Post/Author/DateTime	Post
control freak 07-27-07, 05:47 PM	theres a few classes that are closed because they are broken beyond broken and others that even if you tweak them theres not too terribly broken heres the classes that i think are broken broken on that list (anything unlisted i havent evaluated) BROKEN Master specialist (only because of how early and easy entry it has) Abjurant champion Evangilist Malconvoker Blood magus (the travel ablity is broken) Primeval Master of many forms borderline and simply makes it more balanced kensei black flame zealot blighter luckstealer (the last ablity is stupid) Things that arent really broken and i dont know why they are closed Ronin Eye of grumush purple dragon knight ultimate magus ghost faced killer theres plenty more closed and if you want to offer insite as to why they are closed please do, i really would have liked to play an ultimate magus because i thought i would be interesting but to my dismay i saw it closed, as with kensei (although i saw it comeing because of sig whepon and oriental class)
bitznarf 07-27-07, 05:51 PM	Some have to do with flavor (Ronin, Ghost Faced Killer), others to do with they way they handle metamagic costs (Ultimate Magus). I can't really comment on the others easily at this point as I haven't looked at them in detail. The one class that bugs me though that is not on your list is Warlock. There isn't one single aspect of the class that is overpowered in my opinion (doubly so in the 3 encounters/mod format of most of LG), and the fact that it can make it in as an NPC means that there doesn't appear to be a flavor reason.
Britt 07-27-07, 05:53 PM	Comments inline Malconvoker Blood magus (the travel ablity is broken) [Not really because of balance, but theme] black flame zealot [Not really because of balance, but theme] blighter [Not really because of balance, but theme] Ronin [oriental theme] Eye of grumush [dedicated to an evil god] purple dragon knight [Faerun class] ultimate magus [balance] ghost faced killer [evil alignment requirement]
control freak 07-27-07, 06:38 PM	The one class that bugs me though that is not on your list is Warlock. There isn't one single aspect of the class that is overpowered in my opinion (doubly so in the 3 encounters/mod format of most of LG), and the fact that it can make it in as an NPC means that there doesn't appear to be a flavor reason. theres 2 reasons its not on my list 1: its not a PrC i was refering to the PrC list 2: its not broken in any way but you would have to add an entire section in the LGCS on what blasts are open what blast feats are open exct it would add even more to the ever growing LGCS if you want to add base classes then heres the 3 that i wish were allowed duskblade (yes every one wants it no one will get it because of the meta magic abuses) dragon shaman (i know its a little too frount loaded) warlock (there is no reason its not open i would really like to see it) and i didnt get comment on my favorite class ( i think i know why but) Malconvoker is my favorite class but its banned i would think that it is because it blatently breaks the LG rules (evil acts for fun!) i could be wrong but when the goal of a class is evil spells, the only other class i would like to play alot thats closed is luck stealer/uncanny trickster both of which arent going to ever happen due to balance issues but just my :twocents:
Britt 07-27-07, 07:43 PM	Malconvoker was mainly because one of its class abilities is based around a spell that isn't used in LG.
myshkingfh 07-27-07, 08:07 PM	I was disappointed that Kensai is closed. I know that WotC gave it a sort of Asian theme, but Roland, the greatest French knight was pretty clealry a Kensai to me. The family weapon adds cool flavor, but I could see how it might be unbalanced.
Howie23 07-27-07, 08:37 PM	warlock (there is no reason its not open i would really like to see it) This has previously been identified (by Steven Conforti, IIRC) as being excluded due to evil thematic content. David
CdrcJsn 07-27-07, 09:12 PM	I was disappointed that Kensai is closed. I know that WotC gave it a sort of Asian theme, but Roland, the greatest French knight was pretty clealry a Kensai to me. The family weapon adds cool flavor, but I could see how it might be unbalanced. I think Kensai was closed more for the unbalancing way it gives a free weapon that costs XP (which is not a negative in LG) than the flavor of the class, though I'm sure the flavor also had something to do with it. Imagine a free 50,000gp weapon at character level 10 for the paltry cost of 1000xp.
solbergb 07-27-07, 10:32 PM	I was disappointed that Kensai is closed. I know that WotC gave it a sort of Asian theme, but Roland, the greatest French knight was pretty clealry a Kensai to me. The family weapon adds cool flavor, but I could see how it might be unbalanced. Kensai also has the problem that getting free equipment as a class feature for mere XP cost is problematic in the same way that permanency is problematic, in the same way that xp spending caps per adventure were introduced and in the same way that the goldpiece penalty was added to the multiclass xp penalty. Spending XP is GOOD in living greyhawk, even without a permanent benefit where there is no party to "keep up with". Getting free magic equipment AND getting to spend XP just doesn't work in a campaign structured like this.
control freak 07-27-07, 11:49 PM	there are alot of obvious ones and this may just be me but i personaly would like to have a few classes that are closed at least NoNc but im not holding my breath, id like to be able to use summon monster to get devils and demons but i aint holding my breath
Dr.Cornelius 07-28-07, 12:25 AM	duskblade (yes every one wants it no one will get it because of the meta magic abuses)Can you describe the metamagic abuses?
Genghis Cohen 07-28-07, 12:41 AM	This has previously been identified (by Steven Conforti, IIRC) as being excluded due to evil thematic content. DavidThen why is Hexblade allowed? At least a good aligned Warlock is possible.
Shaudius 07-28-07, 01:52 AM	Duskblade isn't closed its NONC, and there has been access for it, its one of those things thats way less broken if you give it to high level established PCs versus new PCs though. Shawn duskblade (yes every one wants it no one will get it because of the meta magic abuses) dragon shaman (i know its a little too frount loaded) warlock (there is no reason its not open i would really like to see it) and i didnt get comment on my favorite class ( i think i know why but) Malconvoker is my favorite class but its banned i would think that it is because it blatently breaks the LG rules (evil acts for fun!) i could be wrong but when the goal of a class is evil spells, the only other class i would like to play alot thats closed is luck stealer/uncanny trickster both of which arent going to ever happen due to balance issues but just my :twocents:
Howie23 07-28-07, 02:33 AM	Then why is Hexblade allowed? At least a good aligned Warlock is possible. I assume that's a rhetorical question, yes? He commented on Warlock. He didn't comment on Hexblade. I have no idea. http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=788014 3rd post down.
gomeztoo 07-28-07, 07:43 AM	Master specialist (only because of how early and easy entry it has) Master Specialist's first two levels are not particularly powerful. I mean, Skill Focus(Spellcraft)... yeah, that's the dream of any wizard... and 'expanded spellbook'.. nice, but hardly broken seeing as I can just *buy* a spell instead.... I think MS being closed has more to do with the esoterica you get at higher levels, though these do not, on hindsight, seem very broken either. Things that arent really broken and i dont know why they are closed Ronin oriental. Eye of grumush Evil purple dragon knight Wrong setting ultimate magus No idea. Seemed not too powerful, as you still run behind in spell levels. But i think it's a pity Kensei is closed, too... I had some very devious ideas for use in a scenario until I found out they were closed... critters with 4 natural attacks and then kensei would be seriously... eh.. broken. Hey, I just answered my own question :) ghost faced killer Evil AND the wrong setting.
Mommy was an Orc 07-28-07, 08:54 AM	Master Specialist's first two levels are not particularly powerful. I mean, Skill Focus(Spellcraft)... yeah, that's the dream of any wizard... and 'expanded spellbook'.. nice, but hardly broken seeing as I can just *buy* a spell instead.... I think MS being closed has more to do with the esoterica you get at higher levels, though these do not, on hindsight, seem very broken either. Master Conjuror essentially gets Sudden Quicken 3/day at the 10th level of the class(13th, not 15th level of the character). Not to put too fine a point on it, but that's broken by itself. The various specialists are not balanced against each other - +7 to dispel checks with Greater Dispel Magic, Evasion/Mettle, Casting Personal spells on others from an Abjuration Specialist? Vs Transmutation's pretty much useless abilities? Divination's free True Seeing at 10th? Plus 3 levels of Master Abjuror makes it easy to get into Initiate of the Seven Veils or Archmage. No idea. Seemed not too powerful, as you still run behind in spell levels. The problem is that it isn't 100% clear which class gets advanced when Practiced Spellcaster gets involved. Also, there are ways to bypass some of the limits of spells - a Bard 2/Wizard 3/Ultimate Magus 5/Sublime Chord 1 is capable of casting 5th level arcane spells and Empowering them at 11th. At 12th, Maximize. At 14th, Quicken... Anyone for a Sudden Maximized 7th level spell followed up by a Sudden Quickened 7th level spell at 15th?
GreatSiron 07-28-07, 09:23 AM	Then why is Hexblade allowed? At least a good aligned Warlock is possible. I'd guess because Hexblade has as many allowed alignments (LN, N, CN) as not allowed ones (LE, NE, CE), while Warlock's outlawed alignments (LE, NE, CE) outnumber it's allowed ones (CN, CG). It's just a guess. (And the only one I have).
control freak 07-28-07, 09:38 AM	Master Specialist's first two levels are not particularly powerful. I mean, Skill Focus(Spellcraft)... yeah, that's the dream of any wizard... and 'expanded spellbook'.. nice, but hardly broken seeing as I can just *buy* a spell instead.... I think MS being closed has more to do with the esoterica you get at higher levels, though these do not, on hindsight, seem very broken either. MS is potentialy one of the most broken classes if you go into the right school and its just better then straight wizard (and if you want to you can still go to level 5 to get the feat!) and duskblades quick cast is definately a little too much... dragon shamans are more frountloaded then a marshal for more dips and if we can get an inside hint (although im 99% sure its closed) is Ordained champ from compleate champion closed or can we hold out for NoNC acess?
Mommy was an Orc 07-28-07, 10:00 AM	I'd guess because Hexblade has as many allowed alignments (LN, N, CN) as not allowed ones (LE, NE, CE), while Warlock's outlawed alignments (LE, NE, CE) outnumber it's allowed ones (CN, CG). It's just a guess. (And the only one I have). Hexblade = Cursing power. You're wishing bad things upon others. i.e. mean, but not necessarily evil. Warlock = Either they or their ancestors traded away part of their souls in exchange for supernatural power. Many of the invocations are at least marginally evil in nature - Wall of Perilous Flame, Fell Flight(the powers of darkness bear you aloft), etc...
Mattastrophic 07-28-07, 11:25 AM	Master Specialist is just fine. What the designers probably realized is that specialization sucks, so they decided to give specialists a bit of a bump. And thus, the Master Specialist. I especially like how they made certain Specialists gain greater abilities than others, probably because the schools that they gave larger bumps to really sucked to specialize in. Ultimate Magus: Once you actually do the builds, it's actually pretty sub-par. You end up being an inferior Mystic Theurge. Abjurant Champion: Once again, after doing the builds, it's not that bad. -Matt
bitznarf 07-28-07, 12:53 PM	I assume that's a rhetorical question, yes? He commented on Warlock. He didn't comment on Hexblade. I have no idea. http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=788014 3rd post down. I'm familiar with that thread (having started it) and I still consider that response a pure cop out. The only response in there that I consider at all credible is the 'different ruleset' one. In which case the class should not *ever* make it into mods. Ie. authors shouldn't be using it either. Warlock = Either they or their ancestors traded away part of their souls in exchange for supernatural power. Many of the invocations are at least marginally evil in nature - Wall of Perilous Flame, Fell Flight(the powers of darkness bear you aloft), etc... "In fact, many warlocks are created by nonevil powers - wild or fey forces ... " Warlocks don't have to come from evil. That is pure fluff. Its like saying that all people with Rogue levels are thieves, something that is blatantly not true.
Arcane Guyver 07-28-07, 12:55 PM	I believe the only reason the Warlock is closed (for players) is because they are so different from other arcane casters. Them being evil is just the preliminary excuse for being dropped. Hexblade, even though it has a similar flavor, is more in-line with the core game rules.
Britt 07-28-07, 01:00 PM	You end up being an inferior Mystic Theurge. I don't think that's possible ;)
control freak 07-28-07, 02:00 PM	Master Specialist is just fine. What the designers probably realized is that specialization sucks, so they decided to give specialists a bit of a bump. And thus, the Master Specialist. I especially like how they made certain Specialists gain greater abilities than others, probably because the schools that they gave larger bumps to really sucked to specialize in. master spec is amazeing, and spec wizards are good (not as good as generalists but generalist isnt simply open)
Mommy was an Orc 07-28-07, 07:56 PM	Master Specialist is just fine. What the designers probably realized is that specialization sucks, so they decided to give specialists a bit of a bump. And thus, the Master Specialist. I especially like how they made certain Specialists gain greater abilities than others, probably because the schools that they gave larger bumps to really sucked to specialize in. Yes, because Conjurors were so underpowered before, that must be why they gave them the best stuff throughout...specialists are not underpowered. People who don't realize that Evocation is the weakest school and decide to specialize are underpowered. Ultimate Magus: Once you actually do the builds, it's actually pretty sub-par. You end up being an inferior Mystic Theurge. If you build it incorrectly. Bard 2/Wizard 3/Ultimate Magus 9/Sublime Chord 1. You're lousy in the midlevels, but once you hit 11th, it makes up for it, and 12th+ gets sick(Chained Flesh to Stone at 13th as an example) And again, that's presuming you don't pull some Practiced Spellcaster nonsense - it is entirely possible to play a Beguiler 1/Wizard 4 who is caster level 5th in Beguiler, 4th in Wizard. So at 15th level, they're a 14th level Wizard, 9th level Beguiler who can easily power free Quickens(5 per day) and Chains(6 per day) Yes, some DMs will rule against Practiced Spellcaster and that will cause a mess in musters. Abjurant Champion: Once again, after doing the builds, it's not that bad. -Matt Yes, it is exactly that bad - the problem is the same as Unseen Seer is for Rogues - when Abjurant Champion is in the game, you pretty much have to take Wizard 1/Abjurant Champion 5/Spellsword 1 for 4th level spells, Arcane Strike, CWI, and no ASF in Mithril Chain Shirt - if your intent is to be a BDF, you have to take this or you will get crushed. That still leaves 8 levels for being a tough fighter or near-primary caster. It is so easy to qualify for that even Elven Wizards 10 can make it in.
Hariman 07-28-07, 08:38 PM	Master Specialist is just fine. What the designers probably realized is that specialization sucks, so they decided to give specialists a bit of a bump. And thus, the Master Specialist. I especially like how they made certain Specialists gain greater abilities than others, probably because the schools that they gave larger bumps to really sucked to specialize in. Ultimate Magus: Once you actually do the builds, it's actually pretty sub-par. You end up being an inferior Mystic Theurge. Abjurant Champion: Once again, after doing the builds, it's not that bad. -Matt I disagree. Here is why: Abjurant Champion is a class that EVERYBODY would take, save those few who didn't like the flavor or didn't want to cheese out their characters. Think About it. D10 Hit die, Quickened Abjurations to up to you third level spells. ANY caster can access it at level 11. FULL BAB!!! Fighters would end up with a caster level of 10 at level 11, third level spells, and the ability to toss Dispel magics and other abjurations as swift actions. Ultimate Magus isn't bad for players. It's bad as an NPC! There is no limit to the SACRIFICED spell level. Do you REALLY want to face an Ultimate Magus NPC who can triple his damage (Elemental Admixture as a standard and Quicken as a Swift!) and toss about 30D6 of fireball damage in one round? (At APL 10, or even as the final CR11 encounter in an APL 8!) Not to mention, he can do it again the next round. And he can do it more often with Metamagic School Focus. I like them, but I agree that they should be closed. Master Specialist breaks the normal rules of prestige classes. (Accessible only after 5th level.) it also grants abilities that are well beyond a normal specialist without costing a character anything. Except, perhaps, one or two feats. Warlock, Duskblade, and Dragon Shaman are pet peeves of mine. I think they should all be open access. Especially since Duskblades will never be seen by characters who can't squeeze in levels of Duskblade at level 10 plus. (I have a special mission pending for access to duskblade. I'll have to suffer and deal with having level one as Swashbuckler. If I even get access.) Dragon Shaman is on the same level as Marshal, good for support, but not the best. It's great for situational boosts, but even those aren't spectacular. And their breath weapon isn't as good as a Draconic Heritage breath weapon. And Warlock should be open as well. Even with Use Magic Device abuse, characters must SPEND GOLD OUT OF A FINITE AMOUNT OF GOLD THAT THEY WILL GAIN OVER THEIR CAREERS. Every scroll and every wand charge they use puts them behind the gold curve. (But in the good graces of the party, as a Warlock with a few wands can make a great backup healer.) Also, Warlocks can no longer craft like gods now that you have to have access to craft items. They can still craft a LOT, but that is only good for the last four levels of your career. It won't make a huge difference unless you handicap yourself at lower levels. Not to mention that the Invocations allowed page would likely be only one or two pages. Actually, only one page, as it would only need to be a BANNED invocations page. (Most invocations are OK, but some like the Summon Swarm one are too much.) Oh, and Blood Magus is cool. I have a Wizard who would take it in a heartbeat, as having died four times would definitely qualify him. Although I fail to see how being able to run alone from your party is broken. The use of Death Knell and the Homonculus makes more sense.
Mommy was an Orc 07-28-07, 10:46 PM	Warlock, Duskblade, and Dragon Shaman are pet peeves of mine. I think they should all be open access. Dragon Shaman has problems. It isn't particularly designed well in a couple of ways: 1 level of it is killer for melee builds - you get 3 auras, especially fast healing 1, +1 damage, and +1 to initiative. There's no MAD involved as you don't need to boost Charisma. You get two good saves and decent hit points. It isn't balanced well - at low levels, the Dragon Breath weapon is pretty nasty. At high levels, it is a joke. Ditto for the auras. ---- I'm probably running a weird Dragon Shaman 4 at GenCon and I fully expect to break Undermountain combats in all kinds of ways. Make it level 8 and I don't see it being competitive.
NeSoDak 07-29-07, 12:39 AM	What about Spellthief? I thought it looked like a cool class to play.
Mattastrophic 07-29-07, 01:36 PM	I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Just because something new appears to be superior than what has come before, does not make it broken. For example: Arcane Trickster stinks, so the designers made the Unseen Seer as a replacement. -Matt
Mommy was an Orc 07-29-07, 01:51 PM	Just because something new appears to be superior than what has come before, does not make it broken. Nor does it mean it isn't broken. There are plenty of powerful PrCs out there that I regard as not being broken. I've yet to see one you consider being broken. Feel free to name one. For example: Arcane Trickster stinks, so the designers made the Unseen Seer as a replacement. -Matt That may have been the intent, but that has very little to do with why Unseen Seer is broken. The broken part is not that it is superior to Arcane Trickster; the broken part is that it is superior to Rogue, Arcane Trickster, and every other Rogue-oriented PrC. And this is when a book focusing on Rogues came out at the exact same time Unseen Seer did and every single PrC in that book is substantially weaker.
Timlagor 07-29-07, 04:37 PM	Why mess about with Bard for Ultimate Magus: Beguiler1/Wizard4/UM10 is just dandy. You get Sorceror Spell tiers with a whole load of bonus Metamagic from just one Atribute and a nice load of skill points on the front end to boot; I think you even end up with a higher Wizard Caster Level than your character level! ...oh and those Beguiler spells are really handy at low levels (and some of them look set to be really useful later too).
Samwise 07-29-07, 04:57 PM	You wouldn't be able to add spells to the beguiler spell list by way of the class. You are limited to only adding spells the spontaneous class has on its spell list.
_metz_ 07-29-07, 07:27 PM	That may have been the intent, but that has very little to do with why Unseen Seer is broken. The broken part is not that it is superior to Arcane Trickster; the broken part is that it is superior to Rogue, Arcane Trickster, and every other Rogue-oriented PrC. And this is when a book focusing on Rogues came out at the exact same time Unseen Seer did and every single PrC in that book is substantially weaker. exactly. Instead of solving the problems of rogues with a reasonable PrC, they made a caster oriented one that is way ahead of anything else. Its almost a no brainer to NOT take it. I know, I am one of the no brainers who hasn't, and every time I play something that is unsneakable (at least every second mod, if not more often) I am slightly grumpy about it. My iconic base class's major abilities shouldn't be that useless so much of the time.
Genghis Cohen 07-29-07, 08:36 PM	My iconic base class's major abilities shouldn't be that useless so much of the time.That's not a problem with Unseen Seer. Its a problem with Rogue. I don't see a Rouge/X/Unseen Seer build as unbalancing the game. I do see Unseen Seer highlighting the game designers' flaws with Rogue by making a Rogue relevant much more of the time. No one should have to take Unseen Seer to have a Rogue that's almost always in the mix, but I doubt that we'll see a fix until the next D&D edition, if ever.
Hariman 07-29-07, 09:29 PM	That's not a problem with Unseen Seer. Its a problem with Rogue. I don't see a Rouge/X/Unseen Seer build as unbalancing the game. I do see Unseen Seer highlighting the game designers' flaws with Rogue by making a Rogue relevant much more of the time. No one should have to take Unseen Seer to have a Rogue that's almost always in the mix, but I doubt that we'll see a fix until the next D&D edition, if ever. Or, maybe players could just take a one level dip into Cleric to get GraveStrike. Dragon Shaman has problems. It isn't particularly designed well in a couple of ways: 1 level of it is killer for melee builds - you get 3 auras, especially fast healing 1, +1 damage, and +1 to initiative. There's no MAD involved as you don't need to boost Charisma. You get two good saves and decent hit points. It isn't balanced well - at low levels, the Dragon Breath weapon is pretty nasty. At high levels, it is a joke. Ditto for the auras. ---- I'm probably running a weird Dragon Shaman 4 at GenCon and I fully expect to break Undermountain combats in all kinds of ways. Make it level 8 and I don't see it being competitive. Make it a Dragonborn Dragon Shaman and you'll have two breath weapons that you can switch between. Dragon Shaman reminds me of Warlock. It starts out strong, but after level 10 or so, it drops off considerably.
Mattastrophic 07-29-07, 10:57 PM	That's not a problem with Unseen Seer. Its a problem with Rogue. Bingo. Unseen Seer isn't broken; Rogue is inferior. -Matt believes that if anything killed the noncaster Rogue, it was Complete Adventurer.
Mattastrophic 07-29-07, 11:09 PM	Nor does it mean it isn't broken. There are plenty of powerful PrCs out there that I regard as not being broken. I've yet to see one you consider being broken. Feel free to name one. Honestly, I come from a gaming background where you accept the game as is instead of complaining until it gets changed. That said, I'll probably make it a project tomorrow to come up with a list if classes that the campaign as is fails to effectively support. Topping that list is Bard. -Matt
Mommy was an Orc 07-29-07, 11:19 PM	Honestly, I come from a gaming background where you accept the game as is instead of complaining until it gets changed.. For someone who accepts LG as is, you complain a lot...you consistently want an open environment where anything goes. You claimed that you had worked through all the builds and didn't see anything as unbalanced. That's an absolutely irrelevant statement if you see nothing as unbalanced.
Mommy was an Orc 07-29-07, 11:34 PM	That's not a problem with Unseen Seer. Its a problem with Rogue. I don't see a Rouge/X/Unseen Seer build as unbalancing the game. I do see Unseen Seer highlighting the game designers' flaws with Rogue by making a Rogue relevant much more of the time. No one should have to take Unseen Seer to have a Rogue that's almost always in the mix, but I doubt that we'll see a fix until the next D&D edition, if ever. If that was R&D's actual intent, they had a real opportunity to fix it with Complete Scoundrel. They could have introduced PrCs to solve it. R&D doesn't think the Rogue is that bad off. Rogue more has a problem that the wrong people play them. I've got a Rogue Mutt build in play, 8th level, who consistently has gotten a rep for doing great damage throughout his career. He killed a hippogriff all by himself as a 1st level character(surprising the heck out of Rich, who was DMing) and wounded the 2nd one without even needing a crit or sneak attack damage while the rest of the party waited for them to come to us. I've played frontline fighter playing up 1. The secret? I've got a 16 Strength and I'm medium-sized. I'm opportunistic and I ask casters for support if they can provide it(aka Glitterdust). No one has ever complained that he hasn't contributed.
Genghis Cohen 07-30-07, 12:16 AM	If that was R&D's actual intent, they had a real opportunity to fix it with Complete Scoundrel. They could have introduced PrCs to solve it. R&D doesn't think the Rogue is that bad off. Rogue more has a problem that the wrong people play them.1) We don't now what WotC's intent was or is. 2) If WotC's R&D department is actually called "R&D," that brings up connotations that they clearly don't deserve such as being methodical, rational and designing with a well articulated set of guidelines. WotC is an outfit that produces creative products (probably the most difficult type of product to produce) with a wide range of quality issues, and enormous inconsistency within each book. 3) How would they know that the problem is pervasive? Market research? There is no external evidence that WotC's market research is effective. Their staff was held back from directly interacting with their customer base for years until after the Dragon/Dungeon PR debacle. They only began to reengage their customer base after Complete Mage and Complete Scoundrel were released. That said, someone in WotC must have an idea that their is a problem with the Rogue judging by some of the alternate class features and feats that have been published, most notably in the PHB2. I've got a Rogue Mutt build in play...I've got an 11th level rogue in a home campaign that I've been playing for 2 years since he was 1st level. Friday night I did 180+ hp of damage, with one missed attack, in 1 round. I also did 0 hp of damage in several rounds when I hit. I did build my character to be well rounded in combat. Its easy to be well rounded at 8th level. My rogue is no longer well rounded in combat because the party is fighting CR12+ creatures. 1d8+3 from a bow just doesn't cut it anymore. The highest damage producing rogues are all 2 weapon combatants. That typically means investing in 4 (or 6) magical melee weapons and 1 magical ranged weapon. That's very expensive, and really only feasible in either a home campaign with a generous DM, or in LG starting around 13th or 14th level. Rogues have great potential to shine out of combat. For a rogue to be effective in combat, the entire party's tactics have to be altered to accommodate him. D&D 3.5 rogues are only effective in a narrow range of tactical formations and scenarios. That's a massive design flaw on WotC's part. Massive.
_metz_ 07-30-07, 01:16 AM	That's not a problem with Unseen Seer. Its a problem with Rogue. I don't see a Rouge/X/Unseen Seer build as unbalancing the game. I do see Unseen Seer highlighting the game designers' flaws with Rogue by making a Rogue relevant much more of the time. No one should have to take Unseen Seer to have a Rogue that's almost always in the mix, but I doubt that we'll see a fix until the next D&D edition, if ever. Exactly, so If making a Rogue PrC that supposedly solves the problem, why do you need caster levels? That is why its not necessarily appreciated by many hardcore rogue players. It addresses nothing, but provides a really powerful class that further makes iconic rogues worse as you have to put up with people asking every five minutes why you didn't take caster levels. A rogue shouldn't have to be a caster to be useful, if you don't get that, then you won't understand my opinion. What IS broken is that the class is open access. A caster based Rogue PrC that does SO much more than Nightsong enforcer, Skullclan Hunter, Spymaster, Scarlett Corsair, Dread Pirate, ETC is open. That is broken. It favours the caster rogues so much more, and really ticks off a lot of non caster rogues I know. Who are often some of the most intelligent, amusing or resourceful players out there. Not to mention often the ones who don't powergame as much, utilise team tactics and are often more roleplay oriented characters. We could ALl play Clerics and wizards, with one bloke taking turns as the BDF, but how is that fun? Hence the PrC itself isn't that unbalancing. It is alone just better than anything else. The point I think Mommy (and myself) are trying to get across. Unseen Seer as Open access sure as hell is unbalancing in LG. - Please take note on that line circle members, most PC optimisers agree with that. I'm looking at you Britt ;)
clannagh 07-30-07, 01:19 AM	Well for an example of the sort of thing we get saved from .. how about a class that: 1) can be taken at level 6 2) druid wildshape and animal companion stack with the PrC by level 15 if it was LG legal you would get .. 3) Planar attunement -you pick a plane that is of like alignment with yourself. You ignore any harmful effects from your plane's elemental or energy traits 4) Some very interesting planar animal companions ..... 5) wildshape into a magical beast elemenetal or outsider connected with a chosen plane .. opens up wildshape as astral deva, angels and plantars you specifically retain all extraordinary, supernatural and spell-like abilities 6) plane shift at will 3 times per day 7) Planar Bubble - bring part of your "home plane" back with you and you are unaffected by its' negative traits (such as fire, etc.) including the time traits of planes as well This is all from faiths of Eberron for those interested. Now personally in LG I think circle do an excellent job of keeping some of the craziness like this at bay.
_metz_ 07-30-07, 01:24 AM	Well for an example of the sort of thing we get saved from .. how about a class that: 1) can be taken at level 6 2) druid wildshape and animal companion stack with the PrC by level 15 if it was LG legal you would get .. 3) Planar attunement -you pick a plane that is of like alignment with yourself. You ignore any harmful effects from your plane's elemental or energy traits 4) Some very interesting planar animal companions ..... 5) wildshape into a magical beast elemenetal or outsider connected with a chosen plane .. opens up wildshape as astral deva, angels and plantars you specifically retain all extraordinary, supernatural and spell-like abilities 6) plane shift at will 3 times per day 7) Planar Bubble - bring part of your "home plane" back with you and you are unaffected by its' negative traits (such as fire, etc.) including the time traits of planes as well This is all from faiths of Eberron for those interested. Now personally in LG I think circle do an excellent job of keeping some of the craziness like this at bay. Definitely agreed. Hence my post was linked to a suggestion to Circle. They can't watch out for everything. A lot of people seem to get angry at the ROGUE players who think unseen seer is unbalancing, and most (who usually ironically have at least 10th level rogue types) believe it is. Its a bit like Ruathar. Thank god that class isn't open.
Mattastrophic 07-30-07, 09:54 AM	For someone who accepts LG as is, you complain a lot...you consistently want an open environment where anything goes. You are correct, I'm guilty of advocating for a more open environment, and not just in class selection, but in play opportunities. ("Anything goes" it a bit much, don't you think? Even I don't wish to see a non-errata-ed Hulking Hurler.) If something was made Open, live with it, don't complain about it until the Circle yields and Closes it. History of LG has shown that it's plenty easier to Open something that was already closed, rather than Close something that was already Open. Especially when the target, Unseen Seer, doesn't deserve the axe simply because it apparently highlights a problem with non-caster Rogues. It's the writers (and editors!) for the modules who need to be educated in this case. If Living Greyhawk included scenarios where non-combat, non-magical abilities were actually useful, maybe the non-caster rogue would be better off, assuming there really is, as you say, a problem. Remember, an Unseen Seer does have to make BAB and skill sacrifices to take that class; the campaign apparently fails to make those lost skill points equal an actual loss. But then again, I might be biased, as I'm also of the belief that the campaign fails to support Bards. You claimed that you had worked through all the builds and didn't see anything as unbalanced. That's an absolutely irrelevant statement if you see nothing as unbalanced. Oh, there are plenty of unbalanced elements about; my definition of balance just seems to be very different than yours. For example: High-level Wizards are supposed to be some of the baddest things on the streets; they are not meant to be placed equal to high-level Fighters. And finally, on to What Would Matt Do about fixing Living Greyhawk: -If I had any say in the matter, I'd step away from this "We Don't Modify The Rules" stance and actually get down in the mud and fix things. For example, I would have house-ruled Divine Metamagic instead of Closed it. I would've stuck with existing house-rules instead of Closing Polymorph. The Circle was willing to do it before CY 597; why are they unable to do it now? Is it because they don't wish to create an environment where players have to actually look through an LGCS in order to be able to build their characters? Do they believe that would make the campaign too inaccessible to new players? But wait! Those same new players already have to hunt though the LGCS to find out whether or not they're able to take something anyways, so what's the problem there? -Matt
TWG_Prometheus 07-30-07, 10:38 AM	If you tried to make such changes, Matt, you would quickly find that you could not do so. The Circle doesn't avoid ruling on some of our more persistent problems just because they like to make us squirm. They avoid ruling on 'trained for war', for example, because they have been told that they can not do so. If they can't even do that, give house-ruling Divine Metamagic a shot....
Mattastrophic 07-30-07, 10:58 AM	They avoid ruling on 'trained for war', for example, because they have been told that they can not do so. If that's entirely true, therein lies the problem. -Matt
Madfox11 07-30-07, 11:05 AM	It is true, and it has to do with the fact that Living Greyhawk is a RPGA campaign and the RPGA is financed by WotC. Although to be honest, even without such limitations I would be very hesitent to make campaign wide house rules. It is very difficult to convey house rules to the whole player base without even causing more confusion, while removing stuff is much easier. Just take a look at the D&D FAQ and how easy it is for small errors to sneak into it that cause even more confusion and the many different versions than start to circulate. Note that the dragon shaman is not open because of campaign thematic reasons and not necessarily power. Pieter Sleijpen RPGA Living Greyhawk Circle Member The Splintered Suns
Mommy was an Orc 07-30-07, 11:22 AM	You are correct, I'm guilty of advocating for a more open environment, and not just in class selection, but in play opportunities. ("Anything goes" it a bit much, don't you think? Even I don't wish to see a non-errata-ed Hulking Hurler.) That's the first time I've seen you say something shouldn't be put in ;) If Living Greyhawk included scenarios where non-combat, non-magical abilities were actually useful, maybe the non-caster rogue would be better off, assuming there really is, as you say, a problem. Remember, an Unseen Seer does have to make BAB and skill sacrifices to take that class; the campaign apparently fails to make those lost skill points equal an actual loss. The Unseen Seer actually doesn't sacrifice anything. They're a fair BAB PrC and should be able to get Arcane Strike at 9th, so no problems there - sacrificing a 2nd level spell puts them ahead on both damage and to-hit chance. d4 hp are more than made up for by False Life. Ditto for skill points - all kinds of spell choices, and CWI for cheap stat items - a Rogue buying a +4 Int Headband is sacrificing a lot. An Unseen Seer is getting more spells and bonuses to a bunch of skills. It also solves the Darkvision dilemna. It doesn't matter what kind of Rogue build you're making - melee, non-combat, social, ranged, spiked chain, thug - you're better off going Unseen Seer than any other choice. Heck, there are non-Rogue builds that are better off with it - any PrCs that grant Search, Sneak Attack damage, and/or give/require spellcasting, such as Nightsong Enforcer, Dragon Disciple, etc...can benefit from it. That's the broken element - it may not be broken in a direct power output kind of way, but when every skillmonkey build should use one particular PrC, there's a problem. To put it another way, I think I can probably dominate both non-combat and combats with builds involving Unseen Seer if I put my mind to it.
Mommy was an Orc 07-30-07, 11:29 AM	1d8+3 from a bow just doesn't cut it anymore. The highest damage producing rogues are all 2 weapon combatants. Why on earth would I only do 1d8+3 from a bow if I went through the trouble to purchase a 16 Strength in character creation? At APL 12, I'm going to be generally doing same damage most non-supertweaked archer builds are doing and more damage than almost all archer builds pre-LGCS 7.5. I'm boosting strength via magic item, I'll have RWM at 9th, and I've got decent weapon access. Rogues have great potential to shine out of combat. For a rogue to be effective in combat, the entire party's tactics have to be altered to accommodate him. D&D 3.5 rogues are only effective in a narrow range of tactical formations and scenarios. That's a massive design flaw on WotC's part. Massive. No, that's entirely a player's decision to focus on sneak attack damage. Sure, it is easy to do, just as it is easy for someone with Ride-By-Attack to not invest in AC to tank in extremis or someone with Archery feats to not buy Power Attack and an emergency two-handed weapon. That doesn't mean the player wasn't responsible for their choice.
Mattastrophic 07-30-07, 11:46 AM	That's the first time I've seen you say something shouldn't be put in ;) Hehehe, you're probably right; no one's ever asked about Hulking Hurler, have they? To put it another way, I think I can probably dominate both non-combat and combats with builds involving Unseen Seer if I put my mind to it. I might be a bit biased there, also, as my primary Virtuoso can be pretty dominating in both non-combat and combat situations if I want him to be. I'm not one to dominate playtime though, don't get me wrong. So it might be that I'm just used to having that sort of all-around ability, and stemming from a very weak prestige class. -Matt
Mattastrophic 07-30-07, 11:52 AM	No, that's entirely a player's decision to focus on sneak attack damage. Sure, it is easy to do, just as it is easy for someone with Ride-By-Attack to not invest in AC to tank in extremis or someone with Archery feats to not buy Power Attack and an emergency two-handed weapon. That doesn't mean the player wasn't responsible for their choice. The point he might be making, and even if not, a point well worth considering is the place of the iconic rogue. If the iconic rogue truly has a tough time playing D&D, then yes, that's a massive design flaw. -Matt
dkay807 07-30-07, 12:04 PM	Master Specialist is just fine. What the designers probably realized is that specialization sucks, so they decided to give specialists a bit of a bump. And thus, the Master Specialist. I especially like how they made certain Specialists gain greater abilities than others, probably because the schools that they gave larger bumps to really sucked to specialize in. Ultimate Magus: Once you actually do the builds, it's actually pretty sub-par. You end up being an inferior Mystic Theurge. Abjurant Champion: Once again, after doing the builds, it's not that bad. -Matt I have to agree with MWaO on this one. While I know you're just expressing your opinion, these points are just dead wrong. A wizard's primary weakness is his/her limited number of spells per day. It really doesn't matter what type of a wizard one is, having an extra spell of each level per day is a huge advantage. I, personally, would never build a generalist. In fact, I would take the Focused Specialist alternative class feature with any arcane spellcaster I build if it were possible. Ultimate Magus can, in fact, be quite powerful. I won't go into the whole discussion around mixing it with Sublime Chord because that just doesn't work, based on what Sublime Chord's caster level is based on. Needless to say, the class has some extremely powerful potential. The true power of the prestige class rests in its Augmented Casting ability, which I'm sure is the reason that the Circle gave it the old heave-ho. Abjurant Champion... what can I say about this one? I'm not even going to waste time arguing why it's so good. I'm just going to babble: I used to complain about Frenzied Berserker and would laugh any time someone asked why it was Closed. Then Complete Mage went into distribution and blew away any preconceived notions I might have had about "broken prestige classes." In fact, the day the book came out, all I heard from everyone was "Man, I wan't wait for Complete Mage to become legal in the campaign so I can make an Abjurant Champion." Everyone I spoke with was planning on an Abjurant Champion CGR PC. What a stupid PrC! How did this get all the way through R&D at WotC? This is the kind of thing that angers me on occasion about D&D - I love the game and I'm nervous of the increasing power level of new content - I don't want the game to be ruined and Abjurant Champion is one such piece of content that has that very potential.
Mattastrophic 07-30-07, 12:27 PM	A wizard's primary weakness is his/her limited number of spells per day. Pearl of Power's existence means I'll have to call you on that one. But then again, I do play generalists assuming Pearl of Power access as well as getting creative with what the entire Wizard spell list can do. I see Master Specialist as "This is what specialists are supposed to have been like all along. Unique abilities related to their school define the specialist better." Maybe someone at WotC feels the same way. Ultimate Magus can, in fact, be quite powerful. Powerful at 14th-15th, or powerful at 8th-9th? Once you've gotten high enough, remember that casters are supposed to be the baddest things on the streets. Abjurant Champion... what can I say about this one? It just didn't strike me as particularly broken. Viable, yes. Broken when compared to Eldritch Knight? Nahh. It was the Combat Casting requirement that made my initial builds go "ehhh..." I did, however, develop a case for Bladesinger being erratta-ed to be 9/10 casting. Eldritch Knight kind of proves that one, though. -Matt
Hariman 07-30-07, 12:51 PM	Pearl of Power's existence means I'll have to call you on that one. But then again, I do play generalists assuming Pearl of Power access as well as getting creative with what the entire Wizard spell list can do. I see Master Specialist as "This is what specialists are supposed to have been like all along." Maybe someone at WotC feels the same way. Powerful at 14th-15th, or powerful at 8th-9th?* Once you've gotten high enough, remember that casters are supposed to be the baddest things on the streets. *Don't answer that. Let's not derail too far now. It just didn't strike me as particularly broken. Viable, yes. Broken? Nahh. It was the Combat Casting requirement that made my initial builds go "ehhh..." I did, however, develop a case for Bladesinger being erratta-ed to be 9/10 casting. Eldritch Knight kind of proves that one, though. -Matt Ultimate Magus starts to climb at level 9, when second level spells can be augmented. That means that you can use empower spell or split ray easier. IF you have the right feats and build your character right, you can start launching Quickened spells by burning off third level spells slots. Also, lower level spells will suddenly get much higher DCs, as higher level spells will get sacked for heighten spell effects. Take another look at the Abjurant Champion. Full BAB, d10 hit die, full casting, and abilities that would help AND melee OR arcane character. ANY ARCANE SPELLCASTING CLASS can gain access at level ten. Elves and other races that gain martial weapon proficiency have an easier time than most. It's so good, almost everybody would take it! That is the problem. And I know you might say the same thing about Unseen Seer, but Unseen Seer is mainly for Rogue Mage types. Abjurant Champion is good for ALL melee and casting characters. Even Hexblades.
Mattastrophic 07-30-07, 01:02 PM	Ultimate Magus starts to climb at level 9, when second level spells can be augmented. Take another look at the Abjurant Champion. Oh allllll riiight, I'll pull out my Complete Mage and start doing some builds and see what comes out. -Matt
Mattastrophic 07-30-07, 02:02 PM	So I've done a first build of Sorc1/Wiz4/UltimateMagus10, using Practiced Spellcaster to add 4 to Sorcerer caster level and thus max out Wizard casting. I don't really like it. You have to give up two Wizard caster levels over 15 levels, unless you expend another Practiced Spellcaster on Wizard. And the Sorcerer spells/day are too low to be doing much metamagic-adding. Example: At Sorc1/Wiz4/UltMag4, a Wizard9 would have 5th-level spells, while an Ultimate Magus has 4th-level Wizard spells and 1st-level Sorcerer spells and can add Level+1 Metamagic feats "for free." At Sorc1/Wiz4/UltMag7, a Wizard12 has 6th-level spells, while the Ultimate Magus still has 5th-level Wizard spells and just picked up 3rd-level Sorcerer spells. He could add Maximize Spell to his Arc Lightnings for free. Okay, that's not bad. Broken, though? Well, a Wiz12 could do Maximized Fireball for 60 points, while the Magus can do Maximized Arc Lightning for 78 points. But wait, the Wiz12 could then fire off a Quickened Scorching Ray for an additional 12d6, average=42 points, while the Magus can only do Quickened Lesser Orb of X for 5d8, average = 22 points. So now they're about even in the damage race... but Wiz12 is still up by two levels of Wizard spellcasting. The Magus can't prepare Quickened 2nds until 13th, and can't spontaneously Quicken until 14th. So at 14th, the Ultimate Magus can do Maximized Arc Lightning for 90, followed by Quickened Disintegrate (duuude) or Flesh to Stone or, for numbers comparison, another Arc Lightning for 15d6, average = 45, for 135 points total. While a Wizard is well into having 7th-level spells. So in conclusion, there are some neat tricks you can do with spontaneous metamagic, but I'll also say that the casting hit to Wizard that you take waters that down significantly. Then you throw on the Practiced Spellcaster requirement, the loss of Wiz5's bonus feat, and the sudden need for both Int and Cha, and the class ends up being interesting but not broken. I'll toy with it some more after lunch, or maybe I'll delve into Abjurant Champion. I love build exercises. -Matt
CdrcJsn 07-30-07, 02:42 PM	Ultimate Magus starts to climb at level 9, when second level spells can be augmented. That means that you can use empower spell or split ray easier. IF you have the right feats and build your character right, you can start launching Quickened spells by burning off third level spells slots. Also, lower level spells will suddenly get much higher DCs, as higher level spells will get sacked for heighten spell effects. You can only use metamagic equal to half the class level. The earliest you can enter the class is at 6th, so that means: Character level // metamagic slot available 6th-7th None (ability at 3rd class level) 8th 1 9th-10th 2 11th-12th 3 13th-14th 4 15 5 As for higher DCs, a single classed caster doesn't suffer from multiple attribute dependency (MAD) so he can concentrate most of his ability points and bumps on one ability, making his DCs higher from the get go.
JamesMaissen 07-30-07, 03:14 PM	If you tried to make such changes, Matt, you would quickly find that you could not do so. The Circle doesn't avoid ruling on some of our more persistent problems just because they like to make us squirm. They avoid ruling on 'trained for war', for example, because they have been told that they can not do so. If they can't even do that, give house-ruling Divine Metamagic a shot.... While I'm mostly happy about the Circle not making rules calls (though I wish there was a better accommodation for table variation where a character's validity is on the line) that doesn't mean that they can't address certain things. For example: as 'trained for war' has been problematic for quite some time, the circle could make a rule "until otherwise stated (say when WOTC fully defines the term) all animals (or this list or these categories) are considered trained for war." This would atleast obviate the problem without addressing the underlying issue that they aren't allowed to address. -James
JamesMaissen 07-30-07, 03:37 PM	The point I think Mommy (and myself) are trying to get across. Unseen Seer as Open access sure as hell is unbalancing in LG. The idea that by changing a class from open to NONC will fix whether or not its broken is aberrant to me. All it will do is *hide* the possible problem should it even exist. "Limited" should only exist for two reasons: a feature just came out and no one has requested access to it for a module, or a feature is singled out by design to be unavailable for most people. It should not be the place where 'maybe brokens' go! That said I'm not convinced that Unseen Seer is broken, rather than just a good PrC. Consider many other base classes and how PrCing them compares to the base case. The problem with Unseen Seer that people see is simply that it's really the first for rogues to come along. Consider all the wizard PrCs that take caster level hits and then add one that doesn't into the mix. Take your arguments against a Rogue being able to go Unseen Seer and compare them to a Sorcerer taking ANY of the plethora of decent arcane PrCs out there. The Sorcerer gives up LESS and gains MORE in the bargain for them in the main. It doesn't make the PrCs broken just from that.. it just highlights that some base classes need better high level powers to scale. Complete Scoundrel could have done a better job for rogues. I think they tried a decent amount with the skill tricks which we don't use (except for any random people that might be given access). But PrCs from WOTC are hit or miss.. sometimes both (i.e. the 1 level PrC that's Mindbender). -James
Genghis Cohen 07-30-07, 05:47 PM	No, that's entirely a player's decision to focus on sneak attack damage. Sure, it is easy to do, just as it is easy for someone with Ride-By-Attack to not invest in AC to tank in extremis or someone with Archery feats to not buy Power Attack and an emergency two-handed weapon. That doesn't mean the player wasn't responsible for their choice.It wasn't a player choice issue, the campaign was PHB only. If the issue about playing rogues is an issue of the player, why don't you start a Living Greyhawk Rogue and never multi-class?
clannagh 07-30-07, 07:26 PM	To be honest, there are two real issues here: Issue 1) taking an excessively competitive approach to the game. Ironically some of the more competitive people seem to choose classes such as fighter melee types that traditionally (and to some extent rationally) must get below the power curve as characters level. You never get a sorceror saying "sorcerors are unbalanced at low levels I want my level one sorceror to compete with the barbarian .. but you do get the opposite all the time. For a team player like myself .. who cares if one class outshines another .. I stopped getting an ego boost out of my gaming charcters 35 years ago, if somethign is good I am just happy its on my team Issue 2) Low versus high magic campaigns. Cashing out a lot of what people are saying on these threaads ends up with an argument about the level of magic in LG. The Sword and Board pro traditonal rogue and the anti druid people wanting the campaign to move to a lower magic setting and some others wanting more magic. Its just this meta "how much magic" issue gets lost in all teh mini arguments about polymorph and "this spell is overpowered" and "this caster class should be closed".
Mommy was an Orc 07-30-07, 08:09 PM	It wasn't a player choice issue, the campaign was PHB only. If the issue about playing rogues is an issue of the player, why don't you start a Living Greyhawk Rogue and never multi-class? Err, right...I should deliberately play a single-classed character where the rules of the campaign are set up to encourage multi-classing out as a caster rogue. That's not to say you can't easily do it with PHB only. Get a Wood Elf with a 16 Str, 16 Dex, 12 Con, 12 Int, 8 Wis, 8 Cha. Level Strength. 1 TWF 3 Quickdraw 6 Power Attack 9 ITWF The build should be perfectly functional throughout and more than occasionally spectacular. It won't be consistently great, but it should always be able to contribute more than an Aid Another. Throw bolas, nets, acid. Use a Longspear to hit people as they move up to you, then switch over to a Longsword/Sickle combo. That'll make up for the hit point issue, as you'll usually weaken your opponent before they can get to you, rather than taking the full attack the Barbarian usually asks for.
Samwise 07-30-07, 08:36 PM	So I've done a first build of Sorc1/Wiz4/UltimateMagus10, using Practiced Spellcaster to add 4 to Sorcerer caster level and thus max out Wizard casting. I don't really like it. You have to give up two Wizard caster levels over 15 levels, unless you expend another Practiced Spellcaster on Wizard. And the Sorcerer spells/day are too low to be doing much metamagic-adding. Actually you give up four wizard levels. UM has three levels that only add to the lower level casting ability. So: Sorc1/Wiz4/UltMag4 vs Wiz 9 is Sor 3/Wiz 5 vs Wiz 9. Sorc1/Wiz4/UltMag7 vs Wizard12 is Sor 8/Wiz 8 vs Wiz 12. Sorc1/Wiz4/UltMag10 vs Wizard15 is Sor 11/Wiz 11 vs Wiz 15. The only way to negate the discrepancy in spell levels available is to go to 20th level. The problem is with those 4-9 metamagic bumps. You seem to have it backwards, limiting the UM to using a metamagic bump of half his level rather than enhancing a spell of half his level. The 12th level UM you have can quicken any of his 3rd or lower level spells by burning 4th level slots. The 15th level UM can quicken any of his 5th level slots. That will still leave him a bit short on powering out his highest level spells, but a reasonably weasel UM could see his way clear to taking Practical Metamagic, and not only burn 3rd level slots to Quicken his spells, but maximize them with 2nd level slots, or even prepare them as such. And when he adds in Metamagic School Focus? Think of it like having the sudden metamagic feats but worse. That is what an Ultimate Magus will do.
bitznarf 07-30-07, 09:15 PM	Actually you give up four wizard levels. UM has three levels that only add to the lower level casting ability. So: Sorc1/Wiz4/UltMag4 vs Wiz 9 is Sor 3/Wiz 5 vs Wiz 9. Sorc1/Wiz4/UltMag7 vs Wizard12 is Sor 8/Wiz 8 vs Wiz 12. Sorc1/Wiz4/UltMag10 vs Wizard15 is Sor 11/Wiz 11 vs Wiz 15. Thats why you take Practised Spellcaster (Sorcerer), so that technically your wizard side has a lower caster level.
Mattastrophic 07-30-07, 09:28 PM	I'm correct here. At 5th you're at Sorc5/Wiz4 Caster Level. At 6th you go to Sorc6/Wiz6 At 9th you go from Sorc8/Wiz8 to Sorc9/Wiz10 At 12th you go from Sorc11/Wiz12 to Sorc13/Wiz13. Practical Metamagic also isn't Open and requires Dragonblood iirc. Seriously, not that broken due to spells/day hits. -Matt
Mommy was an Orc 07-30-07, 09:38 PM	Actually you give up four wizard levels. UM has three levels that only add to the lower level casting ability. It doesn't work that way, or at least not in theory. Here's the build: 1: Beguiler 1(absolutely no reason for Sorcerer here, on any level - you get the same number of spells as a Beguiler, but you get a lot more skill points) - Practiced Spellcaster(Beguiler) 2: Wizard 1(specialize in something, banning Enchantment/Illusion as you'll get most of the crucial spells from your Beguiler levels eventually) 3: Wizard 2: CWI(you're a 3rd level caster from Beguiler) 4: Wizard 3 5: Wizard 4 6: Ultimate Magus 1 - transmuter is caster level 4, beguiler is caster level 5, raise Wizard 7: UM 2 8: UM 3 9: UM 4 - transmuter is level 8, beguiler is level 8, your choice - raise Wizard. 12: UM 7 - just need to raise beguiler's caster level somehow. I forget offhand, though it works easily enough.
_metz_ 07-30-07, 10:09 PM	The idea that by changing a class from open to NONC will fix whether or not its broken is aberrant to me. All it will do is *hide* the possible problem should it even exist. "Limited" should only exist for two reasons: a feature just came out and no one has requested access to it for a module, or a feature is singled out by design to be unavailable for most people. It should not be the place where 'maybe brokens' go! - SNIP -James OK what I am saying is: If Unseen Seer is open, other Rogue PrCs should be. Non caster Rogue PrCs are half as good yet limited, it makes it tough to exist without it. Please read the rest of my post :) To be honest, there are two real issues here: Issue 1) taking an excessively competitive approach to the game. For a team player like myself .. who cares if one class outshines another .. I stopped getting an ego boost out of my gaming charcters 35 years ago, if somethign is good I am just happy its on my team - SNIP The Sword and Board pro traditonal rogue and the anti druid people If these are the two issues, let me address them directly. 1st Point Its not whether we CARE if one class outshines another. Its that you try playing a 10th level rogue and be told 'why aren't you an unseen seer?' EVERY SECOND GAME. Glenn you are in an environment with very limited players, to the extent you are *almost* in a home game situation. The same is NOT the case for the majority of LG players. Its fine in a home game if there is a funky wizard and a Druid who deals with all the combats, and everyone else doesn't have to do anything but roleplay. But what happens when those players go to a con? and end up with other players like that? their PCs will die. The DM will be blamed for picking on them, there will be drama. I have seen it, and I think deep down you will have to agree with me on that one. My opinion is EVERY PC must be able to contribute something to LG, especially in combat as that is where the focus of the campaign lies. It is a team game, but unfortunately half the time you don't know the players! and as such you have to be able to work on the contingency that you can always help out. This has been addressed in thread after thread, and if you don't like the combat or dice factor, then perhaps a home game or an LARP is more suitable. I personally don't have time for either right now, and enjoy what I can with LG. 2nd Point. Glenn you are the most avid defender of the druid. every time someone says something about them you defend them as a roleplaying class, that the 15 year old girl shouldn't be yelled at because her straight druid outperforms the fighter. Thats not what is being discussed here at all. You argue that funky stuff, role played, Terry Pratchett style of DnD shouldn't be picked on. But at the same time CONSTANTLY have a go at the players who enjoy a more serious fantasy based game. (Which frankly is what LG is). So by all means, play your character as you wish, but don't come to LG where the system is as I described in canon, and tell other players that they should all be caster types, or druids if they want to be useful. Thats just as counterproductive as what you are criticizing. I have had this discussion with you many times, and again, I reiterate, why is a serious fighter any less role played than a silly one? a silly character is often easy to roleplay. Its easy to say the one or two lines and do the same silly thing over and over again imo. And GenghisBob. I have a 9th level Rogue/1 Level Dread Pirate, so essentially am a straight Rogue. I do enjoy playing it. Its just that I have never gotten access to any of the decent PrCs that could have offset my lack of casting, but I do have access to Spellwarp Sniper, Arcane Trickster, and Unseen Seer. Most people really enjoy playing with the character, but it has all the flaws of a straight PHB rogue. Its only THROUGH roleplaying and canny tactics that the charcter can keep up with what else is going on.
Hariman 07-30-07, 10:46 PM	Thats why you take Practised Spellcaster (Sorcerer), so that technically your wizard side has a lower caster level. "Technically" Read the CHART. "+1 level of lower-level existing arcane casting class" And yes, I know that text takes precedence over the charts. But "Caster Level" is used in multiple instances to describe two different but related aspects of casting. In the UM description, under the Spellcasting heading, it's intended as "Arcane Spellcaster Level" NOT caster level for the spells a character casts. It's just like the Complete Warrior version of Improved Familiar. It's Arcane Spellcaster Level, that determines what you qualify for, not the caster level at which you cast your spells.
Samwise 07-31-07, 12:39 AM	I was looking at the table, so based it on the same reasoning Hariman used. I won't bother arguing if that is is an error, it isn't worth the effort. In fact, I'd refer to this FAQ entry for why (page 28): Does a 1st-level wizard/4th-level rogue with Practiced Spellcaster qualify for a prestige class that requires “Spellcaster level 5th”? No. This prestige class requirement doesn’t refer to your caster level (a value which can be modified by many feats, class features, and even temporary effects) but to your actual level in a spellcasting class. (If it helps, you can think of this requirement as “Spellcaster, 5th level.”) The same applies for characters whose caster level is less than their class level. A 5th-level paladin meets the “Spellcaster level 5th) requirement, even though her actual caster level is only 2nd. Assuming you could stack like that, why bother? You can't enhance those higher level spells with metamagic, so the gain is very little. You bump your spells to effective higher level slots with all your free metamagic, and being able to use sorcerer slots to bump wizard spells is a lot more useful than just being able to use wizard spells to bump 1st level sorcerer spells. I expect they consider this would prohibit taking item creation feats as well. Also, if they ever get errata issues, taking beguiler or warmage may waste the expanded spell knowledge ability: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20061025a Yes, I know it isn't in the FAQ. I'd be leery of taking such a class anyway until I was sure it wasn't going to get dumped on. Also, practical metamagic is open: For anyone who makes a kobold. ;) All in all, a whole lot of questions, a whole lot of potential errata, and a whole lot of super-sized sudden metamagic feats make the class excessively powerful.
Mattastrophic 07-31-07, 01:05 AM	All in all, a whole lot of questions, a whole lot of potential errata, and a whole lot of super-sized sudden metamagic feats make the class excessively powerful. And the ganking of your spell progression nerfs the effect of those sudden metamagic feats. A 15th-level character who can do two sixth-level spells a round isn't broken compared to a 15th-level character who can crank out an 8th and a 4th. 8th and 5th if he spends tons of resources on it. But we're all entitled to our own opinions. I'm always glad to see academic discussions about the relative strength of certain game elements versus others. -Matt
Samwise 07-31-07, 01:31 AM	And the ganking of your spell progression nerfs the effect of those sudden metamagic feats. A 15th-level character who can do two sixth-level spells a round isn't broken compared to a 15th-level character who can crank out an 8th and a 4th. 8th and 5th if he spends tons of resources on it. The 15th level UM can cast a quickened 5th level spell and a maximized 5th level spell in a round. That is a 9th level spell and an 8th level spell every round for three or four rounds per day. That is compared to a 15th level straight wizard who can cast an 8th level spell and a quickened 4th level spell. That is two 8th level spells every round for . . . one round. Then he is down to a 7th level spell and a quickened 3rd level spell, followed by a 7th level spell and a quickened 2nd level spell, followed by a 6th level spell and and quickened 2nd level spell. All while our UM is still popping off a quickened 5th and a maximized 5th every round. But we're all entitled to our own opinions. I'm always glad to see academic discussions about the relative strength of certain game elements versus others. -Matt Yes we are. And I happen to think a 15th level character casting four to eight 9th level spells per day requiring one feat and two spell levels has serious issues.
Reylance 07-31-07, 01:06 PM	Abjurant Champion is clearly better than Eldritch Knight, and the only reason it isn't strictly better is the prerequisite of Combat Casting. But that doesn't mean Eldritch Knight is the type of prestige class WotC R&D should create. The years of play have given them more experience, and they know they can do better than Eldritch Knight without destroying the game. To compare to Magic: the Gathering, several cards are strictly better than Grizzly Bears, but that's an appropriate power level for a 1G creature. If I were to balance these two prestige classes, I'd do the following: Eldritch Knight: d8 hit dice, bonus wizard feats at 5th and 10th Abjurant Champion: d8 hit dice, 4/5 spellcasting, require Spell Focus: Abjuration and proficiency with all martial weapons
CdrcJsn 07-31-07, 02:00 PM	The 15th level UM can cast a quickened 5th level spell and a maximized 5th level spell in a round. That is a 9th level spell and an 8th level spell every round for three or four rounds per day. The question though is whether metamagicked spells are always better than a non-metamagicked spell. For dealing damage, I think the consensus would be yes. However, most people would also agree that dealing damage is usually not as optimal as options of crowd control for an arcane caster. At 15th level, does an UM have anything to compare to a maze, bigby's, polymorph any object, power word stun or otto's?
control freak 07-31-07, 02:07 PM	heres why UM is broken MMSF split enveravtion quickened, followed by split enervation thats 4d4 negitive levels with NO save tipicaly thats the end of the bad guy ( i mean really that 16th level bad guy isnt so threatening when he is 4th or 5th level...)
Samwise 07-31-07, 02:15 PM	At 15th level, does an UM have anything to compare to a maze, bigby's, polymorph any object, power word stun or otto's? You mean like mind fog followed by quickened Will save spell? (Which can be worse with a 6th level mass suggestion instead of just another 5th level spell.) Or two walls of force in one round? Or we could put up hallucinatory terrain and transmute rock to mud at the same time. So . . . yeah, I think two 5th level spells at once can match the battlefield control of one 8th level spell. And yet again, remember that the UM can do this 3 or 4 times. The pure wizard gets to do it once unless he has a metamagic rod.
Samwise 07-31-07, 02:21 PM	heres why UM is broken MMSF split enveravtion quickened, followed by split enervation thats 4d4 negitive levels with NO save tipicaly thats the end of the bad guy ( i mean really that 16th level bad guy isnt so threatening when he is 4th or 5th level...) You can't use it on a spell that is already affected by a metamagic feat. Fortunately. You can still prepare any 6th level spells with such feats of course, especially if you pick up practical metamagic.
CdrcJsn 07-31-07, 02:25 PM	heres why UM is broken MMSF split enveravtion quickened, followed by split enervation thats 4d4 negitive levels with NO save tipicaly thats the end of the bad guy ( i mean really that 16th level bad guy isnt so threatening when he is 4th or 5th level...) Hmm...the 15th wiz can only do an empowered split ray enervation. 3d4 negative levels vs 4d4. 7.5 average levels drained versus 10 isn't probably much of a difference though. Against a single 18th level target, putting them at 8th or 10th level is pretty much a guaranteed death sentence, especially with their top 7 or 10 spells wiped out. Again though, I conceded that looking at just dealing raw damage, the UM will come out ahead.
control freak 07-31-07, 02:29 PM	emp max quickened fireball+ emp maxed fire ball is a death sentence unless you have evasion or protection from fire oh yes and technecaly because of the way split ray is worded its 2d4+2d2 neg levels (which is better imoh)
CdrcJsn 07-31-07, 02:35 PM	You mean like mind fog followed by quickened Will save spell? (Which can be worse with a 6th level mass suggestion instead of just another 5th level spell.) Or two walls of force in one round? Or we could put up hallucinatory terrain and transmute rock to mud at the same time. So . . . yeah, I think two 5th level spells at once can match the battlefield control of one 8th level spell. And yet again, remember that the UM can do this 3 or 4 times. The pure wizard gets to do it once unless he has a metamagic rod. Those spells you listed have several drawbacks: Mind Fog has a will save. A creature that is going to fail the save should've just been targetted with the second spell and be done with it. Wall of Force won't stop flying creatures. Transmute rock to mud can't be used on worked stone. Compared to: Maze has no save. Power Word Stun has no save. Otto's has no save. So a UM can try emulate the effects of effective crowd control, but it will be slightly weaker than what a straight wizard can do. So from my perspective, an UM will have slightly more effective damage dealing ability while the straight wizard has a slightly better ability to do crowd control.
control freak 07-31-07, 02:43 PM	and better then straight wizard is any wizard PrC! :P :D
Samwise 07-31-07, 02:56 PM	Compared to: Maze has no save. Power Word Stun has no save. Otto's has no save. So a UM can try emulate the effects of effective crowd control, but it will be slightly weaker than what a straight wizard can do. So from my perspective, an UM will have slightly more effective damage dealing ability while the straight wizard has a slightly better ability to do crowd control. Maze doesn't work on minotaurs and is close range. Power Word Stun doesn't work on creatures with more than 150 hit points and is close range. Otto's is a touch spell. All of them only work on one target. So a wizard can try and do effective crowd control with those spells, but will probably fail horribly, since they don't control a crowd at all, but merely neutralize a single figure for 1-10 rounds, assuming the wizard manages to get within 60' to use them in the first place. If you want to double think every spell in existence they can all be dismissed as "ineffective" and "wrong" for whatever purpose you want to assign.
control freak 07-31-07, 02:58 PM	death is stronger crowd control then any of the other spells you mentioned:rolleyes:
CdrcJsn 07-31-07, 04:44 PM	If you want to double think every spell in existence they can all be dismissed as "ineffective" and "wrong" for whatever purpose you want to assign. True. But based on the last few APL16 games I can remember, it was the few uber buffed creatures that the party needed to worry about that the no-save spells would be effective against rather than the mooks that the evards, walls, and fogs are most effective against. Single Target no-save neutralizing spells are something that the non UM will be able to do better. Straight Wizards also have the option of walls, fogs and other terrain spells that the UM has in addition to the no save stuff.
Mattastrophic 07-31-07, 05:11 PM	I'm with Cedric on this one, probably because I know what competent high-level spellcasters can do. A 15+-level mage who falls down after taking a couple of AoE spells is pretty incompetent. What Cedric is describing is what competent high-level spellcasters do: they rise beyond things like attack rolls, damage taken, and save-for-half and worry about things like "Does he have Spell Turning up?" "How will I deal with Maze?" or "How quickly will my opponents get by my Prismatic Sphere?" For example: Empowered Maximized Energy Admixtured Fireballs mean nothing to someone who has all five Energy Immunities up 24/7. Split Twinned Maximized Enervations mean nothing to someone with, hell, Globe of Invulnerability running. Or Statue. Living Greyhawk significantly nerfs the upper tier of spellcasters' power, as well, especially with the removal of APL 16, so not only are we capped at 7th-8th-level spells, not only are we restricted from building up more permanent magical defenses (since they all go away at the end of the mod), but now we're unlikely to have to deal with enemy spellcasters that possess the upper tier of power levels. It's almost as if we're playing a different game. So if Ultimate Magus seems better than straight Wizard, it's because the straight Wizard is hindered by the limitations of Living Greyhawk. -Matt
Mommy was an Orc 07-31-07, 05:13 PM	At 15th level, does an UM have anything to compare to a maze, bigby's, polymorph any object, power word stun or otto's? Chained: Baleful Polymorph Dominate Person Enervate Feeblemind Finger of Death Flesh to Stone Hold Monster Insanity - higher DC than confusion and not dispelable. Power Word Blind - as it doesn't have a save or do damage, this is essentially mass power word blind. Targeted Greater Dispel Magic - ditto. Telekinesis - do the combat manuever option and take advantage of your high caster level(17 or so) and single primary stat from Beguiler/Wizard. Again, ditto. Yes, I'm aware that a 15th level caster in many cases can cast Chained versions of these spells - but they usually need to waste a high level slot, where the UM doesn't need to do that.
Sieylianna 07-31-07, 05:47 PM	Abjurant Champion is clearly better than Eldritch Knight, and the only reason it isn't strictly better is the prerequisite of Combat Casting. Actually, combat casting isn't really a cost, because the Abjurant Champion ability to use their BAB as caster level is going to negate the need for practiced spellcaster in many builds. Ed
Hariman 07-31-07, 06:21 PM	Chained: Baleful Polymorph Dominate Person Enervate Feeblemind Finger of Death Flesh to Stone Hold Monster Insanity - higher DC than confusion and not dispelable. Power Word Blind - as it doesn't have a save or do damage, this is essentially mass power word blind. Targeted Greater Dispel Magic - ditto. Telekinesis - do the combat manuever option and take advantage of your high caster level(17 or so) and single primary stat from Beguiler/Wizard. Again, ditto. Yes, I'm aware that a 15th level caster in many cases can cast Chained versions of these spells - but they usually need to waste a high level slot, where the UM doesn't need to do that. Ultimate Magus caps the augment ability at 5th level spells. So Flesh to Stone, Finger of Death and some other spells can't be augmented. I'd say tossing a Twinned (Or Elemental Admixtured) spell as a Standard action then following it up with a Quickened spell (Preferably using Metamagic Spell Focus, which any Ultimate Magus would be stupid not to take.) would work. Other Combinations are Empowering the standard action spell and Quickening the other. Or Maximize and Quicken. Split Ray and Quicken would work well too. There are some GOOD rays. An ultimate Magus might burn through his available spell slots very fast doing such things. But he'll be putting out more damage than many other characters. Even other uber casters will have a hard time competing with 30d6 worth of damage at level 11. In one round. There are also other ways to use metamagic than just straight damage. Control Spells and Summon Spells can all be affected by metamagic feats. Not to mention that Pearls of Power and Memento Magicka will be priority number one, as they'll let an Ultimate Magus crank out that level of damage multiple times a day. Hmm...the 15th wiz can only do an empowered split ray enervation. 3d4 negative levels vs 4d4. 7.5 average levels drained versus 10 isn't probably much of a difference though. Against a single 18th level target, putting them at 8th or 10th level is pretty much a guaranteed death sentence, especially with their top 7 or 10 spells wiped out. Again though, I conceded that looking at just dealing raw damage, the UM will come out ahead. And an Ultimate Magus should be READYING his standard action spell to disrupt the enemy spellcasters. There's nothing like having to cope with a Maximized spell while trying to concentrate. I was looking at the table, so based it on the same reasoning Hariman used. I won't bother arguing if that is is an error, it isn't worth the effort. In fact, I'd refer to this FAQ entry for why (page 28): Does a 1st-level wizard/4th-level rogue with Practiced Spellcaster qualify for a prestige class that requires “Spellcaster level 5th”? No. This prestige class requirement doesn’t refer to your caster level (a value which can be modified by many feats, class features, and even temporary effects) but to your actual level in a spellcasting class. (If it helps, you can think of this requirement as “Spellcaster, 5th level.”) The same applies for characters whose caster level is less than their class level. A 5th-level paladin meets the “Spellcaster level 5th) requirement, even though her actual caster level is only 2nd. Assuming you could stack like that, why bother? You can't enhance those higher level spells with metamagic, so the gain is very little. You bump your spells to effective higher level slots with all your free metamagic, and being able to use sorcerer slots to bump wizard spells is a lot more useful than just being able to use wizard spells to bump 1st level sorcerer spells. Also, practical metamagic is open: For anyone who makes a kobold. Not only is that a valid point on Prereqs, that is also a good reason to NOT try the Practised Spellcaster trick. Kobolds have no penalties to MENTAL stats, making them better at casting than at physical roles.
solbergb 07-31-07, 06:26 PM	True. But based on the last few APL16 games I can remember, it was the few uber buffed creatures that the party needed to worry about that the no-save spells would be effective against rather than the mooks that the evards, walls, and fogs are most effective against. Oh, I dunno. In City of Brass, APL14, it was the solid fog and wall of force spells that pretty much allowed us to win the fight vs the uberbuffed creatures. Even earth glide doesn't help much when 15' of you are stuck in solid fog, and both the wall and the fog did bad things to the enemy reach advantage. The spells let us fight a manageable number of enemies at a time. Wall of force is sovereign in confined areas, solid fog vs big or airborne opponents (except whirlwinding air elementals.....) You'll note both spells have no save. I do agree in concept with stuff like evards and mind fog - those spells at APL14-16 are strictly for the weaklings. (although...evards halves movement, so evards+solid fog is nasty. 5' per round for you. Period. Till you get all of you out of the area.)
Mattastrophic 07-31-07, 07:23 PM	And an Ultimate Magus should be READYING his standard action spell to disrupt the enemy spellcasters. There's nothing like having to cope with a Maximized spell while trying to concentrate. *ahem* Energy Immunity. Or hell, Glove of Invulnerability, in case Maximized Orb of Force shows up. There comes a point where the straight wizard's defenses are over the head of the Ultimate Magus. My own spellcaster gets Readyed against pretty often, and it's failed to stop him yet. "Oh, you're readying an Orb? Contingency goes off, you have a lot of Mirror Images to pick from..." Living Greyhawk simply doesn't go high enough to encompass these types of scenarios. When a 12th-level character can take on everything the campaign throws out, spellcasters are nerfed. -Matt
Istaran 07-31-07, 07:42 PM	Practiced Spellcaster changes your caster level, not your spellcaster level. Those are two different specifically defined terms (despite a few table/text collisions where one thing is said in one place, the other is said in the other place). A ranger 5 has a spellcaster level of 5 and a caster level of 2, unless he takes practiced spellcaster or some other caster level bump. A wizard 1/ rogue 4 with practiced spellcaster has a spellcaster level of 1 and a caster level of 5. This means he can, in fact, pick up Craft Magic Arms and Armor, for example. The text of Ultimate Magus refers to the lower caster level, not the lower spellcaster level. Unless/until this is errata'd, practiced spellcaster is sufficient to change which class gets the bump.
Hariman 07-31-07, 07:43 PM	*ahem* Energy Immunity. Or hell, Glove of Invulnerability, in case Maximized Orb of Force shows up. There comes a point where the straight wizard's defenses are over the head of the Ultimate Magus. My own spellcaster gets Readyed against pretty often, and it's failed to stop him yet. "Oh, you're readying an Orb? Contingency goes off, you have a lot of Mirror Images to pick from..." Living Greyhawk simply doesn't go high enough to encompass these types of scenarios. When a 12th-level character can take on everything the campaign throws out, spellcasters are nerfed. -Matt And after the first few times that energy damage doesn't work, I'd switch to another type of spell. Or I'd Heighten spells to get by a Globe. Blocking Line of Sight can work as well as damaging an enemy caster.
Mattastrophic 07-31-07, 08:02 PM	Point being, the spell has gone off. You're Mazed. But enough of the theoretical scenarios. It'll go on forever. Theoretical number-pushing and metamagic stacking has a way of crumbling when it goes up against a competent defense. -Matt
Hariman 07-31-07, 08:57 PM	Point being, the spell has gone off. You're Mazed. But enough of the theoretical scenarios. It'll go on forever. Theoretical number-pushing and metamagic stacking has a way of crumbling when it goes up against a competent defense. -Matt True. But any Ultimate Magus that focuses solely on damage is a fool. With two classes to use you can build almost completely different spell lists and cover at least two different roles, both of which will be available at all times. The spontaneous side would have the "Always needed" spells, that you return to day after day. And the wizard side could have a library of spells ranging from damaging to support to debuffs. And still, the Ultimate magus will be able to use his metamagic feats spontaneously. EVEN FOR HIS WIZARD SPELLS, granting him flexibility that other prepared casters don't have.
JamesMaissen 08-01-07, 12:21 AM	Yes, I'm aware that a 15th level caster in many cases can cast Chained versions of these spells - but they usually need to waste a high level slot, where the UM doesn't need to do that. Here's a question: For a high level caster, how many of your top tier spells do you metamagic? All of them? Because that's essentially what you are doing with UM. Also the UM by being down in spellcasting is using his 'higher' level slots for them. They do get a bit of a benefit, but there are a good number of downsides. I keep remembering when 3.5 came out and how Mystic Theurges were being called broken. -James
Timlagor 08-01-07, 08:48 AM	The UM also has a higher CL, the beguiler spells (some very juicy ones on that list) and a lot more flexibility (remember that you can burn Wizard spells to MM the beguiler spells as well as the other way around). I'm playing one in XE and I can tell you that the 1st level Beguiler spells have been extremely valuable at low levels. I'll see how it progresses in actual play and let you know if I remember.
Mommy was an Orc 08-01-07, 11:06 AM	Here's a question: For a high level caster, how many of your top tier spells do you metamagic? All of them? Because that's essentially what you are doing with UM. Also the UM by being down in spellcasting is using his 'higher' level slots for them. They do get a bit of a benefit, but there are a good number of downsides. I keep remembering when 3.5 came out and how Mystic Theurges were being called broken. -James I believe I was the first person on the Min/Max(now Character Optimization) boards who called Mystic Theurges weak when they originally came out. Mystic Theurge's major advantage is that it forces players to look at how much more powerful non-boom spells are in 3.5 than boom spells. Then levels 10, 12, 14-16 aren't bad, but 17+ has the problem that Cleric 13 is less effective than Summon Monster IX. And no one considers Summon Monster IX a top-tier 9th level spell. UM on the other hand is not down that much in many ways: He can afford to be a specialist wizard without question. If you like Generalists over Specialists, that's a big advantage for them as a Wizard 13/Beguiler 9 won't be that far behind in spells per day and there's very little reason not to ban Enchantment and/or Illusion. They're not using their top-tier spells for metamagic, they're using their mid-level spells. A Grey Elf with a starting Int of 20, +6 Stat item, +3 level, +1 magic book = 30 Int has this number of spells per day(excluding cantrips) Generalist Wizard 15 7 7 6 6 6 5 3 2 Specialist Wizard 13(caster level 17) 8 8 7 7 6 5 3 0 Beguiler 9(caster level 17) 9 9 8 6 Getting 2-8th level spells and the ability to cast high level illusions/enchantments is not worth losing the ability to spontaneously metamagic 8 times a day. And that is assuming you don't want to cast any of the Beguiler spells - burn a Wizard 4 spell for Quickened Greater Invisibility or Solid Fog on round 1 of every combat. It might not be the ideal use of an 8th level spell slot if you've only got 2 of them, but would you do this 3 times a day if it only uses up 6 of your 13 4th level spells - notice even after doing this, the character still has more 4th level spells than the Generalist. This makes decisions such as Chaining Greater Magic Weapon obvious - it isn't a 6th level spell slot, it is 2 3rds, something the UM has 9 more a day than the Generalist. But it means many of the 4th/5th level spells I listed before are strong 6th/7th/8th level spells(assuming the value of a +3 to +4 metamagic is about 1 less than a corresponding spell)
control freak 08-01-07, 11:57 AM	my reasoning on it was that you could quicken, twin, empower, split, and maximize all at once (thats like 24 negitive levels from enervation, and 180 from a fire ball or more from other spells as a free action)
CdrcJsn 08-01-07, 03:13 PM	my reasoning on it was that you could quicken, twin, empower, split, and maximize all at once (thats like 24 negitive levels from enervation, and 180 from a fire ball or more from other spells as a free action) NO YOU CAN'T You can't apply more than one metamagic effect. "You can't use this ability to augment a spell already affected by a metamagic feat."
Timlagor 08-01-07, 03:13 PM	I'm pretty sure you can't stack Metamagic with the UM ability.
CdrcJsn 08-01-07, 03:20 PM	I think UM is definitely a powerful PrC, up there with IotSFV. Certainly a lot better than Mystic Theurge (though I do play a MT and have not found it too bad). I just don't think it's broken like what some people are saying. The existence of metamagic rods sorta takes away some of the uniqueness of its main class ability.
Samwise 08-01-07, 03:50 PM	The existence of metamagic rods sorta takes away some of the uniqueness of its main class ability. It takes away the exclusivity. But the costs, 75,500 for quicken, 54,000 for maximize, or a "mere" 32,500 for empower, means they are going to be a hefty part of the gear value of even a 15th level PC (200,00), and too much for an NPC (59,000). A rod of quicken, a rod of maximize, and a +6 headband are 193,500 gp, just to give the wizard the ability to match the UM in metamagic ability. The UM buys a +6 headband and +6 cloak, and two 8th level scrolls for 134,000, and is now equals the wizard in spell level ability. So it is now more spells and 66,000 gp of equiment, or 6,500 gp worth of equipment. The wizard is definitely going to lose trying to match the UM. Also: The Wizard has 6 level based feats and 3 bonus feats. The UM has 6 level based feats and 2 bonus feats. In the end, the UM is basically a prestige class for Divine Metamagic. That should be enough reason to leave it closed.
CdrcJsn 08-01-07, 05:26 PM	The wizard is definitely going to lose trying to match the UM. You think two 8th level scrolls will suffice? I don't know of any caster at APL16 who memorizes all their top tier spells as metamagic, meaning that specific 8th or 9th level spells are wanted. Burning three to four 8th level scrolls per adventure isn't exactly cost effective. Likewise, all the wizard really needs is the rod of quicken. He has enough spell slots to empower 6th and 7th level spells if he feels like it. Even a lesser rod will do to add a lot of versatility. Again, I think UM is really nice for powering up damaging spells. But I think there are several top tier spells that are preferrable at the high level game that are not geared towards doing damage.
Hariman 08-01-07, 06:03 PM	Here's a question: For a high level caster, how many of your top tier spells do you metamagic? All of them? Because that's essentially what you are doing with UM. Also the UM by being down in spellcasting is using his 'higher' level slots for them. They do get a bit of a benefit, but there are a good number of downsides. I keep remembering when 3.5 came out and how Mystic Theurges were being called broken. -James Strictly speaking, the Ultimate Magus isn't broken. It's just top tier powerful (At least to look at, Mattastrophic does have a point that it might not work out so well in practice.) and capable of more metamagic than a single classed sorcerer or wizard. But in LG, where the top tier of single class feats and prestige classes are either closed or heavily limited, the Ultimate Magus is above the curve. Especially when you factor in crafting and how much of an effect pearls of power and memento magicka would have. Even a few second or third level Pearls and Mementos would let a UM bust out the heavy artillery multiple times a day. Which is the main weakness of the Ultimate Magus. If you augment too much, you burn out much faster.
Timlagor 08-02-07, 04:17 AM	In a campaign with generally more encounters per day the UM would gain a lot more through durability. The Wizard's top slots are certainly a potent factor. Another major disadvantage to the UM is that you can't get Fatespinner / I7V / ... with those levels.