Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Praedoran 10-04-04, 05:18 AM	I don't know if it's been addressed or not, but does anyone else find the Necromancy domain a little, overpowered. Those who look at me disgusted right obviously don't know the pains a Necromantic Wizard has to go through to be effective. While a Cleric can now just take that Domain, the Evil Domain, and the Wizard will have a hard time keeping up. Ray of Enfeeblement, COMMAND UNDEAD, Vampiric Touch, and the others are a travesty to my eyes. I see some of the BEST arcane necromancy spells just being tossed into the laps of undeserving clerics. Command Undead was the one spell that kept Wizards a true Viable choice for Necromancy, and the Domain just tossed that advantage out the window. As I see it, there's no longer a reason to be a Wizard specialist Necromancer, or Evoker (see Sorceror, Psion, or Wilder) or Abjurer (See Cleric again) or whatever. Giving up two schools is pretty hash, the scribing of spells is too harsh (the time, oh begeezus the time), the material components (if scribing spells into your book wasn't costly enough at low levels for you), and your abysmal spell's per day really suck in comparison to ANY other class. I know some might say it's the realm of Evil Gods and Demonic Forces and whatnot when it comes to Negative energy, but can't a man study his books, take the dark secrets, and master the undead without help from the Gods anymore (without looking completely crappy at it)? PS: Until I get my Complete Arcane, I think I'll be slamming Wizards for a long time because all they've done everything for the most overpowered class since 2nd edition (Oh yea, I went there), introduced the superior psychics (wizards are still good in the own way, but I've read the book enough to learn the slight tilt towards Psions in power) and all the while neglected the Wizard for anything but a blasting platform, which is more appropriately the Sorcy's domain.
Imruphel 10-04-04, 08:19 AM	My beef is far more serious. If you can't spell EBERRON you shouldn't post! One B;two Rs: it's pretty simple, really. ;) Clerics have allways been better necromancers that wizards; that's been an issue for the full 30 years of D&D's life. This domain doesn't in any way change this.
KMFDM 10-04-04, 09:16 AM	Yeah no new news there. But have U seen "Libris Mortis" yet? Man I will be fearing any Necromancer now! Just nasty.
Laskaw 10-04-04, 09:35 AM	The spells are indeed nice, but keep in mind that the spells in the Necromancer domain are just that: domain spells. Under normal conditions, you won't be able to use each of them more than once per day (I suppose you can create scrolls, but I've never liked personally putting DC spells in scrolls: though Ray of Enfeeblement and the undead creation spells would be nice). So I can't say I find it particularly overpowered myself, but YMMV.
Edymnion 10-04-04, 09:42 AM	And the original poster seems to forget that Wizards have ALWAYS been on the short end of the Necromantic stick. Clerics have always been the undisputed master of Necromancy. They have far superior skills in raising and controlling the dead, and even have built in class features to support them. Sorry dude, but its not Eberron's fault. Clerics have been better Necromancers than Wizards since day 1.
Zedium 10-04-04, 10:58 AM	Might I also point at the Water domain, which contains Horrid Wilting if my memmory serves me right, so the Necromancy domain isn't that overpowered compared to other domains.
Count Arioch the 28th 10-04-04, 11:39 AM	And the original poster seems to forget that Wizards have ALWAYS been on the short end of the Necromantic stick. Clerics have always been the undisputed master of Necromancy. They have far superior skills in raising and controlling the dead, and even have built in class features to support them. Sorry dude, but its not Eberron's fault. Clerics have been better Necromancers than Wizards since day 1. for a brief shining moment after 3.5, and before Eberron, Wizards were superior. Command undead is better than undead rebuking/controlling, and actually gives you a chance to control undead that are actually significant.
Hanuman47 10-04-04, 11:45 AM	This may be a somewhat pedantic observation, but I should point out that any wizard can learn the spells you list (unless, of course, that wizard has Necromancy as a prohibited school), while only clerics with the Necromancy domain can use them. The percentage of clerics without that domain is likely to be much larger than the percentage of wizards without that school. I do agree with the assertion that wizards have been generally nerfed (but I believe it's a 3.5 thing, not an Eberron thing).
Doctor X 10-04-04, 12:00 PM	I know some might say it's the realm of Evil Gods and Demonic Forces and whatnot when it comes to Negative energy, but can't a man study his books, take the dark secrets, and master the undead without help from the Gods anymore (without looking completely crappy at it)? Actually... in Eberron, divine magic isn't necessarily "help from the Gods." The gods don't even necessarily exist. While the religeons say that they do, it cannot be proven; and though clergy hold the existence of divine magic as proof, opponents believe that this force comes from the sheer power of faith, and nothing else. A cleric's power comes not from simply asking his diety for help, and then recieving it. It doesn't work that directly. His power comes from his studies of positive and negative energies, and how they affect things. He could study books just as much as a Wizard might... though instead of being arcane tomes, they'd probably be mostly religeous writings about good vs. evil, creation vs. destruction. With writings like this, he could find out more about the dogma and theology of is religeon, and thus learn more ways to manipulate energies based on the power "given" to him by his diety.
Praedoran 10-04-04, 01:43 PM	So I pressed some buttons in reverse, big beef. At least you can read my posts as opposed to some of the stuff others put down. But that's not the point, such things should be posted in some non-D&D forum about etiquette (of course, we all know that one doesn't exist) Either way, Command Undead was THE Necromantic Wizard ability. You practically dominated unintelligent undead, and commanded way better minions than any cleric could. Once Eberron gave it away, it broke my heart. :weep: Also, if you've ever seen any of the artificer builds, the role of a buffer/blaster/crafter wizard gets tossed down one more step. Is there ANY reason to play a wizard anymore? Other than to say you survived 1st level with two magic missles a day, 4-6 HP, no armor, and a staff? But the point is, is that when just the 3.5 Player's Handbook first came out, I really respected how Wizards of the Coast did things, and everything was hanging in a remarkable and complex balance. Unfortunately, some new things came out and totally threw the order out of balance. Overly powerful races, overpowered PrCs, new base classes to dip in, and expanded cleric spell list (Hey Wizards, remember how the Wizard may not have had access to every spell of his level, but in return had the largest number of spells possible?)
stone_dog 10-04-04, 01:50 PM	remember how the Wizard may not have had access to every spell of his level, but in return had the largest number of spells possible?) ... Um... no? (flips through the 2nd ed PhB) Nope, clerics still have them beat there. Wizards cap out at five spells of a level, clerics cap out at nine.
stone_dog 10-04-04, 01:55 PM	Oh... Higher LEVEL spells! Yeah, clerics didn't used to get eight and ninth level spells. Forgot all about that...
Eastie04 10-04-04, 01:59 PM	But the point is, is that when just the 3.5 Player's Handbook first came out, I really respected how Wizards of the Coast did things, and everything was hanging in a remarkable and complex balance. Unfortunately, some new things came out and totally threw the order out of balance. Overly powerful races, overpowered PrCs, new base classes to dip in, and expanded cleric spell list (Hey Wizards, remember how the Wizard may not have had access to every spell of his level, but in return had the largest number of spells possible?) If you have such a problem with the Eberron Rule changes don't use them. ;) Isn't that part of the beauty of the game. Stick with the straight 3.5 PHB if that is what floats your boat. As DM, and to some extent a PC, you should have a say in whats in your campaign. If you don't like that Bard is the gnomish favored class (my personal quirk ) stick with the illusionist. Complaining here isn't going to change anything.
Praedoran 10-04-04, 02:10 PM	I was talking about 3.5, but I do respect 2nd Ed. It gave D&D a very realistic feel, did an amazing job of balance (by REALLY filing each class into a niche, btw, double sided there), and it was a very powerful engine, that ultimately died due to how sluggish and complicated it was. If it was too complicated, it wouldn't attract new players, but the initative system, level caps, saves system, and attribute system really made the system something to admire. In 3.5 everything got a needed kick in the ass... even the feats. You'd just think though, that with a company named Wizards of the Coast, they wouldn't let their namesake suffer sooo much.
Praedoran 10-04-04, 02:21 PM	While Eberron may be a good setting, some things were glaring mistakes (The Talenta Cheese Weapon of Doom), and I was just sharing my opinion to get some feedback and perhaps insight as to why I was wrong. The only reasoning I got was: It was, and always will be, so stop yer yapping. I was actually hoping for something logical, so maybe I'll stick to character optimization, they're more my kinda people.
The White Sorcerer 10-04-04, 02:56 PM	Mmm... Eberron beef. Delicious tribex meat... :drool:
Doctor X 10-04-04, 04:04 PM	Also, if you've ever seen any of the artificer builds, the role of a buffer/blaster/crafter wizard gets tossed down one more step. Is there ANY reason to play a wizard anymore? Other than to say you survived 1st level with two magic missles a day, 4-6 HP, no armor, and a staff? The Wizard is still better than the artificer BY FAR for everything you mentioned above except item creation. The Artificer's ability to "buff" is probably his main thing aside from item creation, but that doesn't mean he's better at it. He doesn't have very many infusions per day, his selection of effects is much more limited, and most of the best ones have very long casting times (1 minute, 10 minutes, or longer), making them useless in unexpected combat. If you walk into an ambush, don't expect a lot of help from the Artificer, unless he has some Action Points to spare. The Wizard is still, without a doubt, the best at blasting as well. While the artificer may technically mimic any spell a Wizard can cast... he has to spend a great deal of time and money (and XP, depeding on how much of his craft reserve he's used) to do it. Even then, it's not always gauranteed to work. They have to make UMD checks to activate their stuff, so even when they're high enough level to craft wands and whatnot, they still can fail a DC 20 UMD check with an unlucky roll. You can't take 10 in heated combat, so don't be surprised if an Artficer sometimes can't get his wand of fireball to do anything but fizzle when he needs it the most. The Wizard has actual combat-ready spell-slots, and he can put anything he knows into them, unlike an Artificer, who can't cast anything until he makes it into an item. Wizards are also much better at metamagic, as Artificers can't do it at all until 6th level, and even then, it's limited to his spell-trigger items only. So what is a wizard good for in Eberron? Quite a bit, actually, especially in a party with an Artficer. Because the Artficer can take care of all the item creation, the Wizard is free to spend his bonus feats on metamagics, which make the Wizard an even better Buffer/Blaster, although he already tops the Artificer without them. As a role in the world as a whole, Keith Baker said it like this: Wizards are the scientists, Artificers are the engineers. Wizards occupy themselves with abstraction and experimentation, learning more about Arcane magic and searching for new ways to manipulate it-- That's what metamagic is. Artificers take the stuff that the wizards have learned and find more concrete, practical ways to apply it-- building magical devices and whatnot. So if you want to see how the Wizard and the Artificer truly differ, look at more than just their roles in combat. Keep this in mind when you're playing either in Eberron... it'll make things much more interesting, I think.
Imruphel 10-04-04, 07:33 PM	So I pressed some buttons in reverse, big beef. At least you can read my posts as opposed to some of the stuff others put down. But that's not the point, such things should be posted in some non-D&D forum about etiquette (of course, we all know that one doesn't exist) (snip) Chill out, mate; sure, I teased you about your inability to spell the name of the campaign world whose boards you're posting on but I also DID address the issue you raised.
Edymnion 10-04-04, 07:38 PM	While Eberron may be a good setting, some things were glaring mistakes (The Talenta Cheese Weapon of Doom), and I was just sharing my opinion to get some feedback and perhaps insight as to why I was wrong.Just for clarifications, Keith has repeatedly said that weapon was a typo. It should have been a simple x3 crit, and the erratta will fix it officially as soon as it comes out.
Praedoran 10-04-04, 08:34 PM	I remember Keith saying they were to be errata'd, to something like a 19-20x3, but unfortunately, I didn't hear any promises of it. However, it wouldn't be the first time they had to tone down weapons, afterall, Sword and Fist saw a lot of that with the Mercutial weapons. I don't think Wizards ever wants to break the limitations of a x6 multiplier (Which I refer to as a 18-20x2, 3 Threat times 2), because beyond that, it's just crazy. I really like the Tiny Scythe post about that. Where a bump in damage can take away a critical, but never give. But I'll lay off that in hopes of an errata (including an errata for other things) And I'm sorry bout snapping on you Imruphel, but for 30 years of D&D's life, they've always given the cleric an edge over the Wizard, true. Just because it's tradition though, doesn't make it right. However, here's a question for all of you: The Cleric does have a flaw to justify it's power, a religous code. A cleric who breaks their faith loses all their spells and powers, but in my history, I've never seen anyone enforce this, beyond once when a player could have lost her abilities if she had forgotten to bless (or consecrate in 3rd Ed) an evil temple before leaving. And while I know there's always the GM catch: If you don't like it, change it. I'm growing out of that these days though, from what it seems like entire systems built on house rules, to almost no house rules at all (other than, **** off the GM, bad things will happen). House Rules have been abused by too my newbie DMs to nerf a player.
Edymnion 10-04-04, 08:41 PM	Well, it makes sense that the Cleric is better at creating undead armies than the Wizard is. The Cleric is all about life and death, the power of the gods. Wizards have always been more about working with ambient magic, typically to make things blow up, or to change things already in existance. There are exceptions to this, on both sides, of course, but generally the Cleric has always been about life and death, while the Wizard was handling everything in between. Just makes sense to me that an evil cleric calling upon the corrupt powers of his dark god would have an easier time at creating the most powerful (and often sentient) undead, while the Wizard would have a much harder time at it, having to rely soley on his own skills to force a corpse to move like a puppet via arcane magic. Divine Magic = "Hey god, would you do this for me?" Arcane Magic = "Yeah, gimme a minute while I figure this out"
KMFDM 10-04-04, 09:02 PM	Divine Magic = "Hey god, would you do this for me?" Arcane Magic = "Yeah, gimme a minute while I figure this out" And don't forget : The Rogue/Artificer = "Wait while I wip this out" :D
MrSpatula 10-05-04, 12:44 AM	Rebuking is much better than command undead. Anything that rebuking can't affect is going to have no trouble making the Will negates save vs command undead (and Will is a good save for undead). Vs a group of undead, command undead will only allow control one one undead creature while rebuke can affect many. The only real downside to rebuking is the cap on HD that the cleric can control. Command undead allows a necromancer to compete with evil clerics, but it's hardly killing necromancers to for clerics to have it as a domain spell because it overlaps with their existing abilities. Sure, it's a handy thing to have when you're facing that lich or vampire (hope the DM rolls a 1 on the save!), but the cleric is limited in the number of times per day that he can prepare it and if it's placed in a scroll or wand the DC will suck.
Save-vs-DM 10-05-04, 03:01 AM	I'd just like to chime and state that I think that wizards have never been nerfed and are perhaps the more powerful of the classes. In regards to your post, if you still wish to create an arcane necromancer, there are a few edges the Wizard has over the cleric, even with the Necromancy domain. 1. Check out the unearthed arcana specalist wizard variants (page 63). If you give up your bonus spells for specializing all undead creatures you make have a +4 enhancment bonus to Strength and Dexterity and two additional hit points per hit die. If you really want a kicker, give up your bonus metamagic feats to take Undead Apotheosis: you get lots of yummy bonuses and immunities. 2. Never forget that Wizards can research and create their own spells. If you want to be a good necromancer, simply create some new necromancy spells. Clerics can't do this (at least by the book, and I personally don't let clerics create new spells). Create a better version of Control Undead - it shouldn't be that hard and if you talk with your DM ahead of time you should be able to create something better. 3. Summon Undead. Wizards have access to the Summon Undead spells (they can be found in Tome and Blood, iirc). These provide a quick pinch hitter in a tough battle. 4. You're not expected to heal the party. Sure your average cleric is better than your average wizard at being a necromancer, but your wizard isn't expected to heal the party. That takes spells away from the cleric. As a wizard about all you're really expected to do is kill things. Most folks don't care how you kill things, simply that you do it well. 5. You don't have to prepare spells all at once. Remember that a wizard can leave spell slots open and take 15 minutes to prepare them ahead of time. This isn't something that a cleric can do. If you are careful and leave a slot or two open when you need it (such as when you just kill a nice monser and want to raise it). 6. Page 64 of Dragon 324 has an excellent little article on getting the most bang for your buck with Animate Dead. I do agree that the Necromancy domain cuts into the arcane necromancy, and it does hurt. But I really don't think it's a death knell and that wizards still make compeltely viable spellcasters. Finally, I have one other suggestion. Don't fight the disparity, embrace it! Why not multilcass as a necromancer/cleric and then go mystic theurge? If you think about it, mulitclassing with the necromancy domain gives you a massive bang for your buck (+1 to both your arance and divine necromancy spells). Take practiced spellcaster a few times to buff your caster level, and you're a true undead creating/commanding machine! Hope this was helpful. Cheers, Save vs DM
Praedoran 10-05-04, 06:12 AM	I really enjoy the variant abilities they give for the Specialist Wizards (especially the Necromancer and Transmuter :) ) but sometimes I wonder what to take and what to leave out of that book. There's lots of stuff I'd like to have, but I'm such a game balance freak these days, I kinda scares me to allow some stuff. (Did they ever errata the Water Orc? I think they forgot it's ability bonuses, because they simply gave it +2 Con and Swim speed, without really giving any drawbacks, same goes for Domain Wizards... why not be a Domain Wizard according to UA?) Thanks for the info Save-vs-DM, I knew a lot of that stuff, but the part about Wizards not being looked at like bandaid box was something I haven't considered. They are a good "do anything" caster, but the reason I like Necromancy over Evocation is the simple fact of "Why should I worry about it's 350 HP? I've got a Finger of Death, DC, oh 40." (Go Red Wizard Necromancers) but Clerics are masters of Death and Paralysis really. And thanks to others for pointing out my ignorance about Arcane Domain spells, the once per day thing really isn't such a game breaker. Having always avoided Clerics like the plague has lead to some of my problems. Maybe I'll swallow my pride and hatred one day and actually try to seriously play one (I actually played a cleric once... in second ed... who loaded only cure light wounds :P) I'm always creating Wizards for my players to fight against, but I've never gotten the chance to actually play one for too long, so you'll have to pardon my occasional gripes about some classes. It probably stems from GM-wants-to-play syndrome.
Praedoran 10-05-04, 06:22 AM	Double Post
Saurenda 10-05-04, 09:20 AM	My beef is far more serious. If you can't spell EBERRON you shouldn't post! One B;two Rs: it's pretty simple, really. ;) Clerics have allways been better necromancers that wizards; that's been an issue for the full 30 years of D&D's life. This domain doesn't in any way change this. Eberron. E, Double B, triple E, Triple R, Quadruple O, Double N As for Wizard it's Tiple W Double Y Double Z Triple D Double A Triple R Double D.
Ardent 10-05-04, 11:38 AM	I really enjoy the variant abilities they give for the Specialist Wizards (especially the Necromancer and Transmuter :) ) but sometimes I wonder what to take and what to leave out of that book. There's lots of stuff I'd like to have, but I'm such a game balance freak these days, I kinda scares me to allow some stuff. (Did they ever errata the Water Orc? I think they forgot it's ability bonuses, because they simply gave it +2 Con and Swim speed, without really giving any drawbacks, same goes for Domain Wizards... why not be a Domain Wizard according to UA?) Water Orcs receive roughly the same amount of bonuses humans do. AFAICS they're balanced within that context. Why not be a domain Wizard with the UA abilities? Well, that depends on what kind of Wiz you're going to be. If you're going to be a combat Wiz, it's probably better to hang onto your metamagic feats and familiar. But I agree, they totally relegate specialist wizards to uselessness. As they should. Thanks for the info Save-vs-DM, I knew a lot of that stuff, but the part about Wizards not being looked at like bandaid box was something I haven't considered. They are a good "do anything" caster, but the reason I like Necromancy over Evocation is the simple fact of "Why should I worry about it's 350 HP? I've got a Finger of Death, DC, oh 40." (Go Red Wizard Necromancers) but Clerics are masters of Death and Paralysis really. Evocation is strong at low levels but it doesn't scale. Spells from other schools scale their DCs more effectively. You're just choosing where you want your artillery to start blowing stuff up rather than just hurting it some for the warrior-type. And thanks to others for pointing out my ignorance about Arcane Domain spells, the once per day thing really isn't such a game breaker. Having always avoided Clerics like the plague has lead to some of my problems. Maybe I'll swallow my pride and hatred one day and actually try to seriously play one (I actually played a cleric once... in second ed... who loaded only cure light wounds :P) Domain spells, while somewhat limited, can really break things open for a Cleric. Travel Clerics, for instance, can teleport. One-way is better than no way, after all. Some Cleric domains are better than others, too, although almost all of them dip into arcane spells. I'm always creating Wizards for my players to fight against, but I've never gotten the chance to actually play one for too long, so you'll have to pardon my occasional gripes about some classes. It probably stems from GM-wants-to-play syndrome. Heh GM-wants-to-play syndrome is good stuff. That's why this GM plays. :D Personally, I've always favored divine magic over arcane magic. I'm actually cobbling together a world sans Vancian arcane magic. Instead, wizards (and, to a lesser extent Sorcerors -- who I'm still tinkering with) cast spells the same way epic Wizards do: with skill checks and complicated rituals. I think it'll be a neat change of pace. I'm kinda tired of arcane magic myself. It's not really arcane...not in the same way pouring over scrolls, collecting rare components and casting spells with extended ritual is. I figure after the first couple of introductory adventures, I can have a "powerful wizard" (of about 5th level or so) sponsor the party in quests to recover necessary spell components.
Atlictoatl 10-05-04, 02:05 PM	Personally, I've always favored divine magic over arcane magic. I'm actually cobbling together a world sans Vancian arcane magic. Instead, wizards (and, to a lesser extent Sorcerors -- who I'm still tinkering with) cast spells the same way epic Wizards do: with skill checks and complicated rituals. I think it'll be a neat change of pace. I'm kinda tired of arcane magic myself. It's not really arcane...not in the same way pouring over scrolls, collecting rare components and casting spells with extended ritual is. I figure after the first couple of introductory adventures, I can have a "powerful wizard" (of about 5th level or so) sponsor the party in quests to recover necessary spell components. I'd enjoy seeing this, if you get it in a format you'd want to write up. I put down my own tinkering for a bit after running into criticism that it didn't stand up to combat expectations.
Edymnion 10-05-04, 10:46 PM	Personally, I've always favored divine magic over arcane magic. I'm actually cobbling together a world sans Vancian arcane magic. Instead, wizards (and, to a lesser extent Sorcerors -- who I'm still tinkering with) cast spells the same way epic Wizards do: with skill checks and complicated rituals. I think it'll be a neat change of pace. I'm kinda tired of arcane magic myself. It's not really arcane...not in the same way pouring over scrolls, collecting rare components and casting spells with extended ritual is. I figure after the first couple of introductory adventures, I can have a "powerful wizard" (of about 5th level or so) sponsor the party in quests to recover necessary spell components.I'll add my two cents to this, if you'll let me. Gotta have something better than components to limit how many spells they can cast per day. I'd suggest something like having casting doing 1 point of non-lethal/subdual damage per level of the spell cast, maybe 2 points per spell level, I dunno. Either way, they get really worn out if they cast too much, and they'll stop and think twice before just throwing magic at it.
Save-vs-DM 10-06-04, 12:31 AM	I created a new arcane necromancer prestige class over on the classes board. Take a look if you want, I had you in mind when I made it Praedoran. Cheers, Save vs DM
eRaz0r 10-06-04, 02:04 PM	The Wizard is still better than the artificer BY FAR for everything you mentioned above except item creation. The Artificer's ability to "buff" is probably his main thing aside from item creation, but that doesn't mean he's better at it. He doesn't have very many infusions per day, his selection of effects is much more limited, and most of the best ones have very long casting times (1 minute, 10 minutes, or longer), making them useless in unexpected combat. If you walk into an ambush, don't expect a lot of help from the Artificer, unless he has some Action Points to spare. You mean apart from the entire attribute buff set (Bulls Str, Fox' Cunning etc), the construct enhancing buffs (Iron Construct etc) etc, and spells like Shield of Faith, and Greater Magic Weapon. All of which have standard action casting times. Now some of the better buffs (Weapon Aug: Bane) do take longer to cast, but to say that the Wizard does it better is to forget that the Artificer is also a spontaneous caster. If he doesn't have the time or action points for Bane, then he can cast Greater Magic Weapon. The Wizard also has to decide before combat occurs what spells he wants to memorize. He gets more spells of higher levels, that's true, but at the lower levels, the Artificer has more. The Wizard gets to learn more spells, and those spells are certain, that's true. But an Artificer gets access to his entire Infusion list every level (more than a Sorcerer), and casts spontaneously, which is very handy in a pinch. As well as that, he gets the ability to make any item with any prerequisite, Divine or Arcane. How does two guaranteed spells per level and having to choose between Metamagic or Item Creation trump that ? The Wizard is still, without a doubt, the best at blasting as well. While the artificer may technically mimic any spell a Wizard can cast... he has to spend a great deal of time and money (and XP, depeding on how much of his craft reserve he's used) to do it. Even then, it's not always gauranteed to work. They have to make UMD checks to activate their stuff, so even when they're high enough level to craft wands and whatnot, they still can fail a DC 20 UMD check with an unlucky roll. You can't take 10 in heated combat, so don't be surprised if an Artficer sometimes can't get his wand of fireball to do anything but fizzle when he needs it the most. This, I can agree with, however, at the mid levels most Artificers should look to only a small chance to fail, say a 4 or less. At 13th level, the Artificer can take 10 on UMD at all times. Meaning he usually cannot fail his UMD check (If a 13th level Artificer fails on a 10, there's something seriously wrong with him) The Wizard has actual combat-ready spell-slots, and he can put anything he knows into them, unlike an Artificer, who can't cast anything until he makes it into an item. Wizards are also much better at metamagic, as Artificers can't do it at all until 6th level, and even then, it's limited to his spell-trigger items only. This is where I seriously disagree. With the number of bonus feats an Artificer gets, combined with Metamagic Spell Trigger and Spontaneous Infusion casting, I suggest he is a little better at Metamagic than the Wizard. 1/ Few Wizards can make good use of Metamagic before 6th level anyway. You've got one bonus feat and 3 regular feats to use for Metamagic. Are you going to sacrifice a 3rd level spell for an Extended 2nd level spell ? Maybe. An Empowered 1st level spell, unlikely. A Maximized 0th level spell - never. You also have to memorize those spells into those slots, and every metamagic feat you take deprives you of a possible Craft feat. (which, in games without an artificer, is usually where the Wizard excels). 2/ An Artificer gets all the Craft feats eventually. He sacrifices nothing to get his Metamagic feats. He also gets more bonus feats (1 every 4 levels, instead of every 5 for the Wizard). He can apply the feats to his Infusions, if he wants to. He can do this spontaneously as needs arise, just as a Sorcerer. He can also use a 3rd level Infusion (Metamagic Item) to enhance a spell trigger item for a certain length of time... at 5th level. At 6th level he can do it without a spell by sacrificing charges from the item. With these, he can apply Quicken or Persistent metamagic to the item, enhancing a possibly 4th level spell (from a purchased wand) to an effective 8th level spell slot. I don't see how a Wizard wins this one hands down. Sure the Artificer rums the chance he doesn't acitivate the wand - but it's a flat DC of 20. It never gets higher, but his skill does. With Metamagic item he can buff the wand and give it to the Wizard and not even risk failing to activate it. And with Skill Enhancement he can give himself a bonus to UMD checks that scales with level in order to more easily make the activation check.
Saydivosh 10-06-04, 02:40 PM	I agree with the artificer in this argument. An artificer certainly tops out in the item creation department, he gets item creation feats to start out with, and then he can use his bonus feats to gain metamagic. The wizard doesn't have access to the craft reserve and he still does have to memorize his spells ahead of time, probably one of the most challenging aspects of the wizard. But still, you have to consider everything that the artificer "doesn't get". He doesn't get a great list of spells...no one's spell list is better than the sor/wiz list! I do understand that he can emulate a spell and (technically) has access to sor/wiz spells. So, it all comes down to one key point. :rolleyes: Even going back all the way up to the whole thing with necromantic priests being better than necromantic wizards. It all comes down to this one simple thing: how good are you at prepping your spellcaster. Regardless of cleric, wizard, artificer, whatever! Can you take a character and be ready for almost anything? The artificer that has thirty wands loaded with all kinds of spells that he had prepared ahead with will be quite a challenge. But a readied wizard concentrating on a heavy defense versus the offensive magic may be able to find the opportunity to take him down. A death cleric may have around him an army of undead, but can he fight the specialist necromancer who has Undeath to Death? Then, all his minions are for not and the necromancer can begin focusing his own death magics against the cleric...and after he's dead what's to stop him from raising the cleric's "former" army as his own. You see...preparation is the key and if you don't know how to do that or it just bogs you down too much, play the fighter. ;)
ronyon 10-20-04, 11:43 AM	A legit beef, but what can I say, I love necroclerics! Actually, I have been disapointed in the Death domain for quite some time, and am looking forward to playing a cleric of Necromancy,Knowledge and Shadow. I Personally think that clerics should have a spell list limited to thier Domains or some thing. It makes no sense that a cleric of Fate and Time could cast Bulls Strength, or Create Water multiple times a day, but their Domain Spells only once.Of course this would ruin the cleric as healer, unless everyone just chose Healing and X Domains.
Warlord 10-20-04, 02:27 PM	Evil clerics have always been able to control undead you should know that. Warlord of ENworld has spoken!
Dex The King 10-20-04, 07:14 PM	I . . . can't . . . stop . . . myself . . . Eberron beef. It's what's for dinner. In Eberron.