. There isn't. That is DM discretion, and that's that. Most likely available. That's the rule. Which means if I search for 50 and find none, the rule isn't being followed.No it doesn't as I pointed out above, this "most likely" you cling to still leaves room for hundreds and hundreds of items to not be there. If the ones you wanted are on that list, sucks to be you, but I didn't break a rule for it to be like that. Look, every cleric and dozens and dozens of other divine casters can make scolls of Cure Light Wounds or even Heal, but a divine Timestop can only be made by a fraction of those clerics who worship a god with the Trickery Domain. Should, no, wait, chould those divine scrolls of Timestop be more rare? If they could be, how rare could they be? Rare enough that they are in that x% not readily available? Well, that's a DM's call, plain and simple. No, but scrolls in general should be "most likely available" so if you're looking for 50 of them you should be able to find at least a few. But you're saying "nope, none of the good ones are there." Nope, I'm saying you have every reason to expect that some of the ones you think are really really good won't be. And that your DM isn't making a house rule when you get the bad news. If your DM decides that divine Timestop is a rare enough spell that this city probably won't have a scroll available, is he then obligated to say that Shapechange, though just as rare, has to be? Because you can “most likely find everything you want" and that means at least 1 of 2 are there? What kind of bs logic is that? Can the player of an archivists be disappointed that both divine Shapechange and his scroll of divine Timestop are on the list of things that are harder than swords +1 to find? Sure he can. Disappointed, but not freaking surprised, because if he went into this thinking that the DM was obligated to let him automatically be able to find any thing he wants, he was a fool. Is there a written rule that says DMs must suffer fools? Are is that another assumption you are assuming? :) Let's just put this issue to bed: If my players go to an appropriately-sized city, and ask if they can find an Apparatus of Kwalish, and the DM's reply is "no" is he basing his authority on a house rule? Yes or no? The problem most designers get into is the problem you're having right now. They look at a broken rule, and they automatically fix it in their head. They think "clearly, it must mean this, because that's not broken. If it meant anything else, it would be broken. Only a rules lawyering lunatic fringe type would think otherwise" and they happily move on.You got me there. Close at least. I look at a rule, read what's actually there, see that it is only broken if "a rules lawyering lunatic fringe type" decides it means something else, and move happily on. Then ignore me, if you so desire. With that said, I break systems for a living to fix them. Game design is one more such thing. You go in, you find how the rules are written, you find where those rules break. You figure out exactly how those rules break. And then you learn how to fix those rules.So your whole thing is you go out of your way to break things? Yeah, that's why you should be ignored. Because in this one case at least, you are bending the rules past the breaking point and then acting like it was broken when you got there. Anyway, I'll gladly take your advice, and ignore you, since your in-put seems so exceedingly ignorable. Because by finding these things, by finding the ways to break the game, we're making sure that any one of us who's DMing sees these things a mile off. I thank my lucky stars.
Aleolus 01-09-08, 01:25 PM	Perhaps you should read this thread before commenting. You're going over stuff that's been shown wrong already. For example, with just core books, you can get almost all of the best Wizard/Sorcerer spells as divine spells through Adepts and Domains. Shapechange at Animal Domain 9, Time Stop at Trickery 9, etc. The issue is in fact that with any given amount of books, the Archivist can still get almost all the best spells (except a few of the fun low level ones). So yes, there's an issue even in core. Core is, after all, the most broken area of the rules. They hadn't gotten balance down yet and it really shows (Hi polymorph!) What they were thinking when playtesting core, by the way, was "blasting is powerful!" That's why the casters ended up so overpowered... the vast majority of the playtesters thought that the most powerful spells were blast spells, which is why Wizards who focus on blast spells only are pretty balanced (War Mages are generally considered the weakest spellcasters, except perhaps Healers). They didn't even consider the uses of save or suck spells like Grease and Glitterdust, or out of combat spells like Fabricate and Wall of Iron. *shrug* It's sort of a shame that 3.5 is ending now, as the really started to get it by the end (Tome of Battle is awesome, with only one truly broken trick but a ton of solid, fun classes. Even that one trick requires finding another sourcebook. Core, meanwhile, has tons of self contained campaign breakers). JaronK ...OK, how is ToB balanced? I'll allow, the classes are cool, the concept behind it (abilities that are useable on a per encounter basis, rather than per day) is cool and awesome. But the abilities they came up with are broken and overpowered beyond belief. If I were to look around, I could find 3 relatively low-level manuvers and stances that you can use that will kill anything you use them on (unless they have a CR of 10 or more higher than your ToB class level) in one hit! How the freaking hell is that balanced? Case in point, there's a second or third level ability you can get that deals 12d6 supernatural damage to target foe, in addition to any normal damage from weapons (I think it's called Fist of the Mountain, or something like that)!
Aleolus 01-09-08, 01:30 PM	Perhaps you should read this thread before commenting. You're going over stuff that's been shown wrong already. For example, with just core books, you can get almost all of the best Wizard/Sorcerer spells as divine spells through Adepts and Domains. Shapechange at Animal Domain 9, Time Stop at Trickery 9, etc. The issue is in fact that with any given amount of books, the Archivist can still get almost all the best spells (except a few of the fun low level ones). So yes, there's an issue even in core. Core is, after all, the most broken area of the rules. They hadn't gotten balance down yet and it really shows (Hi polymorph!) What they were thinking when playtesting core, by the way, was "blasting is powerful!" That's why the casters ended up so overpowered... the vast majority of the playtesters thought that the most powerful spells were blast spells, which is why Wizards who focus on blast spells only are pretty balanced (War Mages are generally considered the weakest spellcasters, except perhaps Healers). They didn't even consider the uses of save or suck spells like Grease and Glitterdust, or out of combat spells like Fabricate and Wall of Iron. *shrug* It's sort of a shame that 3.5 is ending now, as the really started to get it by the end (Tome of Battle is awesome, with only one truly broken trick but a ton of solid, fun classes. Even that one trick requires finding another sourcebook. Core, meanwhile, has tons of self contained campaign breakers). JaronK ...OK, how is ToB balanced? I'll allow, the classes are cool, the concept behind it (abilities that are useable on a per encounter basis, rather than per day) is cool and awesome. But the abilities they came up with are broken and overpowered beyond belief. If I were to look around, I could find 3 relatively low-level manuvers and stances that you can use that will kill anything you use them on (unless they have a CR of 10 or more higher than your ToB class level) in one hit! How the freaking hell is that balanced? Case in point, there's a second or third level ability you can get that deals 12d6 supernatural damage to target foe, in addition to any normal damage from weapons (I think it's called Fist of the Mountain, or something like that)!
Enigmis 01-09-08, 01:31 PM	...OK, how is ToB balanced? I'll allow, the classes are cool, the concept behind it (abilities that are useable on a per encounter basis, rather than per day) is cool and awesome. But the abilities they came up with are broken and overpowered beyond belief. If I were to look around, I could find 3 relatively low-level manuvers and stances that you can use that will kill anything you use them on (unless they have a CR of 10 or more higher than your ToB class level) in one hit! How the freaking hell is that balanced? Case in point, there's a second or third level ability you can get that deals 12d6 supernatural damage to target foe, in addition to any normal damage from weapons (I think it's called Fist of the Mountain, or something like that)! You obviously have no experience with ToB and should not be discussing it. ToB is far more balanced than the players handbook.
Aleolus 01-09-08, 01:36 PM	Perhaps you should read this thread before commenting. You're going over stuff that's been shown wrong already. For example, with just core books, you can get almost all of the best Wizard/Sorcerer spells as divine spells through Adepts and Domains. Shapechange at Animal Domain 9, Time Stop at Trickery 9, etc. The issue is in fact that with any given amount of books, the Archivist can still get almost all the best spells (except a few of the fun low level ones). So yes, there's an issue even in core. Core is, after all, the most broken area of the rules. They hadn't gotten balance down yet and it really shows (Hi polymorph!) What they were thinking when playtesting core, by the way, was "blasting is powerful!" That's why the casters ended up so overpowered... the vast majority of the playtesters thought that the most powerful spells were blast spells, which is why Wizards who focus on blast spells only are pretty balanced (War Mages are generally considered the weakest spellcasters, except perhaps Healers). They didn't even consider the uses of save or suck spells like Grease and Glitterdust, or out of combat spells like Fabricate and Wall of Iron. *shrug* It's sort of a shame that 3.5 is ending now, as the really started to get it by the end (Tome of Battle is awesome, with only one truly broken trick but a ton of solid, fun classes. Even that one trick requires finding another sourcebook. Core, meanwhile, has tons of self contained campaign breakers). JaronK ...OK, how is ToB balanced? I'll allow, the classes are cool, the concept behind it (abilities that are useable on a per encounter basis, rather than per day) is cool and awesome. But the abilities they came up with are broken and overpowered beyond belief. If I were to look around, I could find 3 relatively low-level manuvers and stances that you can use that will kill anything you use them on (unless they have a CR of 10 or more higher than your ToB class level) in one hit! How the freaking hell is that balanced? Case in point, there's a second or third level ability you can get that deals 12d6 supernatural damage to target foe, in addition to any normal damage from weapons (I think it's called Fist of the Mountain, or something like that)!
Aleolus 01-09-08, 01:44 PM	Perhaps you should read this thread before commenting. You're going over stuff that's been shown wrong already. For example, with just core books, you can get almost all of the best Wizard/Sorcerer spells as divine spells through Adepts and Domains. Shapechange at Animal Domain 9, Time Stop at Trickery 9, etc. The issue is in fact that with any given amount of books, the Archivist can still get almost all the best spells (except a few of the fun low level ones). So yes, there's an issue even in core. Core is, after all, the most broken area of the rules. They hadn't gotten balance down yet and it really shows (Hi polymorph!) What they were thinking when playtesting core, by the way, was "blasting is powerful!" That's why the casters ended up so overpowered... the vast majority of the playtesters thought that the most powerful spells were blast spells, which is why Wizards who focus on blast spells only are pretty balanced (War Mages are generally considered the weakest spellcasters, except perhaps Healers). They didn't even consider the uses of save or suck spells like Grease and Glitterdust, or out of combat spells like Fabricate and Wall of Iron. *shrug* It's sort of a shame that 3.5 is ending now, as the really started to get it by the end (Tome of Battle is awesome, with only one truly broken trick but a ton of solid, fun classes. Even that one trick requires finding another sourcebook. Core, meanwhile, has tons of self contained campaign breakers). JaronK ...OK, how is ToB balanced? I'll allow, the classes are cool, the concept behind it (abilities that are useable on a per encounter basis, rather than per day) is cool and awesome. But the abilities they came up with are broken and overpowered beyond belief. If I were to look around, I could find 3 relatively low-level manuvers and stances that you can use that will kill anything you use them on (unless they have a CR of 10 or more higher than your ToB class level) in one hit! How the freaking hell is that balanced? Case in point, there's a second or third level ability you can get that deals 12d6 supernatural damage to target foe, in addition to any normal damage from weapons (I think it's called Fist of the Mountain, or something like that)!
Aleolus 01-09-08, 01:51 PM	Damn, I hate it when the internet is like this. You obviously have no experience with ToB and should not be discussing it. ToB is far more balanced than the players handbook. I'm glad you know what I have and have not done, apparently better than I do. Could you explain this, please? 90% of the stuff in ToB bypasses every form of protection and damage prevention possible for a character, or monster.
Einvaldurinn_mikli 01-09-08, 02:00 PM	You really feel that nonsense had to be said four times? Anyway, it's wrong. There is no third level maneuver that deals 12d6 dmg. I also ask you to pick out those three maneuvers and show them to us.
Enigmis 01-09-08, 02:05 PM	I'm glad you know what I have and have not done, apparently better than I do. Could you explain this, please? 90% of the stuff in ToB bypasses every form of protection and damage prevention possible for a character, or monster. No it doesn't. I have no clue where you are getting this.
Aleolus 01-09-08, 02:41 PM	You really feel that nonsense had to be said four times? Anyway, it's wrong. There is no third level maneuver that deals 12d6 dmg. I also ask you to pick out those three maneuvers and show them to us. No, I did not feel that needed to be posted four times, as I said, the Internet is acting up, so it multiposted. It happens, get over it. And I was slightly mistaken, the manuver I was thinking of that deals 12d6 is 7th level, but that is still enough damage to kill anything with a CR of 10 or less in one hit! No it doesn't. I have no clue where you are getting this *head smack* The damage dealt in ToB is primarily supernatural damage in nature. There is no special ability or quality, to my knowledge, that prevents or reduces damage from supernatural abilities. Damage reducion? MM page 307, "Creatures with damage reduction take normal damage from energy attacks (even nonmagical ones), spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities" Spell Resistance? Only applies to spells and spell-like abilities, not Supernatural abilities. Same goes for magic immunity. An Anti-Magic field keeps them from functioning, but how many PCs are going to have time to put up and maintain an Anti-Magic field every time they fight someone from ToB? Now is there an ability or quality that I am unaware of that can reduce or prevent damage from a supernatural source?
Enigmis 01-09-08, 02:47 PM	No, I did not feel that needed to be posted four times, as I said, the Internet is acting up, so it multiposted. It happens, get over it. And I was slightly mistaken, the manuver I was thinking of that deals 12d6 is 7th level, but that is still enough damage to kill anything with a CR of 10 or less in one hit! You do realize that 7th level maneuvers aren't obtainable until around level 13 (maybe off, don't have book with me atm)? Also, 12d6 is an average of 38 damage. Definitely not enough to one shot most things with CR 10.
Aleolus 01-09-08, 03:00 PM	*deep breath* I do not own ToB myself. However, I have a friend who does have it. There is no level prerequisite on when you can get manuvers of a particular level, so long as you meet the prerequisites, which is a certain number of other manuvers from that school. Seventh level manuvers you need like, nine or ten other manuvers from that one school, but that can be achieved by eighth or ninth level without too much difficulty.
Cartigan 01-09-08, 03:23 PM	You do realize that 7th level maneuvers aren't obtainable until around level 13 (maybe off, don't have book with me atm)? Also, 12d6 is an average of 38 damage. Definitely not enough to one shot most things with CR 10. Now I am no good at math, but I am pretty sure the average on 12d6 is higher than 38.
larry_the_titan 01-09-08, 03:27 PM	*deep breath* I do not own ToB myself. However, I have a friend who does have it. There is no level prerequisite on when you can get manuvers of a particular level, so long as you meet the prerequisites, which is a certain number of other manuvers from that school. Seventh level manuvers you need like, nine or ten other manuvers from that one school, but that can be achieved by eighth or ninth level without too much difficulty. Who ever told you that is smoking something. Gaining higher level manuvers progress at the same rate that wizards get new levels of spells if I remember correctly. So a seventh level manuver would be allowed at 13th level at the earliest. At 13th level there is nothing that can't take 12d6 avg 42 points of damage. Still trying to figure out were Enigmis got 38 but that doesn't matter.
Einvaldurinn_mikli 01-09-08, 03:30 PM	*deep breath* I do not own ToB myself. However, I have a friend who does have it. There is no level prerequisite on when you can get manuvers of a particular level, so long as you meet the prerequisites, which is a certain number of other manuvers from that school. Seventh level manuvers you need like, nine or ten other manuvers from that one school, but that can be achieved by eighth or ninth level without too much difficulty. Again, this is not true. You get new maneuver levels at the same levels that wizards gain access to a new level of spells. The average of 12d6 is also 42. Which is nothing really. Any melee character should be doing at least that much damage. It's also less then a Barbarian of the same level can pull off while raging with just PA. ToB is balanced. You have no idea what you are talking about. You don't even have the book. Edit: Ninja'd!
magmer1 01-09-08, 03:32 PM	Now I am no good at math, but I am pretty sure the average on 12d6 is higher than 38. Not by much. 10d6 is 35, 11d6 is 38.5, 12 would be 42.
JaronK 01-09-08, 03:54 PM	Seriously Aleolus, you don't know what you're talking about. You cannot take 9th level manuevers before level 17 (without some silly Bloodline shenanegans). In other words, you have to compare them to 9th level spells. Sure, a 9th level manuever that forces a DC 19+Str modifier save or die (Feral Death Blow) is nice, but compare that to a 9th level spell like Gate. Which is more powerful... a Save or Die with the exact same formula as a spell save or die (10+maneuver level + stat mod) or summoning a Solar to smack someone upside the head? How about creating a new plane of existance (Gensis)? ToB classes don't even do as much damage as a standard Barbarian/Frenzied Berserker (who can easily do upwards of 240 damage per attack on the charge, and who get to full attack on the charge). And most of the ToB manuevers are not supernatural, nor do the supernatural abilities do untyped damage. They tend to do fire or cold. Seriously, ToB is extreamly well balanced. You can break it a little with a Bloodline trick (but even then, you're not going to beat the casters), and there's two tricks that are actually broken, but both involve spells from non core books (and in one case, it's clearly the spell that's broken). Crusaders are tough to kill and make good tanks, Warblades are great for consistant damage and leadership, Swordsages cover every martial arts concept you could think of, and they all do it well without being broken. At the same time, melees become fun to play (no more of that "I trip it! I trip it again! Wait, that problem can't be solved by tripping something? I'll just sit over here."). Yes, all the ToB classes can use Mountain Hammer to ignore hardness, which is neat (and gives them some utility! No one expects you to punch through the wall next to the super unopenable door of doom). That doesn't make them broken, it makes them useful. JaronK
Sinfire Titan 01-09-08, 04:01 PM	*head smack* The damage dealt in ToB is primarily supernatural damage in nature. There is no special ability or quality, to my knowledge, that prevents or reduces damage from supernatural abilities. Damage reducion? MM page 307, "Creatures with damage reduction take normal damage from energy attacks (even nonmagical ones), spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities" Spell Resistance? Only applies to spells and spell-like abilities, not Supernatural abilities. Same goes for magic immunity. An Anti-Magic field keeps them from functioning, but how many PCs are going to have time to put up and maintain an Anti-Magic field every time they fight someone from ToB? Now is there an ability or quality that I am unaware of that can reduce or prevent damage from a supernatural source? Wrong. Majority are actually EX, which allows DR. Desert Wind and Shadow hand are the exceptions to this, both of which have effects that are countered by Fire/Cold immunity. And an Anti-magic RAY completly shuts down the Shadow Hand and Desert Wind schools. finally, the class that has access to those maneuvers has the same BAB as a Monk, so they still have to connect to deal damage (save for a FEW of their abilities). Your argument has just been rendered void by fact. I have played with every PC class in DnD, and the only one that even seems remotely overpowered at any given level is Druid, and that is before PrCs. Taking those into account, Druid is still the most powerful base class, just because of Planar Shepard. If ToB can't overpower a Druid 20, then it is considerably more balanced than Core. Thanks for playing the fool in this one.
JaronK 01-09-08, 04:10 PM	I have played with every PC class in DnD, and the only one that even seems remotely overpowered at any given level is Druid, and that is before PrCs. Wait, have you actually played a CW Samurai? Were you able to make it work? If so, how? That said, I've come inches from breaking games with a Beguiler/Shadowcraft Mage, but that was more the PrC doing it (I had to just decide my character didn't feel like reshaping reality). JaronK
larry_the_titan 01-09-08, 04:18 PM	I have played with every PC class in DnD, and the only one that even seems remotely overpowered at any given level is Druid, and that is before PrCs. Either you missed a few or you haven't been to the Opts Boards at all. The Big 5 have been determined to all be overpowered. Big 5 being Artificers, Archivists, Clerics, Druids and Wizards. ToB base classes aren't anything compared to what they can pull off. Oh and for the record Fighters Monks Bards Paladins and Rogue have all been called underpowered more then once if I recall on the Otps boards.
Cartigan 01-09-08, 04:20 PM	Either you missed a few or you haven't been to the Opts Boards at all. The Big 5 have been determined to all be overpowered. Big 5 being Artificers, Archivists, Clerics, Druids and Wizards. ToB base classes aren't anything compared to what they can pull off. Oh and for the record Fighters Monks Bards Paladins and Rogue have all been called underpowered more then once if I recall on the Otps boards. Of course the Op board is not measuring how powerful a class is in the hands of a standard player. An Archivist can theoretically earn every arcane spell, but will a standard player go outside, at most, Ranger, Paladin, and Druid? No.
larry_the_titan 01-09-08, 04:36 PM	Of course the Op board is not measuring how powerful a class is in the hands of a standard player. An Archivist can theoretically earn every arcane spell, but will a standard player go outside, at most, Ranger, Paladin, and Druid? No. Your right about the power of something in the hands of a standard player but the Opts Board did determine what is over powered to me. I spend a little to much time there sometimes. Its not that I would let a player play one but the Characters would get watched really closely.
JaronK 01-09-08, 05:49 PM	Your right about the power of something in the hands of a standard player but the Opts Board did determine what is over powered to me. I spend a little to much time there sometimes. Its not that I would let a player play one but the Characters would get watched really closely. Just because he's played them all doesn't mean he's gone all out with them all. Artificers, for example, can do literally everything... but if you just use them to craft stuff they're fine. Likewise, unless you can figure out ways to get all those Archivist spells (and know which spells are the strongest to get, and how to use them) it's possible to play an Archivist without ever even knowing how strong they can be. Heck, how many times have you heard people saying something like "I don't want to play a Cleric or Druid... being a healbot is lame." You have to know how to make them insane to really do it. I've definitely seen Druids played in ways that made the Monk look good, just because the player only thought healing was the way to go. JaronK
Selgard 01-09-08, 06:07 PM	If I may, I would like to clarify something. It seems to me, though i may be wrong, that the conflict in this thread need not actually exist. JaronK has taken two positions. 1) Archivist can, by RaW, learn very nearly every "good" spell of the Arcane lists. 2) Regardless of RaW, the DM should (and a good dm WILL) Limit this, so as to not break the character and the campaign. They Are Both True And Correct, and Do not contradict each other. Nowhere has he said that it's GOOD for the campaign to allow the Archivist access to all the Arcane goodies that are floating around, at their (sometimes) reduced levels. He's just saying that if you go by RAW and RAW alone- that they DO have the capability of learning them. The two points are NOT the same, and should be discussed separately. What the rules ARE and how the DM should CHANGE them are two different subjects.
JaronK 01-09-08, 06:19 PM	JaronK has taken two positions. 1) Archivist can, by RaW, learn very nearly every "good" spell of the Arcane lists. 2) Regardless of RaW, the DM should (and a good dm WILL) Limit this, so as to not break the character and the campaign. They Are Both True And Correct, and Do not contradict each other. Nowhere has he said that it's GOOD for the campaign to allow the Archivist access to all the Arcane goodies that are floating around, at their (sometimes) reduced levels. He's just saying that if you go by RAW and RAW alone- that they DO have the capability of learning them. The two points are NOT the same, and should be discussed separately. What the rules ARE and how the DM should CHANGE them are two different subjects. Quite simply, yes. Those are my points, in fact. However, there are a few people in this thread who are simply unable to differenciate between a person saying "this is RAW" and a person saying "this is right." Basically, there are three arguements in this thread: 1: "The Archivist is overpowered, by RAW, because it's possible for them to get the vast majority of the best spells in the game. DMs must take steps to correct this or their games will have problems." 2: "The Archivist is not broken, by RAW, because they can't get that many good spells." 3: "The Archivist is not broken, by RAW, because in my game I can make them not broken through my own campaign rules which prevent them from getting the vast majority of good spells." Number 2 is argued by almost no one, but a number of people are argueing number 3 without realizing the inhearent contradiction of the arguement, namely that if they have to fix the class by removing the availability of certain spells or by making house rules, then the Archivist must be broken by RAW. Then there's also one guy who keeps arguing against the point that Archivists can learn all arcane spells, but since no one is arguing for that point, it's a little odd. Number 1 is what I am arguing. JaronK
Malicea 01-09-08, 06:50 PM	And i'm going to bet that it's the class with d4 HD, 1 good save, Less skill points, Less spells per day, and mediocre at best compartively class features. Spellcasting in armor too, with 2 proficiencies included! It's easy to forget, with all this discussion about spell lists, how the archivist also has all these advantages over the wizard. Wizard class features aren't even that relevant most of the time, since most power builds prestige out fairly early. 8 levels of archivist nets you a good pick of the Dark Knowledge abilities, with a respectable number of uses per day.
JaronK 01-09-08, 06:56 PM	Spellcasting in armor too, with 2 proficiencies included! It's easy to forget, with all this discussion about spell lists, how the archivist also has all these advantages over the wizard. Wizard class features aren't even that relevant most of the time, since most power builds prestige out fairly early. 8 levels of archivist nets you a good pick of the Dark Knowledge abilities, with a respectable number of uses per day. That said, the two extra bonus metamagic feats are quite nice, and most Wizards PrC out quickly anyway. Really, it's not right to compare Archivist 20 to Wizard 20, because no one really plays Wizard 20 (but some do take Archivist 20). When it's Wizard X/Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil Y vs Archivist 20, it's a whole other ballgame. JaronK
Malicea 01-09-08, 07:18 PM	That said, the two extra bonus metamagic feats are quite nice, and most Wizards PrC out quickly anyway. Really, it's not right to compare Archivist 20 to Wizard 20, because no one really plays Wizard 20 (but some do take Archivist 20). When it's Wizard X/Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil Y vs Archivist 20, it's a whole other ballgame. JaronK Well yea I was exactly thinking that no one really goes wizard 20. Archivist 20 or a Sacred Exorcist 1 dip is nice though. Assuming even if both prestige out between 5-8 (Shadowcraft Mage maybe), I'm inclined to give the advantage to the Dark Knowledge + defensive/skill features over 1 bonus feat and a familiar. Still, I don't normally evaluate a class based on a 1v1 PvP contest. In a typical game, an archivist looks like it could cover a ton of important party roles. Even in terms of fun factor, the archivist looks quite OPed to me ;)
Enigmis 01-09-08, 07:27 PM	Now I am no good at math, but I am pretty sure the average on 12d6 is higher than 38. Doh! :banghead:
JaronK 01-09-08, 07:38 PM	Well yea I was exactly thinking that no one really goes wizard 20. Archivist 20 or a Sacred Exorcist 1 dip is nice though. Assuming even if both prestige out between 5-8 (Shadowcraft Mage maybe), I'm inclined to give the advantage to the Dark Knowledge + defensive/skill features over 1 bonus feat and a familiar. Still, I don't normally evaluate a class based on a 1v1 PvP contest. In a typical game, an archivist looks like it could cover a ton of important party roles. Even in terms of fun factor, the archivist looks quite OPed to me ;) Yeah. Well they're obviously both at the level of world shattering power. Heck, I made a build that can take out whole countries with a first level spell (but required a 20th level character). Most of the big 5 could do it... certainly both the Archivist and Wizard could. The Wizard's advantages over the Archivist are better PrCs (Incantrix and Iot7V are arcane only), more metamagic feats (which can be used to gain more raw power than any of the Archivist class abilities), and an easier time getting the strongest spells in some catagories (especially if you take Collegate Wizard). Also, there's a few more feats that only work for Wizards, since Archivists didn't exist when they were created. Meanwhile, the Archivist has more spells available (mostly it's the heal spells, divinations, and self buffs that are better than Wizard spells), access to Divine Metamagic (which synergizes VERY well with those better self buffs), and gets some spells at much lower level than normal. I don't count ability to wear armour as a big advantage, because they've both got Mage Armour/Greater Mage Armour/Luminous Armour to cover that department, and a Wizard can easily get away with a Twilight Mithral Chain Shirt and Mithral Buckler if he so desires. JaronK
Sinfire Titan 01-09-08, 10:44 PM	Either you missed a few or you haven't been to the Opts Boards at all. The Big 5 have been determined to all be overpowered. Big 5 being Artificers, Archivists, Clerics, Druids and Wizards. ToB base classes aren't anything compared to what they can pull off. Oh and for the record Fighters Monks Bards Paladins and Rogue have all been called underpowered more then once if I recall on the Otps boards. Yes, I'm a fan of the Power 5, and note, Druid is at the top of that list every time. Rogue is actually the most balanced base class there is in the PHB. The rest of the Power 5 is up there, but they aren't quite at the same level as Druid. all still very OPed out the ass, but are more balanced in a Core only game. And I frequent the CO boards every day, FYI. Wait, have you actually played a CW Samurai? Were you able to make it work? If so, how? That said, I've come inches from breaking games with a Beguiler/Shadowcraft Mage, but that was more the PrC doing it (I had to just decide my character didn't feel like reshaping reality). JaronK Nope. Nothing short of ToB can fix that class, and even then, just barely.
danielinthewolvesden 01-09-08, 11:29 PM	Either you missed a few or you haven't been to the Opts Boards at all. The Big 5 have been determined to all be overpowered. Big 5 being Artificers, Archivists, Clerics, Druids and Wizards. By whom? The Consensus makes the Big Five to be Artificers, Psions, Clerics, Druids and Wizards. Of course, that was before the Archivist, but still. Yes, if you have a DM that will allow complete Munchkin rule interpreations and 3.0 PrCs, and also gives your PC both scads of cash and unlimited access to be able to buy every single cool spell, then yes, the Artificer seems powerful. How many Dm's are gonna allow that? Yes, Artificer might well bump Psion, but not by much. Pretty much any full spellcasting class is super-powerful at level 20. How many games are played at level 20? At low levels the druid sucks (but his pet is pretty cool) and the cleric beats the artificer all around the town. And Crusader certainly has a crack at the top levels of power, levels 1-20. However, I actually played an Artificer, levels 4-7. Both the Cleric and the Warmage were more powerful. Most of the folks here claiming the artificer is so powerful have never played one, and are basing it's power on extreme streches of the rules. (Not that it is a weak class by any means, mind you, it's still a full spellcasting class)
danielinthewolvesden 01-09-08, 11:32 PM	Meanwhile, the Archivist has...access to Divine Metamagic (which synergizes VERY well with those better self buffs), Archivist does not get Turning as a class. Yes, there are ways to get an Archivist Turning but then you can get a Wizard Turning also.
NoldorForce 01-10-08, 12:05 AM	However, I actually played an Artificer, levels 4-7. Both the Cleric and the Warmage were more powerful. Most of the folks here claiming the artificer is so powerful have never played one, and are basing it's power on extreme streches of the rules. (Not that it is a weak class by any means, mind you, it's still a full spellcasting class)-They aren't extreme stretches of the rules in the least. Some of the crazier things do involve spending large quantities of cash all at once, but they can be replicated on a lesser scale at much less cost. (For instance, Rod of Many Wands + Wand Mastery + Power Surge.) And Warmage (bolding mine, by the way) being more powerful? That doesn't sound right.Archivist does not get Turning as a class. Yes, there are ways to get an Archivist Turning but then you can get a Wizard Turning also.It's much harder to get the wizard turning. And you're missing the general point, which is that DMM only works on divine spells (which the archivist casts and the wizard doesn't).
Enigmis 01-10-08, 12:21 AM	By whom? The Consensus makes the Big Five to be Artificers, Psions, Clerics, Druids and Wizards. Of course, that was before the Archivist, but still. The new consensus puts archivist in the type five, not that it means much. However, I actually played an Artificer, levels 4-7. Both the Cleric and the Warmage were more powerful. http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=963854
JaronK 01-10-08, 12:53 AM	Archivist does not get Turning as a class. Yes, there are ways to get an Archivist Turning but then you can get a Wizard Turning also. Nope. Divine Metamagic only works on Divine spells, so Wizards can't make use of it (the feat was errataed). It's easy to get turning on an Archivist, and they can actually use it. JaronK
JaronK 01-10-08, 01:57 AM	By whom? The Consensus makes the Big Five to be Artificers, Psions, Clerics, Druids and Wizards. Of course, that was before the Archivist, but still. Psions are defintly no longer on that list. The unifying thing about the big 5 is that they all get new spells with every expansion, and all have access to the ultra powerful core spells (not all of them, necessarily, but enough). That's why three of the big 5 are core, and the other two can take spells off the other three (Archivists getting spells as discussed in this thread, Artificers being able to cast absolutely everything). They can also pick and choose their spells for the occasion, which is why Sorcerers and Favoured Souls aren't on the list. Yes, if you have a DM that will allow complete Munchkin rule interpreations and 3.0 PrCs, and also gives your PC both scads of cash and unlimited access to be able to buy every single cool spell, then yes, the Artificer seems powerful. How many Dm's are gonna allow that? Once again, most DMs won't allow any of the big 5 to go nuts. With that said, part of the reason a lot of people think Druids are so strong is that they require fewer creative tricks to get their power, so most DMs allow them to get closer to full power (and thus they get more broken). Smart DMs will recognize the problem and nerf them all. But by RAW, there are numerous ways to get an Archivist all those tasty spells (and no, you don't need the Hexer to do it... that's just one of many ways). Yes, Artificer might well bump Psion, but not by much. Pretty much any full spellcasting class is super-powerful at level 20. How many games are played at level 20? At low levels the druid sucks (but his pet is pretty cool) and the cleric beats the artificer all around the town. Hardly. A Druid 5 in Fleshraker Dinosaur form can smash through almost any CR 5 encounter without even laying in with spells and his pet. As a Dire Bat or Desmoderu Hunting Bat, he's an awesome scout. They don't suck at all. Meanwhile, an Artificer can do all sorts of stuff that would make Psions cry (How about using wands without burning charges? Yup, it can be done). Psions have some awesome abilities, but since they don't gain new abilities with every expansion. They're right around Sorcerer/Wu Jen level... they've got a few game breaking tricks, but they can't break the game in nearly as many ways, nor can the pick and choose nearly so many perfect spells for whatever situation. And Crusader certainly has a crack at the top levels of power, levels 1-20. Crusaders can't create a new plane of existance (Genesis, or as a Shadowcraft Mage, Genesis in 6 seconds with no material cost or exp cost). Crusaders can't build castles on a whim (wall of stone + fabricate). Crusaders can't summon armies of the apocalypse (Armaggedon) or cast 1st level spells that can destroy whole countries. They're not near the top. They're a nice solid strong tanky melee class. A very good class, to be certain, but they're nowhere near the big 5. However, I actually played an Artificer, levels 4-7. Both the Cleric and the Warmage were more powerful. Most of the folks here claiming the artificer is so powerful have never played one, and are basing it's power on extreme streches of the rules. (Not that it is a weak class by any means, mind you, it's still a full spellcasting class) Warmage? Fail. Warmages are just archers with a different kind of arrows (and a couple crowd control spells). An Artificer can literally fill any class role he wants, from healing to stealth to damage, and can generally do it better than any class that's not in the big 5. JaronK
JulesCARV 01-10-08, 03:44 AM	If you have an archivist with core and Heroes of Horror, plus Complete Divine for the Sacred Exorcist and Divine Metamagic, Complete Arcane for Persistent Spell, and Libris Mortis for Nightsticks, that's powerful. Add in Unearthed Arcana for the divine bard, Complete Mage for the divine magician cleric variant, etc, and the power increases. However, I still don't think that the archivist -- with all of that -- can complete with the core wizard and cleric plus a single free Web Enhancement to Complete Divine. cleric 1/wizard 7/dweomerkeeper 10, say. Using the supernatural spell ability, you ignore all components: verbal, somatic, material, focus, divine focus, and experience. Wish has the ability to create magic items, as a routine, non-risky use of the spell, but with a dramatically increased experience component to the spell. With the experience component gone, you can wish for a staff with a few trusty spells on it: miracle, shapechange, wish, time stop, true resurrection, gate, etc. Naturally, miracle gives you all spells of 7th level or lower, whether bard, druid, ranger, or whatever. You can also cast any spell of 8th or 9th level on the cleric or wizard list, since you have both, and a staff is spell trigger. As for 8th and 9th level spells on the druid list (or wu jen or whatever, if you're going beyond core plus the Web Enhancement): well, your staff can have those too, although they require a use magic device check. Put a rank or a few in use magic device, wish for a +20 competence item to use magic device, and you'll have no problem activating spell trigger items of those. If you feel the need to cast more than 50 spells per day of your choice from staffs, and you only have one 9th level spell slot at level 17 (i.e., your intelligence is less than 28), then go ahead and wish for a pearl of power IX. Then, then next day, wish for two pearls of power IX. Now you can cast wish four times a day, each as a supernatural spell. Before level 18, the dweomerkeeper could also use limited wish, forcecage, identify, stoneskin, and some other spells without any components, starting at dweomerkeeper 4 (i.e. cleric 1/wizard 4/dweomerkeeper 4), in case you're worried that the dweomerkeeper only has any power at level 18+. Archivists, by the way, find it far more difficult than the above combo to become dweomerkeepers without dips in cleric and an arcane class. Archivist/contemplative could do it, but much later. A lot of you are probably wondering what my point here is, considering that the problems of the dweomerkeeper are well known. Well, the point is, if you're going to judge the archivist by the theoretical limits of how it can be optimized given unlimited access to sourcebooks, there's no reason not to judge other classes that way too. If, on the other hand, you're going to judge the power of an archivist in a typical game (With, for example, an archivist who might have managed to get mirror image and sleep off of a friendly adept, but hasn't yet gotten one who is willing or able to help him on polymorph or heal, has a nice collection of cleric spells, managed to get enlarge person from a mercenary cleric of Kord, and got flamestrike as a level 4 spell from a druid, but had to leave before the druid could prepare reincarnate the next day, and the archivist also has great knowledge (arcana, religion, the planes, and dungeoneering) checks and some nifty dark knowledge abilities and a few other cool skills), then I don't see how this talk of omnipotent archivists is useful. They're a very powerful class ordinarily, but I don't see what use it is to act as if most games with archivists in them have divine magician clerics, hexers, friendly warlocks, etc, all easily at the archivist's disposal.
JaronK 01-10-08, 03:57 AM	Jules, the point is that the Archivist has a heck of a lot of power, along with the rest of the big 5. So yes, Wizards and Clerics and Druids and Artificers can also do rediculous game breaking stuff. Which one is more powerful just comes down to which ways of gaining power you know and which ones your DM will allow. Sure, the Wizard or Cleric can use dweomerkeeper, but the Druid can use Planar Shepard, the Archivist (and Wizard, and Cleric) can use Shadowcraft Mage, and the Artificer can, well, use more Artificer. Shadowcraft Mages can pull off silly Miracle tricks too (with Arcane Disciple: Luck), and Planar Sheppards get free Wishes too. Artificers can make a 1 charge wand of wish and then use their little endless wand uses trick to go nuts in the same way. It all comes down to what you know how to do and what the DM will allow, but all 5 of them can break the game all over the place. JaronK
larry_the_titan 01-10-08, 07:49 AM	By whom? The Consensus makes the Big Five to be Artificers, Psions, Clerics, Druids and Wizards. Of course, that was before the Archivist, but still. There was a poll on the Char Opts Boards just a couple weeks back. You might still be able to add you say to the numbers if you can find the thread. From the looks of it you are still applying only the first consensus. Yes, if you have a DM that will allow complete Munchkin rule interpreations and 3.0 PrCs, and also gives your PC both scads of cash and unlimited access to be able to buy every single cool spell, then yes, the Artificer seems powerful. How many Dm's are gonna allow that? It doesn't take Munchkin Rule Interpretations, it takes knowing RAW. Yes, Artificer might well bump Psion, but not by much. Pretty much any full spellcasting class is super-powerful at level 20. How many games are played at level 20? At low levels the druid sucks (but his pet is pretty cool) and the cleric beats the artificer all around the town. An Artificers Power comes from magic items. They don't have to even make themselves powerful but with the use of spells from multiple class an Artificer is a great deal better then a cleric. Artificers can get every Spell in every book to add to his power. The Cleric can only hope to add a few to his list through Domains normally. The most game breaking aspect of Clerics is Divine Meta Magic DMM. Artificers have a spells that alter the effects of Magical Items. One can Change the Energy type produce by a scroll. Another can change the bonus type granted by an item. Changing the bonus type of an item allows them to stack with what used to be the same kind of bonus. Such as changing a weapons Enchantment bonus to an Insight bonus then casting Greater magic weapon to give it back the Enchantment bonus which can allow for +10 weapons before Epic. Now we get into Artificer class options. Meta Magic Spell Trigger and Meta Magic Spell Completion both allow you to add what ever Meta magic Feats you have taken and add them to your spells cast from items. The first one works on wands and Staffs and the second works on Scrolls and Minor Schemas. Just for note neither of theses options are capped at 9th level for the max final level of the spells. Then to cap off the classes abilities they are give Skill Mastery for UMD which is the only thing holding back the power of this class. The biggest Difference in power between Artificers and any other class happens at 15th level after they have all there class abilities and have access to 9th level spells 2 levels ahead of all other classes short of a few PrCs. And Crusader certainly has a crack at the top levels of power, levels 1-20. However, I actually played an Artificer, levels 4-7. Both the Cleric and the Warmage were more powerful. Most of the folks here claiming the artificer is so powerful have never played one, and are basing it's power on extreme streches of the rules. (Not that it is a weak class by any means, mind you, it's still a full spellcasting class) 4th -7th level is the few levels in the game when Artificers have to deal with limited resources. With out time and money or at least a supply of magic items Artificers aren't that powerful but neither are most other caster classes.
larry_the_titan 01-10-08, 08:07 AM	Nope. Divine Metamagic only works on Divine spells, so Wizards can't make use of it (the feat was errataed). It's easy to get turning on an Archivist, and they can actually use it. JaronK Currently trying to figure out who this can be done can you supply a link or the feat that will allow this.
Malicea 01-10-08, 08:31 AM	The Wizard's advantages over the Archivist are better PrCs (Incantrix and Iot7V are arcane only), more metamagic feats (which can be used to gain more raw power than any of the Archivist class abilities), and an easier time getting the strongest spells in some catagories (especially if you take Collegate Wizard). Also, there's a few more feats that only work for Wizards, since Archivists didn't exist when they were created. Meanwhile, the Archivist has more spells available (mostly it's the heal spells, divinations, and self buffs that are better than Wizard spells), access to Divine Metamagic (which synergizes VERY well with those better self buffs), and gets some spells at much lower level than normal. I don't count ability to wear armour as a big advantage, because they've both got Mage Armour/Greater Mage Armour/Luminous Armour to cover that department, and a Wizard can easily get away with a Twilight Mithral Chain Shirt and Mithral Buckler if he so desires. JaronK Again, assuming both classes prestige out at some point, the wizard has no feat advantage until level 5, and a 1 feat advantage through to level 14. It's unlikely the wizard will see his 2nd feat advantage at level 15. Also, I'm rarely interested in comparative 'power' at level 20. I'm far more interested in level 1-12, maybe 15 or so games, and the fun in actually playing those levels. Since I've yet to play an Epic game, power AT level 20 is quite meaningless to me :( Typically, I tend to play in wealth-controlled games, so the ability to wear (cheaper) armor does make a difference, as players generally have similar or identical wealth levels. Of course, this strays into house-rule stuff, so I'll just leave it at that ;)
BowenSilverclaw1986 01-10-08, 09:02 AM	Currently trying to figure out who this can be done can you supply a link or the feat that will allow this. A 1 level dip into Sacred Exorcist (CD) should do the trick... ~Bowen
larry_the_titan 01-10-08, 09:18 AM	A 1 level dip into Sacred Exorcist (CD) should do the trick... ~Bowen I will have to read up one this when I get home. If it is possible I guess useing DMM you can presist Bite of Werebear and be able to nearly overpower that stupid Half-Minotuar Barbarian. Good thing Archivists can't gain access to infusions otherwise I could make this really sick. I hope to never see an Archivist//Artificer Gestalt.
JaronK 01-10-08, 12:38 PM	I will have to read up one this when I get home. If it is possible I guess useing DMM you can presist Bite of Werebear and be able to nearly overpower that stupid Half-Minotuar Barbarian. Good thing Archivists can't gain access to infusions otherwise I could make this really sick. I hope to never see an Archivist//Artificer Gestalt. Yes, you can use DMM Persist for Bite of the Werebear, Wraithstrike, Giant Size, Shapechange, Swift Haste, Divine Power, Divine Might... and so on. None of this "nearly overpower" nonsense. Pump your BAB to full, your size to collosal, your strength to at least 50 and your speed to the limits, then make touch attacks while standing tall as a 500 foot high Solar. Make that Half Minotaur Mineral Warrior Water Orc Barbarian wonder why he's even in the party. You'll need Nightsticks to persist that much at once, though. Archivist 19/Sacred Exorcist 1 gets one level of turning, and that's all you need. Or were you asking for the link to show that only divine spells can be powered by Divine Metamagic? If so, it's here http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20040125a in the Complete Divine errata.
JaronK 01-10-08, 12:43 PM	Again, assuming both classes prestige out at some point, the wizard has no feat advantage until level 5, and a 1 feat advantage through to level 14. It's unlikely the wizard will see his 2nd feat advantage at level 15. Also, I'm rarely interested in comparative 'power' at level 20. I'm far more interested in level 1-12, maybe 15 or so games, and the fun in actually playing those levels. Since I've yet to play an Epic game, power AT level 20 is quite meaningless to me :( Typically, I tend to play in wealth-controlled games, so the ability to wear (cheaper) armor does make a difference, as players generally have similar or identical wealth levels. Of course, this strays into house-rule stuff, so I'll just leave it at that ;) If you think about it, Greater Mage Armour is quite cheap. And a lot of people use Mithral Chain Shirts... Twilight is just a +1 enchantment. Mithral Bucklers are cheap enough too. Generally, both Wizards and Archivists can start PrCing out after level 5, so in the end the Wizard just has one bonus metamagic feat before he leaves the class (to jump into Shadowcraft Mage, Iot7V, or Incantrix if he wants raw power, something else if he wants something else). Archivists are rarer in that they're a full casting class that doesn't have to PrC out (except into Sacred Exorcist and maybe Holt Warden if they want to use Anyspell). Now, within the level range you mentioned, an Archivist can rock out with DMM Persist... it takes just three feats (Extend Spell, Persistant Spell, DMM Persistant Spell) and a one level dip into Sacred Exorcist to get that happening, at which point there's a few brutal low level spells that are persistable (Swift Haste and Wraithstrike are both level 2, and the former is easy to get as it's off the ranger list. Divine Might and Divine Favor, as well as the best Bite of X spell you can get, are highly recommended too). Meanwhile, the Wizard can go Wizard 5/IotSV 7 and walk around being invincible, which is a bit better than most armour. JaronK
larry_the_titan 01-10-08, 01:18 PM	Yes, you can use DMM Persist for Bite of the Werebear, Wraithstrike, Giant Size, Shapechange, Swift Haste, Divine Power, Divine Might... and so on. None of this "nearly overpower" nonsense. Pump your BAB to full, your size to collosal, your strength to at least 50 and your speed to the limits, then make touch attacks while standing tall as a 500 foot high Solar. Make that Half Minotaur Mineral Warrior Water Orc Barbarian wonder why he's even in the party. You'll need Nightsticks to persist that much at once, though. Archivist 19/Sacred Exorcist 1 gets one level of turning, and that's all you need. Or were you asking for the link to show that only divine spells can be powered by Divine Metamagic? If so, it's here http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20040125a in the Complete Divine errata. Nope I was only trying to see if you lost anything from taking Sacred Exorcist. Caster level lost really isn't that important though. I plan to see what exactly can be gotten from the Archivist that an Artificer doesn't do some other way. Presisting spells for free can be done by both and Artificers get things from its infusions that Archivists do not. I am just looking through the differences between the classes to find out which one is more powerful to me. So far Artificer is winning out but they are close.
JaronK 01-10-08, 01:26 PM	Nope I was only trying to see if you lost anything from taking Sacred Exorcist. Caster level lost really isn't that important though. I plan to see what exactly can be gotten from the Archivist that an Artificer doesn't do some other way. Presisting spells for free can be done by both and Artificers get things from its infusions that Archivists do not. I am just looking through the differences between the classes to find out which one is more powerful to me. So far Artificer is winning out but they are close. You don't lose any caster levels by grabbing that Sacred Exorcist level. Archivists tend to do it cheaper, while Artificers do it earlier. JaronK
deathbane 01-10-08, 01:31 PM	The PHBII nerf doesn't actually effect anything written before PHBII. Notice it says that the specific description in the spell overwrites the PHBII entry where they conflict. Since Polymorph says everything that it does, it is unaffected. Since Shapechange says it works "as polymorph" it too is unaffected. The PHBII polymorph subschool bit only applies to future spells. Shapechange was nerfed to maxing out at 25HD (thank goodness!). Spells are a Special Attack (check out the Monster Manual, that's where they're listed... for example, a Planetar's special attacks are "spell like abilities, spells"). They're not listed as being extraordinary, supernatural or spell-like. Just special attacks. And you get those. JaronK The spell says you gain all supernatural and extraordinary abilities(qualities and attacks). That means you get qualities and attacks that are either supernatural or extraordinary. Spells and spell-like abilities are neither EX or SU so they don't qualify.
NoldorForce 01-10-08, 01:39 PM	Interestingly, the polymorph subschool does allow you to get spells if you really read into it. This is because it (by default) gives you all abilities of the creature. Now of course the old Polymorph line explicitly gets to ignore that in the event of a conflict...but that's only if a conflict pops up. And nothing in the old Polymorph line mentions spellcasting or other class-features-as-special-abilities; thus by the subschool you do get them if they aren't otherwise banned. Mind you, it's absolutely ridiculous, but that's how the rules work.
JaronK 01-10-08, 01:41 PM	The spell says you gain all supernatural and extraordinary abilities(qualities and attacks). That means you get qualities and attacks that are either supernatural or extraordinary. Spells and spell-like abilities are neither EX or SU so they don't qualify. From here: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040511a When polymorphing, you generally lose your own natural abilities and gain those of your assumed form. Spells are a Natural Ability (which from the same quote is anything that's not extraordinary, spell like, or supernatural) Special Attack. JaronK
larry_the_titan 01-10-08, 01:55 PM	From here: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040511a Spells are a Natural Ability (which from the same quote is anything that's not extraordinary, spell like, or supernatural) Special Attack. JaronK Natural Ability: This term is a catch-all for just about anything a creature can do (or characteristic that it has) that is not extraordinary, spell-like, or supernatural. Natural abilities include most speed ratings (some very high speeds are not "natural," see the section on the alter self spell), mode of breathing (lungs, gills), natural armor and weaponry, general appearance, body type, and the presence or absence of the five basic senses (sight, hearing, touch, taste, pain). When polymorphing, you generally lose your own natural abilities and gain those of your assumed form. By your own catagories when Polymorphed you lose your own spells since they are considered Natural abilities.
deathbane 01-10-08, 02:07 PM	From here: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040511a Spells are a Natural Ability (which from the same quote is anything that's not extraordinary, spell like, or supernatural) Special Attack. JaronK Spell-Like Ability: Spell-like abilities are magical. (They're also the subject of an earlier installment in this series.) A creature usually retains its spell-like abilities when it assumes another form because spell-like abilities are primarily mental in nature. You don't gain an assumed form's spell-like abilities when polymorphing or even when using the very powerful shape change spell. The bolded part is what I was trying to say, now that I look back on it I wrote it badly. If spell-like abilities are natural, and spells are natural, but also magical then it seems both ignored, since spells are just as mental as spell-like abilities. Either you know how to cast the spell or you don't.
Cartigan 01-10-08, 02:10 PM	By your own catagories when Polymorphed you lose your own spells since they are considered Natural abilities. Not that I agree spells are natural abilities, but you wouldn't lose your ability to cast spells because those are class abilities, which you keep.
JaronK 01-10-08, 02:19 PM	The bolded part is what I was trying to say, now that I look back on it I wrote it badly. If spell-like abilities are natural, and spells are natural, but also magical then it seems both ignored, since spells are just as mental as spell-like abilities. Either you know how to cast the spell or you don't. Spell Like Abilities are not Spells. Spells are not Spell Like Abilities. You specifically don't get Spell Like abilities. You do get spells. Read over the full definition of Spell Like abilities... they never provoke attacks of opportunity, do not use material components (or somatic or verbal), whereas spells do. There are four catagories of abilities... Natural, Spell-Like, Supernatural, and Extraordinary. Spells fall into the Natural catagory, and are also Special Attacks, and polymorph gives you all Special Attacks which are also Natural Abilties. We know Spells are Natural Abilities, because they violate the rules for the other three catagories, and anything that is not in the other three catagories is a Natural Ability (PHB pg 180). JaronK
JaronK 01-10-08, 02:21 PM	By your own catagories when Polymorphed you lose your own spells since they are considered Natural abilities. You retain your spellcasting abilities, but your assumed form might limit what you can do. You can use spells with verbal components only if you have retained the ability to speak. You can use somatic and material components only if your assumed form has limbs capable of dealing with them. JaronK
JaronK 01-10-08, 02:25 PM	Not that I agree spells are natural abilities, but you wouldn't lose your ability to cast spells because those are class abilities, which you keep. See PHB pg 180, which covers what spells are. But yes, you keep all class abilities which are not made impossible by your new form. JaronK
larry_the_titan 01-10-08, 03:49 PM	JaronK So do you mean that Spells are Class abilities on other monsters. The rules still apply. It should be the same for balance reasons and its just not logical. Technically they aren't covered by the rules since the one time they are mentioned they say you keep yours but don't mention you getting the targets. Anyone want to ask WotC what happens?
archerpwr 01-10-08, 05:04 PM	By whom? http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=968062 Okay, the full list (ignoring anything voted for only once): Cnt. Avg. SD Med. Mode Min/Max Spread archivist 38 9.63 0.62 10.00 10.00 7/10 3 ardent 12 7.07 1.31 7.00 6.00 5/9 4 artificer 37 9.39 0.76 10.00 10.00 8/10 2 barbarian 39 4.99 1.16 5.00 5.00 2/8 6 bard 38 5.45 1.52 6.00 6.00 1/8 7 beguiler 34 7.79 0.73 8.00 8.00 6/9 3 binder 28 5.96 1.37 6.00 6.00 3/8 5 cleric 42 9.16 0.76 9.00 9.00 7/10 3 crusader 37 6.62 1.12 7.00 7.00 4/8 4 divine mind 11 3.67 2.30 3.00 3.00 1/8 7 dragon shaman 26 4.61 1.44 5.00 5.00 2/7 5 dragonfire adept 23 6.29 0.92 6.00 7.00 4/8 4 dread necromancer 30 7.10 1.16 7.00 7.00 3/10 7 druid 41 9.38 0.65 9.50 10.00 8/10 2 duskblade 34 6.09 0.87 6.00 6.00 4/8 4 erudite 11 8.15 1.35 9.00 9.00 5/9.5 4.5 factotum 31 5.98 1.02 6.00 6.00 4/8 4 favored soul 30 7.23 1.03 7.00 8.00 5/9 4 fighter 41 3.88 1.41 4.00 4.00 1/8 7 healer 29 3.21 2.06 3.00 2.00 1/9 8 hexblade 36 3.81 1.33 3.50 3.00 2/7 5 incarnate 11 4.94 1.14 5.00 4.00 3/7 4 knight 37 4.27 1.03 4.00 4.00 3/6 3 lurk 11 4.79 1.64 4.00 4.00 2/8 6 marshal 29 3.66 1.17 4.00 3.00 2/6 4 monk 41 3.51 1.38 3.00 3.00 2/8 6 ninja 33 3.97 1.29 4.00 4.00 2/8 6 paladin 40 4.22 1.15 4.00 5.00 1/6 5 psion 32 8.35 0.73 8.00 8.00 7/10 3 psychic warrior 32 6.02 1.18 6.00 6.00 3/8 5 ranger 39 4.94 1.07 5.00 5.00 2/7 5 rogue 39 5.62 1.27 5.00 5.00 3/8 5 samurai 37 1.69 0.66 2.00 2.00 1/3 2 scout 36 5.27 1.03 5.00 6.00 3/7 4 shadowcaster 22 5.03 1.79 5.13 4.00 2/8 6 shugenja 19 6.44 1.26 7.00 7.00 4/8 4 sorcerer 39 8.20 1.01 8.00 8.00 4/10 6 soulborn 11 4.15 1.15 4.00 4.00 3/7 4 soulknife 25 2.35 1.22 2.00 2.00 0/5 5 spellthief 29 3.16 1.20 3.00 4.00 1/6 5 spirit shaman 21 7.29 1.95 7.00 9.00 3/10 7 swashbuckler 37 4.24 1.36 4.00 5.00 1/7 6 swordsage 34 6.55 0.89 6.82 6.00 5/8 3 totemist 14 5.64 1.28 5.50 5.00 3/7 4 truenamer 18 2.66 1.68 2.93 3.00 0/6 6 warblade 35 6.88 0.90 7.00 7.00 4/8 4 warlock 38 6.00 0.90 6.00 6.00 4/8 4 warmage 37 5.41 1.62 6.00 7.00 1/9 8 wilder 16 6.46 1.76 7.00 7.00 3/10 7 wizard 42 9.67 0.45 10.00 10.00 9/10 1 wu jen 20 7.58 0.94 8.00 8.00 5/9 4 adept 5 3.60 1.52 3.00 3.00 2/6 4 aristocrat 5 1.40 0.55 1.00 1.00 1/2 1 commoner 5 0.60 0.55 1.00 1.00 0/1 1 expert 5 2.40 0.55 2.00 2.00 2/3 1 warrior 6 1.67 0.82 1.50 1.00 1/3 2 Now... sorted! The average (because everyone loves an average guy): Cnt. Avg. SD Med. Mode Min/Max Spread wizard 42 9.67 0.45 10.00 10.00 9/10 1 archivist 38 9.63 0.62 10.00 10.00 7/10 3 artificer 37 9.39 0.76 10.00 10.00 8/10 2 druid 41 9.38 0.65 9.50 10.00 8/10 2 cleric 42 9.16 0.76 9.00 9.00 7/10 3 psion 32 8.35 0.73 8.00 8.00 7/10 3 sorcerer 39 8.20 1.01 8.00 8.00 4/10 6 erudite 11 8.15 1.35 9.00 9.00 5/9.5 4.5 beguiler 34 7.79 0.73 8.00 8.00 6/9 3 wu jen 20 7.58 0.94 8.00 8.00 5/9 4 spirit shaman 21 7.29 1.95 7.00 9.00 3/10 7 favored soul 30 7.23 1.03 7.00 8.00 5/9 4 dread necromancer 30 7.10 1.16 7.00 7.00 3/10 7 ardent 12 7.07 1.31 7.00 6.00 5/9 4 warblade 35 6.88 0.90 7.00 7.00 4/8 4 crusader 37 6.62 1.12 7.00 7.00 4/8 4 swordsage 34 6.55 0.89 6.82 6.00 5/8 3 wilder 16 6.46 1.76 7.00 7.00 3/10 7 shugenja 19 6.44 1.26 7.00 7.00 4/8 4 dragonfire adept 23 6.29 0.92 6.00 7.00 4/8 4 duskblade 34 6.09 0.87 6.00 6.00 4/8 4 psychic warrior 32 6.02 1.18 6.00 6.00 3/8 5 warlock 38 6.00 0.90 6.00 6.00 4/8 4 factotum 31 5.98 1.02 6.00 6.00 4/8 4 binder 28 5.96 1.37 6.00 6.00 3/8 5 totemist 14 5.64 1.28 5.50 5.00 3/7 4 rogue 39 5.62 1.27 5.00 5.00 3/8 5 bard 38 5.45 1.52 6.00 6.00 1/8 7 warmage 37 5.41 1.62 6.00 7.00 1/9 8 scout 36 5.27 1.03 5.00 6.00 3/7 4 shadowcaster 22 5.03 1.79 5.13 4.00 2/8 6 barbarian 39 4.99 1.16 5.00 5.00 2/8 6 ranger 39 4.94 1.07 5.00 5.00 2/7 5 incarnate 11 4.94 1.14 5.00 4.00 3/7 4 lurk 11 4.79 1.64 4.00 4.00 2/8 6 dragon shaman 26 4.61 1.44 5.00 5.00 2/7 5 knight 37 4.27 1.03 4.00 4.00 3/6 3 swashbuckler 37 4.24 1.36 4.00 5.00 1/7 6 paladin 40 4.22 1.15 4.00 5.00 1/6 5 soulborn 11 4.15 1.15 4.00 4.00 3/7 4 ninja 33 3.97 1.29 4.00 4.00 2/8 6 fighter 41 3.88 1.41 4.00 4.00 1/8 7 hexblade 36 3.81 1.33 3.50 3.00 2/7 5 divine mind 11 3.67 2.30 3.00 3.00 1/8 7 marshal 29 3.66 1.17 4.00 3.00 2/6 4 adept 5 3.60 1.52 3.00 3.00 2/6 4 monk 41 3.51 1.38 3.00 3.00 2/8 6 healer 29 3.21 2.06 3.00 2.00 1/9 8 spellthief 29 3.16 1.20 3.00 4.00 1/6 5 truenamer 18 2.66 1.68 2.93 3.00 0/6 6 expert 5 2.40 0.55 2.00 2.00 2/3 1 soulknife 25 2.35 1.22 2.00 2.00 0/5 5 samurai 37 1.69 0.66 2.00 2.00 1/3 2 warrior 6 1.67 0.82 1.50 1.00 1/3 2 aristocrat 5 1.40 0.55 1.00 1.00 1/2 1 commoner 5 0.60 0.55 1.00 1.00 0/1 1 The median and the mode seem to be tracking the average pretty well, suggesting there's not much point in removing the outliers (like the vote for healer as a 9). Okay, the "We're all in agreement" award goes to (i.e., sorted by Standard Deviation): Cnt. Avg. SD Med. Mode Min/Max Spread wizard 42 9.67 0.45 10.00 10.00 9/10 1 expert 5 2.40 0.55 2.00 2.00 2/3 1 aristocrat 5 1.40 0.55 1.00 1.00 1/2 1 commoner 5 0.60 0.55 1.00 1.00 0/1 1 archivist 38 9.63 0.62 10.00 10.00 7/10 3 druid 41 9.38 0.65 9.50 10.00 8/10 2 samurai 37 1.69 0.66 2.00 2.00 1/3 2 beguiler 34 7.79 0.73 8.00 8.00 6/9 3 psion 32 8.35 0.73 8.00 8.00 7/10 3 artificer 37 9.39 0.76 10.00 10.00 8/10 2 cleric 42 9.16 0.76 9.00 9.00 7/10 3 warrior 6 1.67 0.82 1.50 1.00 1/3 2 duskblade 34 6.09 0.87 6.00 6.00 4/8 4 swordsage 34 6.55 0.89 6.82 6.00 5/8 3 warblade 35 6.88 0.90 7.00 7.00 4/8 4 warlock 38 6.00 0.90 6.00 6.00 4/8 4 dragonfire adept 23 6.29 0.92 6.00 7.00 4/8 4 wu jen 20 7.58 0.94 8.00 8.00 5/9 4 sorcerer 39 8.20 1.01 8.00 8.00 4/10 6 factotum 31 5.98 1.02 6.00 6.00 4/8 4 knight 37 4.27 1.03 4.00 4.00 3/6 3 scout 36 5.27 1.03 5.00 6.00 3/7 4 favored soul 30 7.23 1.03 7.00 8.00 5/9 4 ranger 39 4.94 1.07 5.00 5.00 2/7 5 crusader 37 6.62 1.12 7.00 7.00 4/8 4 incarnate 11 4.94 1.14 5.00 4.00 3/7 4 paladin 40 4.22 1.15 4.00 5.00 1/6 5 soulborn 11 4.15 1.15 4.00 4.00 3/7 4 dread necromancer 30 7.10 1.16 7.00 7.00 3/10 7 barbarian 39 4.99 1.16 5.00 5.00 2/8 6 marshal 29 3.66 1.17 4.00 3.00 2/6 4 psychic warrior 32 6.02 1.18 6.00 6.00 3/8 5 spellthief 29 3.16 1.20 3.00 4.00 1/6 5 soulknife 25 2.35 1.22 2.00 2.00 0/5 5 shugenja 19 6.44 1.26 7.00 7.00 4/8 4 rogue 39 5.62 1.27 5.00 5.00 3/8 5 totemist 14 5.64 1.28 5.50 5.00 3/7 4 ninja 33 3.97 1.29 4.00 4.00 2/8 6 ardent 12 7.07 1.31 7.00 6.00 5/9 4 hexblade 36 3.81 1.33 3.50 3.00 2/7 5 erudite 11 8.15 1.35 9.00 9.00 5/9.5 4.5 swashbuckler 37 4.24 1.36 4.00 5.00 1/7 6 binder 28 5.96 1.37 6.00 6.00 3/8 5 monk 41 3.51 1.38 3.00 3.00 2/8 6 fighter 41 3.88 1.41 4.00 4.00 1/8 7 dragon shaman 26 4.61 1.44 5.00 5.00 2/7 5 adept 5 3.60 1.52 3.00 3.00 2/6 4 bard 38 5.45 1.52 6.00 6.00 1/8 7 warmage 37 5.41 1.62 6.00 7.00 1/9 8 lurk 11 4.79 1.64 4.00 4.00 2/8 6 truenamer 18 2.66 1.68 2.93 3.00 0/6 6 wilder 16 6.46 1.76 7.00 7.00 3/10 7 shadowcaster 22 5.03 1.79 5.13 4.00 2/8 6 spirit shaman 21 7.29 1.95 7.00 9.00 3/10 7 healer 29 3.21 2.06 3.00 2.00 1/9 8 divine mind 11 3.67 2.30 3.00 3.00 1/8 7 And, finally, by number of votes: Cnt. Avg. SD Med. Mode Min/Max Spread wizard 42 9.67 0.45 10.00 10.00 9/10 1 cleric 42 9.16 0.76 9.00 9.00 7/10 3 druid 41 9.38 0.65 9.50 10.00 8/10 2 monk 41 3.51 1.38 3.00 3.00 2/8 6 fighter 41 3.88 1.41 4.00 4.00 1/8 7 paladin 40 4.22 1.15 4.00 5.00 1/6 5 sorcerer 39 8.20 1.01 8.00 8.00 4/10 6 ranger 39 4.94 1.07 5.00 5.00 2/7 5 barbarian 39 4.99 1.16 5.00 5.00 2/8 6 rogue 39 5.62 1.27 5.00 5.00 3/8 5 archivist 38 9.63 0.62 10.00 10.00 7/10 3 warlock 38 6.00 0.90 6.00 6.00 4/8 4 bard 38 5.45 1.52 6.00 6.00 1/8 7 samurai 37 1.69 0.66 2.00 2.00 1/3 2 artificer 37 9.39 0.76 10.00 10.00 8/10 2 knight 37 4.27 1.03 4.00 4.00 3/6 3 crusader 37 6.62 1.12 7.00 7.00 4/8 4 swashbuckler 37 4.24 1.36 4.00 5.00 1/7 6 warmage 37 5.41 1.62 6.00 7.00 1/9 8 scout 36 5.27 1.03 5.00 6.00 3/7 4 hexblade 36 3.81 1.33 3.50 3.00 2/7 5 warblade 35 6.88 0.90 7.00 7.00 4/8 4 beguiler 34 7.79 0.73 8.00 8.00 6/9 3 duskblade 34 6.09 0.87 6.00 6.00 4/8 4 swordsage 34 6.55 0.89 6.82 6.00 5/8 3 ninja 33 3.97 1.29 4.00 4.00 2/8 6 psion 32 8.35 0.73 8.00 8.00 7/10 3 psychic warrior 32 6.02 1.18 6.00 6.00 3/8 5 factotum 31 5.98 1.02 6.00 6.00 4/8 4 favored soul 30 7.23 1.03 7.00 8.00 5/9 4 dread necromancer 30 7.10 1.16 7.00 7.00 3/10 7 marshal 29 3.66 1.17 4.00 3.00 2/6 4 spellthief 29 3.16 1.20 3.00 4.00 1/6 5 healer 29 3.21 2.06 3.00 2.00 1/9 8 binder 28 5.96 1.37 6.00 6.00 3/8 5 dragon shaman 26 4.61 1.44 5.00 5.00 2/7 5 soulknife 25 2.35 1.22 2.00 2.00 0/5 5 dragonfire adept 23 6.29 0.92 6.00 7.00 4/8 4 shadowcaster 22 5.03 1.79 5.13 4.00 2/8 6 spirit shaman 21 7.29 1.95 7.00 9.00 3/10 7 wu jen 20 7.58 0.94 8.00 8.00 5/9 4 shugenja 19 6.44 1.26 7.00 7.00 4/8 4 truenamer 18 2.66 1.68 2.93 3.00 0/6 6 wilder 16 6.46 1.76 7.00 7.00 3/10 7 totemist 14 5.64 1.28 5.50 5.00 3/7 4 ardent 12 7.07 1.31 7.00 6.00 5/9 4 incarnate 11 4.94 1.14 5.00 4.00 3/7 4 soulborn 11 4.15 1.15 4.00 4.00 3/7 4 erudite 11 8.15 1.35 9.00 9.00 5/9.5 4.5 lurk 11 4.79 1.64 4.00 4.00 2/8 6 divine mind 11 3.67 2.30 3.00 3.00 1/8 7 warrior 6 1.67 0.82 1.50 1.00 1/3 2 expert 5 2.40 0.55 2.00 2.00 2/3 1 aristocrat 5 1.40 0.55 1.00 1.00 1/2 1 commoner 5 0.60 0.55 1.00 1.00 0/1 1 adept 5 3.60 1.52 3.00 3.00 2/6 4 So, clearly, the wizard wins, with top scores in most votes, most consistent, and most game-breaking! YAY! Someone better with statistics and excel than myself ended up tabulating a larger segment.
JaronK 01-10-08, 06:05 PM	So do you mean that Spells are Class abilities on other monsters. The rules still apply. It should be the same for balance reasons and its just not logical. Technically they aren't covered by the rules since the one time they are mentioned they say you keep yours but don't mention you getting the targets. Anyone want to ask WotC what happens? Well, certainly the polymorph subschool rules do say you get them. As to erratas on shapechange itself, all we've got is that Natural Abilities that are not Special Qualities are given by Polymorph, and that would include spells. Spells are not class abilities on monsters, they're Special Attacks on monsters. They're class abilities on people with classes. Basically, when you shapechange you keep your spells (because for you they're class abilities) but you gain the spells of the new form (because on a monster, they're special attacks). If there were a monster with class levels that gave spells and you polymorphed into him, you woudn't get those spells. Asking WotC doesn't help, because then you get those wonderful Custserv answers where you ask 4 times and get 5 different answers, depending on who's in that day. Now, is it logical or balanced? Not really. Feel free to smack it with the big ole' DM nerf bat. But it's RAW. JaronK
deathbane 01-10-08, 06:41 PM	Well, certainly the polymorph subschool rules do say you get them. As to erratas on shapechange itself, all we've got is that Natural Abilities that are not Special Qualities are given by Polymorph, and that would include spells. Spells are not class abilities on monsters, they're Special Attacks on monsters. They're class abilities on people with classes. Basically, when you shapechange you keep your spells (because for you they're class abilities) but you gain the spells of the new form (because on a monster, they're special attacks). If there were a monster with class levels that gave spells and you polymorphed into him, you woudn't get those spells. Asking WotC doesn't help, because then you get those wonderful Custserv answers where you ask 4 times and get 5 different answers, depending on who's in that day. Now, is it logical or balanced? Not really. Feel free to smack it with the big ole' DM nerf bat. But it's RAW. JaronK RAW does not say one way or the other. It is something they forgot about since most monster have SLA(spell like abilities) and not actual spells, and the closest thing we have is the statement that SLA are not given when you change to something because it is a mental ability. Spells are mental also. I guess it is one of those things that is open to interpretation. Of course it is also a natural ability if the monster cast spells at creation, but then again, so are SLA. Regardless of the solar thing the spell is still broken. I just wanted to know if WotC ever specifically said yes or no on spells. P.S. I just came back to the solar thing out of curiosity, because I wanted to know if anyone could find an answer that could not be left open to interpretation or dispute. I just hope the issue never comes up in my games.
Cartigan 01-10-08, 06:47 PM	P.S. I just came back to the solar thing out of curiosity, because I wanted to know if anyone could find an answer that could not be left open to interpretation or dispute. I just hope the issue never comes up in my games. Well, definitively, he can't cast Cleric spells as soon as he Shapechanges into an Angel race.
JaronK 01-10-08, 06:48 PM	Well, definitively, he can't cast Cleric spells as soon as he Shapechanges into an Angel race. Yeah, he'd have to cast persistant shapechange, then sit down and memorize some spells. Luckily it lasts all day. JaronK
deathbane 01-10-08, 06:50 PM	Well, definitively, he can't cast Cleric spells as soon as he Shapechanges into an Angel race. I know because he needs time to prepare the spells, but someone may find a way to stay in shapechanged form long enough to get the spells, and then it would matter, at least until I found a way to change him back to his regular form(whatever that may be).
JaronK 01-10-08, 06:50 PM	P.S. I just came back to the solar thing out of curiosity, because I wanted to know if anyone could find an answer that could not be left open to interpretation or dispute. I just hope the issue never comes up in my games. I can understand your curiosity. I've been over all the various Rules of the Game articles, and at no point does he specifically mention it. He's very clear that you keep your old spellcasting, but he only repeatedly implies that you keep your spells (since he keeps saying you get natural abilities that are special attacks) without ever quite specifically saying it. It's pretty clear Skip never actually thought about it, but his rulings do point towards it being just fine. That said, if it comes up in your games... beatstick time. Or do what I do. Ban polymorph and its cousins. JaronK
danielinthewolvesden 01-10-08, 10:13 PM	Nope. Divine Metamagic only works on Divine spells, so Wizards can't make use of it (the feat was errataed). It's easy to get turning on an Archivist, and they can actually use it. JaronK Still, the Archivist does NOT get Turning as a class ability. Thus, the Archivist can not use DMM on it's spells, divine or no. Yes, you can get Turning by Multiclassing. :rolleyes: So? We all know that the Wizard gets crazy powerful with multiclassing into one or more PrC's, and even the poor Fighter can do quite nicely with multiclassing and PrC's. The power of a class adding in PrCs and Multiclassing is not a valid comparison. You might as well add in Gestalt. Hey, I can show a super powerful Fighter Build- Fighter1/Druid19.:P archerpwr Someone did a nice job of numbers crunching there. However, note that the Psion- after the introduction of 22 new classes since my Consensus- only drops from #5 to #6. In fact, the "Big Five" of my Consensus has stayed in the top six spots, with only Archivist muscling in. In fact, the Psion has actually moved up, in comparison, due to so many new classes. (Of course that means the Druid, et, all have become even more powerful yet!) Yes folks, I know at the highest levels of power the Warmage drops off. But like I said- we were playing in the very common 4-7 level range. In IRL gaming,few games are at level 20. Still as larry_the_titan seems to agree, in the lower levels the Archivist can often be quite limited.
JaronK 01-10-08, 10:41 PM	Still, the Archivist does NOT get Turning as a class ability. Thus, the Archivist can not use DMM on it's spells, divine or no. Yes, you can get Turning by Multiclassing. :rolleyes: So? We all know that the Wizard gets crazy powerful with multiclassing into one or more PrC's, and even the poor Fighter can do quite nicely with multiclassing and PrC's. The power of a class adding in PrCs and Multiclassing is not a valid comparison. You might as well add in Gestalt. Hey, I can show a super powerful Fighter Build- Fighter1/Druid19.:P Notice I was counting Wizard PrCs. A Fighter 1/Druid 19 is a druid build, not a fighter build. An Archivist 19/Sacred Exorcist 1 is an Archivist build. Can you see the difference? You have to include the PrCs that naturally flow out of a class. Sacred Exorcist is an easy dip for any Archivist, so you tend to include in when talking about them. That said, you don't need Sacred Exorcist to make an Archivist broken... it's just one available route to uber power among many. No matter how many PrCs you throw in with a fighter, any build that's predominantly fighter is not going to compete with the big 5. Yes folks, I know at the highest levels of power the Warmage drops off. But like I said- we were playing in the very common 4-7 level range. In IRL gaming,few games are at level 20. Still as larry_the_titan seems to agree, in the lower levels the Archivist can often be quite limited. Warmages don't even get the best blast spells (Maw of Chaos, or that dragon wings one, both of which do uncapped D6 damage). A Sorcerer/Shadowcraft Mage can outnuke a Warmage with just Silent Image on their spell list. JaronK