| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| redscizor07-01-07, 09:03 PM | i have this question, the features abjurant armor of abjurant champion of complete mage affect the mage armor? the mage armor is school conjuration (creation) ]Force] but me friends sayme what mage armor is allow because it is in description of this features Abjurant champion rely on mage armor, shield, and similar spells insted of actual armor plz helpme |
| Khatoblepas07-01-07, 09:12 PM | No. Though, some DMs rule otherwise, as Mage Armor as a Conjuration is really, really, really silly. |
| Jaxgaret07-01-07, 09:13 PM | Ask Wizards' Reply (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20061113a) Wizards' Forum Thread (http://boards1.wizards.com/archive/index.php/t-841120.html) Another Wizards' Forum Thread (http://boards1.wizards.com/wotc_archive/index.php/t-735371) Search is your friend. |
| redscizor07-02-07, 10:40 PM | then only work in iluminous armor de BoED and ectoplasm armor =OOO thanks |
| The_Shaman07-03-07, 09:13 AM | Sorry, just because it means he uses a spell does not necessarily mean he gets a bonus to it. It doesn't work. You could independently research such a spell (there are rules for that, and it really ups your standing in the mage community), but I think that it is a very good PrC anyway. |
| forsaken111107-03-07, 09:27 AM | My DM settled this issue after reading about dual-school spells. He reclassified Mage armor as a dual Conjuration/Abjuration spell and that was the end of it. For all effects, it counts as a spell of both schools. Edit: If you note... it was obvious that they intended mage armor to work as the example PC for the abjurant champion has an enhanced armor bonus from a mage armor spell included in the stats. Count up his armor class and you'll see what I mean. |
| goawayugh07-03-07, 10:12 AM | My DM settled this issue after reading about dual-school spells. He reclassified Mage armor as a dual Conjuration/Abjuration spell and that was the end of it. For all effects, it counts as a spell of both schools. Edit: If you note... it was obvious that they intended mage armor to work as the example PC for the abjurant champion has an enhanced armor bonus from a mage armor spell included in the stats. Count up his armor class and you'll see what I mean. Interesting houls rule, one I might actually agree with (I'm not big on house rules). Many of the "samples" they provide with PrC's are not checked back against the PrC's abilities. I can't think of any off the top of my head right now, but I know I have come across at least three or four examples that make no sense. |
| redscizor07-03-07, 11:29 AM | My DM settled this issue after reading about dual-school spells. He reclassified Mage armor as a dual Conjuration/Abjuration spell and that was the end of it. For all effects, it counts as a spell of both schools. Edit: If you note... it was obvious that they intended mage armor to work as the example PC for the abjurant champion has an enhanced armor bonus from a mage armor spell included in the stats. Count up his armor class and you'll see what I mean. dual school??? but this no make abjurant champion overpower?? character lvl12: caster lvl~10 BaB: ~9 AC: greater mage armor (+11) + shield(+9) +dex+items: 32+- |
| forsaken111107-03-07, 11:32 AM | dual school??? but this no make abjurant champion overpower?? character lvl12: caster lvl~10 BaB: ~9 AC: greater mage armor (+11) + shield(+9) +dex+items: 32+- Its not hard to have an AC of 32 at level 12 without that class... so no I don't think it makes them overpowered. That's the whole point of the class. |
| DrRufio07-03-07, 11:46 AM | It's obviously meant to work with mage armor. Both the flavor text and the example have references to using mage armor. Hell, it's obviously the whole point of the entire PrC because if you were using PHB spells only, shield would be the only spell that you could even use for this. Saying it works with a bunch of other splat book spells just doesn't justify it very well. |
| Arcturion07-03-07, 12:28 PM | I think this was addressed in another thread, but here goes. The PrC is very nice already and works well enough without having mage armor amped up too. Otherwise, that's a whopping +18 total bonus to AC for a mere 5 levels of a PrC and two 1st-level spells, which is a bit much. The example in Complete Mage looked like the perfect case where the writer didn't do his homework and the editor was asleep at the wheel, otherwise, someone would have caught the fact that mage armor was conjuration, not abjuration. If memory serves me, the exact text for the ability entry merely mentioned the fact that Abjurant Champions rely on spells such as mage armor for defense, not that it specifically states that it applied to that particular spell. A bit of semantics there, but it doesn't change the fact that mage armor is not an abjuration spell by the RAW. But if we're going back to the NPC entry to prove that it works with mage armor, I'm inclined to think it was just a prime example of very sloppy research and editing on the part of the designers. I like the PrC, don't get me wrong, in fact, I have a PC with it, but it's my belief that another +5 bonus to AC tacked on to the shield bonus is overkill. Besides, it's not like mage gishes are hurting for AC bonuses when mithral armor and the twilight property are available, in addition to ectoplasmic armor and the like. Case in point, a harbinger/hexblade gestalt with the Abjurant Champion and Sublime Chord PrCs can have a crazy high AC with just shield (or repelling shield) and sirine's grace. |
| teshen07-03-07, 01:34 PM | I think this was addressed in another thread, . . . Then let's not address it and just agree to disagree. . . . but here goes. The PrC is very nice already and works well enough without having mage armor amped up too. Otherwise, that's a whopping +18 total bonus to AC for a mere 5 levels of a PrC and two 1st-level spells, which is a bit much. Mage armor (+4) + Shield (+4 to +9) = +8 to +13 to AC It's only armor or shield bonuses from abjuration spells... where are you getting the additional +4? Shield is the only core spell that works with with the abjurant armor feature. I'm not even sure there is another spell that works with the PrC in the book it was published in... I'm away from my books at the moment. The example in Complete Mage looked like the perfect case where the writer didn't do his homework and the editor was asleep at the wheel, otherwise, someone would have caught the fact that mage armor was conjuration, not abjuration. If memory serves me, the exact text for the ability entry merely mentioned the fact that Abjurant Champions rely on spells such as mage armor for defense, not that it specifically states that it applied to that particular spell. A bit of semantics there, but it doesn't change the fact that mage armor is not an abjuration spell by the RAW. And could it have not been simply a case where the 'spells that grant an armor or shield bonus' would have covered the ability and someone mistakenly added the word abjuration? A one word mistake is more likely than an entire character... well, equally likely with the way WotC has published as of late. But if we're going back to the NPC entry to prove that it works with mage armor, I'm inclined to think it was just a prime example of very sloppy research and editing on the part of the designers. I like the PrC, don't get me wrong, in fact, I have a PC with it, but it's my belief that another +5 bonus to AC tacked on to the shield bonus is overkill. I'm not aware of errata either way, whether correcting the character or correcting the text of the ability. And the fact that you think something at higher levels is overkill is an opinion... I'd welcome comparisons that would make your opinion more concrete, however. Besides, it's not like mage gishes are hurting for AC bonuses when mithral armor and the twilight property are available, in addition to ectoplasmic armor and the like. Case in point, a harbinger/hexblade gestalt with the Abjurant Champion and Sublime Chord PrCs can have a crazy high AC with just shield (or repelling shield) and sirine's grace. Gestalt. It's Optional. And Powerful by Default. And you are adding two spells that may or may not be allowed depending on which books your game is using. And you are using armor factors that may or may not be available... like the twilight enchancement as a comparison... Gish concepts are difficult to make effective thanks to the mechanics of the D20 system. Losing caster levels as a magic user hurts and losing hit points and base attack/extra attacks as a fighter type hurts. Combining the two leaves you with a character that does neither well... Look at most of the theurge concepts as an example... It's easier to pull of a gish concept with a cleric or druid out of the box. No PrCs needed. Let's not rehash this. There are those that think the PrC wouldn't break with the inclusion of mage armor... and there are those that think the PrC is straight up broken to begin with. I'm one of the former rather than the latter. Happy gaming. |
| Taerg_Nor07-03-07, 01:55 PM | I think teshen is right when he tells arcturion that puttin the example of a gestalt character is not the way to go, specially since any sane DM wouldn't allow them except it was the idea of having superpowerfull characters. Yet, teshen when you say Mage armor (+4) + Shield (+4 to +9) = +8 to +13 to AC It's only armor or shield bonuses from abjuration spells... where are you getting the additional +4? I think you didn't understand what arcturion ment, what he is saying is that if Abjurant Armor bonus applied to mage armor you would have: Mage armor (+4 to +9) + Shield (+4 to +9) = +8 to +18 to AC besides if he was wrong he wouldn't have been missing a +4 he would have been missing a +5. Thing is that if you include mage armor in the bonus you are also including other spells as well like greater mage amor (a +6 version of MA) and Mailed Might of The Magelords (a +8 version) now since shiled can be quickened on the spot in 1 round you would gain a total of +22 to armor (+13 mailed might + 9 Shield), thats why I think including Abjurant Armor bonus to mage armor makes the PrC way too powerful considering it's prequisites, any caster with a +5 bab need only take 1 feat (Combat Casting) and would gain a +10 to armor and the ability to quicken abjuration spells on the spot. I dont remember now if you also needed a WF(any) feat but even then is imbalanced as are many of the prestiges of the last edited books. What I did as a DM was telling my player that since mage armor is a conjuration spell Abjurant Armor doesn't apply, he is a 4th level abjurant champion now and is balanced to the rest of my players |
| Tiverine07-03-07, 03:42 PM | if you strictly follow the rules, mage armor is not powered by abjurant armor (is a Conjuration spell not an abjuration)... but I think your house rule is ok... even if, with normal rules you just can cast spells like shield, lesser deflect, deflect and antidragon aura... and nothing (except your DM) stops you from developing your own spells, also a spell similar to mage armor of the abjuration school. in complete mage there's only write that an abjurant champion rely on spells like shield and mage armor, but it doesn't mean that mage armor is powered by the class feature. |
| wonlee7607-03-07, 03:46 PM | I dont remember now if you also needed a WF(any) feat but even then is imbalanced as are many of the prestiges of the last edited books. Proficiency with a martial weapon is also a pre-req so its either 1 feat if you're an elven spellcaster or 2 feats if you're not an elven spellcaster (or a 1 level dip in a class that gvies proficiency with martial weapons). |
| Arcturion07-03-07, 03:55 PM | I second what Taerg said. Really, Abjurant Champion isn't core by itself, if you're going to discount spells like sirine's grace (which is in Spell Compendium), or even abjuration spells that do grant an armor bonus (like ectoplasmic armor or luminous armor). Perhaps gestalt was a bad example (but I still think it has some bearing in this debate so I'm not going to just discount it), but looking at just mage armor and shield in a vaccuum won't be done by all players or groups, by your own logic, Tesh. Add in repelling shield (which is in Complete Mage, same as the PrC) combined with combat reflexes and mage armor stacked with the Abjurant Champion's abjurant armor ability and it gets even crazier (every time an enemy does manage to hit him and fails a Reflex save, AoOs are provoked out the wazoo). I still stand by that the PrC gets enough goodies as it is and doesn't need mage armor (and greater mage armor, which grants a +6 armor bonus, as stated previously) to be amped along with shield/repelling shield. Which brings that AC bonus total to a mind-boggling +20 (+6 greater mage armor + 5 abjurant armor bonus +4 shield/repelling shield + 5 abjurant shield bonus), with just two spells. I guess I do agree to disagree, just going by the simple math. |
| Empiro07-03-07, 06:28 PM | Simply put, even if the ability only affected the shield spell, the Abjurant Champion would still be overpowered. Side note: just because one can come up with a build that can achieve the same level of power doesn't automatically render the AC "ok", because you're comparing an optimized build with one where you're not even trying (just the use of two very common spells). Now imagine what happens when you actually decide to go and optimize the AC. |
| teshen07-03-07, 07:02 PM | I second what Taerg said. Really, Abjurant Champion isn't core by itself, if you're going to discount spells like sirine's grace (which is in Spell Compendium), or even abjuration spells that do grant an armor bonus (like ectoplasmic armor or luminous armor). True enough. I don't use the spell compendium. But since abjurant champion is in a non-core book, you'd have to be using non-core... but not all non-core is allowed in every game. Considering that the core book allows for the research and creation of spells, you could research an abjuration version of mage armor and be done with it... and that would fulfill all the criteria... My main beef, I suppose, is that there aren't that many spells that add an armor or shield bonus, abjuration or otherwise, and I find it distasteful that you have buy multiple books to get use out of a specific PrC. And one of the spells everyone mentions when they bring up luminous armor from the Book of Exalted Deeds... a book that I strongly dislike because of the hard line stance it takes about alignment, an already argueable aspect of the game... But that's a different argument altogether. Perhaps gestalt was a bad example (but I still think it has some bearing in this debate so I'm not going to just discount it), but looking at just mage armor and shield in a vaccuum won't be done by all players or groups, by your own logic, Tesh. Add in repelling shield (which is in Complete Mage, same as the PrC) combined with combat reflexes and mage armor stacked with the Abjurant Champion's abjurant armor ability and it gets even crazier (every time an enemy does manage to hit him and fails a Reflex save, AoOs are provoked out the wazoo). And you have to think about the levels these guys are getting this at... an arcanist that goes into abjurant champion won't do so before 10th level (full wizard 1/2 base attack)... and that would be a poor decision with all the full casting prcs that grant abilities that affect casting... so I'm going to discount them for the rest of the discussion... A true abjurant champion is focusing on base attack to get into the class, which means weak casting... Things like fighter/wizard or paladin/sorcerer. They 'give up' armor since arcane casting has ASF. Armor is actually pretty easy to get up into this range... a full plate (+8 AC) matches the +4/+4 you get from mage armor/shield. Add to that an actual shield and you've already surpassed it. Enhancement bonuses can add up to an additional +5 for both the shield and armor, but that is less likely thanks to wealth per level until you get into the higher levels... so abjurant champion still doesn't match this... If it really bothers you, just sink a boat load of cash on the bracers of mage armor and that will emulate the exact effect that adding abjurant armor to mage armor gets... You might be thinking "What about dex bonuses?" ... well, since we're including non-core add the half-weight enchantment to the mithral full plate and throw in twilight for good measure... and you are still coming out ahead of the abjurant champion because you can add almost as much dex... but, I could be mis-remembering something here. So it is easy to buy better than the AC provides, at comparable levels... and that's not counting feats such as combat expertise, different dodge feats and any naughty by RAW tricks that I'm just not aware of since I'm a casual gamer rather than a hard core one. Also by this time... it's not usually about armor class... it's about can you make your fortitude save against some amped up save or die spell that doesn't require an attack roll, or can you make the will save against some compulsion effect that doesn't require an attack roll to not kill your party since there is no way in hell that they can kill you thanks to your better than the abjurant champion AC. I still stand by that the PrC gets enough goodies as it is and doesn't need mage armor (and greater mage armor, which grants a +6 armor bonus, as stated previously) to be amped along with shield/repelling shield. Which brings that AC bonus total to a mind-boggling +20 (+6 greater mage armor + 5 abjurant armor bonus +4 shield/repelling shield + 5 abjurant shield bonus), with just two spells. I guess I do agree to disagree, just going by the simple math. Actually they'd have at least a +30 thanks to the 10 everybody gets... and when does this abjurant champion get this... Level 11. So what can someone with a full base attack hit at this point? At least a +11 + str/dex bonus + weapon enhancements (usually a +3 or +4 at this point) + various magical buffs. So let's take a human barbarian... let's say he sunk one of his better numbers, a 16 into strength starting out. Let's say he's added two points to it at levels four and eight. Let's assume he has a +3 weapon because you can create a +3 by that level. Let's say the wizard buffs him with a wand of bull's strength when a fight breaks out. Let's say the barbarian rages... BaB +11 (Bull)Str +5 Rage +3 Axe +3 Total +22 This is unoptimised. This is average. The barbarian has to roll an 8 or better to hit the AC of the abjurant champion. If we have a fighter in the same boat, he has to hit an 11 or better thanks to the absence of rage... but he's probably got some sort of feat combo to do what he want's to do... like focus/greater focus with his courtblade. That brings it back down to 9... still better than 50%. Let's make it funny... the wizard, instead of hitting the fighter type with a wand... casts dispel magic on the abjurant champion. The AC is now ACless... with only his dex to save him... he's going to die. And the incantrix is going to wonder why he took abjurant champion in the first place... and his teacher, the incantrix/archmage and his wife the master specialist/initiate of the sevenfold veil are going to agree with him... I think you're right that the abjurant champion doesn't need mage armor... but I don't think it breaks if you add mage armor... I think mage armor was intended to work by the writer that inserted the abjurant armor ability in place of the original 'cast in light armor with no ASF penalty' that the class had before it got published. I think the abjurant champion is meant to make the multiclass combination of fighter type + arcanist more survivable since such a concept already has a lot of weakness thanks to the way the system is built... Feel free to disagree... I know I usually do. :D |
| teshen07-03-07, 07:31 PM | Simply put, even if the ability only affected the shield spell, the Abjurant Champion would still be overpowered. Side note: just because one can come up with a build that can achieve the same level of power doesn't automatically render the AC "ok", because you're comparing an optimized build with one where you're not even trying (just the use of two very common spells). Now imagine what happens when you actually decide to go and optimize the AC. Thanks to the way spells stack, you can only benefit from two spells... one that grants an armor bonus and one that grants a shield bonus, neither of which will add above an additional +5 with the abjurant armor ability which is what you can just as easily add to a real shield and real armor. You can optimize a caster to tear the everloving crap out of an optimized abjurant champion and you can optimize a warblade to do the same... and you can take a cleric or druid out of the box and beat them both... an optimized cleric or druid makes the tarasque with divine ranks cry. I get it. You don't like the abjurant champion, nor do you think it's balanced... nor do I think you understand the rational on how it's built, thanks to your comments in the other abjurant champion threads in which we've both participated. That's fine, Empiro. You game your way, and I'll game mine. |
| The_Shaman07-04-07, 04:08 AM | So let's take a human barbarian... let's say he sunk one of his better numbers, a 16 into strength starting out. Let's say he's added two points to it at levels four and eight. Let's assume he has a +3 weapon because you can create a +3 by that level. Let's say the wizard buffs him with a wand of bull's strength when a fight breaks out. Let's say the barbarian rages... BaB +11 (Bull)Str +5 Rage +3 Axe +3 Total +22 Ok, wait, that starts getting a little weird - and more than a little faulty. So we are to presume that at lvl 11, an abjurant champion - and 90% of those would be "gishes" - will have NO AC bonus except for mage armor and shield. Sorry, that is not just "unoptimized," nor just impractical, it is impossible, especially if the AChamp intends to go melee. No dex bonus, no DR, no natural AC bonus, no dodge AC bonus, no deflection AC bonus, not even a bloody mirror image. We are not talking about particular optimization, just as much as the barb gets (heck, he even gets a free bull's strength). Not to mention that the PrC actually gives a way to boost your AC as a swift action. AC 30 with +20 from Armor and shield bonuses? 35 would be practically a minimum (+2 from 14 dexterity - a useful stat for any warrior, especially one who uses armor with no max dexterity bonus, +3 from NA and deflection items), chances are you are getting a lot more for a build similarly built to that +22 barbarian. The first attack would have no more than 40% chance of going in, probably much less. The second and third basically work only on a natural 20. If we are to measure the AChamp, I say we measure it against other "gish" classes. I feel fairly confident that I have not seen any that could match it, level for level. Now, would you actually make the claim that gishes are ineffective or weak? I think a lot of people would disagree. |
| forsaken111107-04-07, 04:16 AM | Isn't the whole point of it to be a gish specialized in protective magic? Why is it that amazing that he gets good protection from the spells? Heck, if you go with Abjurant Champion, Argent Savant, and Paragnostic Initiate(I think thats the name, its from complete champion) You can get up to a +15 armor bonus from a normal mage armor spell and another +15 from shield giving a modified 40 armor class with no other equipment. The downside? A pair of pathetically easy to dispell spells are the only thing between you and the blade, and if you walk into an antimagic field you'd better have some backup steel. Its the nature of the class... I played one in a large campaign and once word got out among the evil organization about what I was, the enemy usually dropped a few targeted dispels on me in big fights. Sure you can put it back up, but they can knock it back down and its a pain since you can only swift cast one per turn. Your free 40 just became a 25... |
| The_Shaman07-04-07, 04:30 AM | Sure - just remember,every greater dispel on you is an acid fog, a maximized fireball, or worse not cast on everyone ;) I have no problem with the AC getting somewhat better use of defense spells, but to say that that +5 to AC for little loss or +10 to AC on top of 2 spells is not that important is a little disingenuous to me. |
| forsaken111107-04-07, 04:55 AM | Sure - just remember,every greater dispel on you is an acid fog, a maximized fireball, or worse not cast on everyone ;) I have no problem with the AC getting somewhat better use of defense spells, but to say that that +5 to AC for little loss or +10 to AC on top of 2 spells is not that important is a little disingenuous to me. Noone said the +5 or +10 was 'not that important' so not sure where you got that or what you're going on about. And I think depriving the main tank of his 40 armor class with a single greater dispel is well worth the spell slot, as did my DM who used it on my character on ocassion once they understood what I was. The class may be overpowered, I'm not disputing that. It does have some significant drawbacks though, relying completely on a pair of spells for protection. If you want you could always institute a house rule capping the amount of AC you can get from a single spell to avoid someone taking the combination of classes I mentioned above. +30 to AC from two level 1 spells IS a bit much. Heck, even if your DM rules that abjurant champion doesn't work on mage armor, thats still a +25 to ac from two level 1 spells. A 35 AC before gear isn't bad at all. |
| The_Shaman07-04-07, 06:34 AM | Sure, it's not bad: that is what I meant myself regarding previous posts. And sure, dispel magic is a good way to bring the champion back to normal AC if you think a standard action is worth it. BTW, if I read it right dispel or G-dispel can only negate 1 spell at a time. This seems to be the case both in the case of targeted dispel ("One object, creature, or spell is the target of the dispel magic spell") and in the case of area dispel ("you make dispel checks against progressively weaker spells until you dispel one spell (which discharges the dispel magic spell so far as that target is concerned) or until you fail all your checks.") |
| forsaken111107-04-07, 06:38 AM | Sure, it's not bad: that is what I meant myself regarding previous posts. And sure, dispel magic is a good way to bring the champion back to normal AC if you think a standard action is worth it. BTW, if I read it right dispel or G-dispel can only negate 1 spell at a time. This seems to be the case both in the case of targeted dispel ("One object, creature, or spell is the target of the dispel magic spell") and in the case of area dispel ("you make dispel checks against progressively weaker spells until you dispel one spell (which discharges the dispel magic spell so far as that target is concerned) or until you fail all your checks.") You're correct. I forgot to mention that in this campaign the mage had a chaotic metamagic rod my DM created which repeated the spell 1d4 times or something like that. Not sure the specifics because we never got to ID one. |
| The_Shaman07-04-07, 06:46 AM | Hmm, sounds nice. |
| teshen07-04-07, 06:14 PM | Ok, wait, that starts getting a little weird - and more than a little faulty. So we are to presume that at lvl 11, an abjurant champion - and 90% of those would be "gishes" - will have NO AC bonus except for mage armor and shield. Sorry, that is not just "unoptimized," nor just impractical, it is impossible, especially if the AChamp intends to go melee. No dex bonus, no DR, no natural AC bonus, no dodge AC bonus, no deflection AC bonus, not even a bloody mirror image. We are not talking about particular optimization, just as much as the barb gets (heck, he even gets a free bull's strength). Not to mention that the PrC actually gives a way to boost your AC as a swift action. AC 30 with +20 from Armor and shield bonuses? 35 would be practically a minimum (+2 from 14 dexterity - a useful stat for any warrior, especially one who uses armor with no max dexterity bonus, +3 from NA and deflection items), chances are you are getting a lot more for a build similarly built to that +22 barbarian. The first attack would have no more than 40% chance of going in, probably much less. The second and third basically work only on a natural 20. True enough. You may or may not have natural armor, deflection bonuses, luck bonuses, divine/profane bonuses, circumstancial bonuses... but everybody has access to magic at that level that the abjurant champion can add a +5 on top of a spell(s). There's a lot of possible use activated items or permanent magic items or buffs that a party member can lay down for the fighters. But I still hold that armors and shields will still be, although significantly more expensive, just as effective if not more so. But you are right, this list is incomplete and therefore unrepresentative of what happens at those levels... I apologize. :embarrass If we are to measure the AChamp, I say we measure it against other "gish" classes. I feel fairly confident that I have not seen any that could match it, level for level. Now, would you actually make the claim that gishes are ineffective or weak? I think a lot of people would disagree. I sort of agree that we should measure the abjurant champion against other gish classes... Is it overpowered? Not if what AC does is shore up weaknesses in a fighter/caster multiclass. If the progression continued over ten levels, I'd agree that it's overpowered, but casters tend to get only casting and bad hit points, bad base attack, bad saves and fighting classes don't progress casting... A gish can do a great many things, but it depends on the build. The gish is a concept that would be impossible without PrCs. A fighter 10/wizard 10 just couldn't go into melee thanks to bad numbers and couldn't work as a caster thanks to a lack of power in his casting... What you have to compare the AC to now is not other prcs... but other builds. Most gishes jump around in prcs... who hasn't seen things with a level in dragonslayer, a level or three in spellsword, and when they get what they want, they round out things with eldritch (phantom) knight... it's what tends to happen. As a side note, I'm not trying to move the bench mark, as was the accusation in some threads. But others build already do similiar things to the AC... It just makes you use less books and less jumping around in levels... which I feel could be a good thing because simplicity is a good thing. |
| Empiro07-05-07, 04:58 AM | Thanks to the way spells stack, you can only benefit from two spells... one that grants an armor bonus and one that grants a shield bonus, neither of which will add above an additional +5 with the abjurant armor ability which is what you can just as easily add to a real shield and real armor. You can optimize a caster to tear the everloving crap out of an optimized abjurant champion and you can optimize a warblade to do the same... and you can take a cleric or druid out of the box and beat them both... an optimized cleric or druid makes the tarasque with divine ranks cry. I get it. You don't like the abjurant champion, nor do you think it's balanced... nor do I think you understand the rational on how it's built, thanks to your comments in the other abjurant champion threads in which we've both participated. That's fine, Empiro. You game your way, and I'll game mine. You're correct, I think it's an obviously overpowered PrC, which is why I don't like it. I like the concept of Gishes, I like playing them from time to time. I also like being in a party with a Gish because they're useful and powerful to have. However, I've never seen any of them that needed an overpowered PrC like the Abjurant Champion to keep up with the rest of the party. Your argument is basically: Gishes don't have enough AC and HP, the Abjurant Champion gives that AC, therefore it's balanced. The problem here is that you're not taking everything into account. It's not all about the AC or HP. Wizards have plenty more ways of protecting themselves, whether it's using Alter Self to gain a huge natural AC bonus (that stacks with an amulet of natural armor), casting Blink to make 1/2 of all attacks just miss, using Stoneskin to get DR, or the tons of other defensive spells they have access to. They don't have enough HP? They've got it covered with False Life and Vampiric Touch. I fully agree that multiclassing into wizard 10/fighter 10 is stupid, and that classes like the spellsword could use a little more power, but there are plenty of viable gish builds that do not rely on the AC. Yes, I also agree that you have to jump around PrCs a bit, and that you shouldn't have to do that to make a viable gish. If the Abjurant Champion existed in a vacuum, I'd probably agree that it wouldn't be that bad, but the fact remains that the Abjurant Champion exists in a world of Spellswords, Bladesingers, Eldritch Knights, and Dragonslayers. If you decide to dip into those PrCs AND the Abjurant Champion, you can make a pretty overpowered character. I'm also well aware of all the abuses that Clerics and Druids can also do, but pointing to other overpowered builds doesn't make the AC any less overpowered. |
| teshen07-05-07, 02:15 PM | You're correct, I think it's an obviously overpowered PrC, which is why I don't like it. I like the concept of Gishes, I like playing them from time to time. I also like being in a party with a Gish because they're useful and powerful to have. However, I've never seen any of them that needed an overpowered PrC like the Abjurant Champion to keep up with the rest of the party. Good. It's good that you have some experience with the gish concept. However, that raises the question about how well does your group put characters together? My first, and regular group puts characters together poorly. Anybody who uses a caster properly could Own the game. My other two semi regular groups vary. Each has members that are decent to good at finding synergies in character abilities and tactics... an abjurant champion would stand out in my first group, but not so much in my other two. Your argument is basically: Gishes don't have enough AC and HP, the Abjurant Champion gives that AC, therefore it's balanced. The problem here is that you're not taking everything into account. It's not all about the AC or HP. Wizards have plenty more ways of protecting themselves, whether it's using Alter Self to gain a huge natural AC bonus (that stacks with an amulet of natural armor), casting Blink to make 1/2 of all attacks just miss, using Stoneskin to get DR, or the tons of other defensive spells they have access to. They don't have enough HP? They've got it covered with False Life and Vampiric Touch. Yes... wizards do have ways of protecting themselves. So do sorcerers, but not as much since they have less spells they can know... Wizards who buff themselves for melee... they tend to set up protections for themselves if somebody breaks through and closes on them in combat. But they are slinging spells from a distance rather than actually closing in combat. Can a wizard close with spells and do some naughty things... yes. But it's unusual, and it's risky. If you went wizard, you could take your first level of abjurant champion at level 11. Anything that speeds entry, like multiclassing, hurts casting. Giving up casting on a class who's only ability is casting is foolish... or that's how I feel about it, especially with the plethora of full or mostly full casting prcs that give you rather unique abilities. No pure caster should water down casting with the abjurant champion when they could just as easily gain increased power in casting by entering prcs as soon as possible that grant increased casting ability. A 'true' abjurant champion is one who's casting supports melee... not using melee to support casting. If a ranger goes into a level of sorcerer or wizard to get into abjurant champion, he's only got first level spells [ranger 5(4)/sorcerer 1(2)]. The extra five casting levels take him to third level spells... wizard would have netted him fourth level. This is fourth level spells when a dedicated caster is getting sixth levels spells... That means you are well behind the spellcasting curve and your spells need to support what you do in a fight... If you maximize for spells... something like battle sorcerer 7/abjurant champion 1-5, you're talking about getting the highest spells possible... but you have to focus your spells for melee, which leaves you with less versatility... and you will still be slightly behind a fighter type in base attack, you suffer from MAD (charisma, strength, dexterity, constitution), saves will be rather poor, hit points are rather good on this build... but you are still trading something for something... that's the reality of the gish. you get spells or fighting ability and you use the other to shore up your weaknesses... I fully agree that multiclassing into wizard 10/fighter 10 is stupid, and that classes like the spellsword could use a little more power, but there are plenty of viable gish builds that do not rely on the AC. Yes, I also agree that you have to jump around PrCs a bit, and that you shouldn't have to do that to make a viable gish. Then I think we agree that the gish concept is impossible to make effective in the d20 system without the use of prcs thanks to the nature of multiclassing. We also seem to agree that having to jump around to make an effective gish is disappointing. I hope I'm not misunderstanding you here... If the Abjurant Champion existed in a vacuum, I'd probably agree that it wouldn't be that bad, but the fact remains that the Abjurant Champion exists in a world of Spellswords, Bladesingers, Eldritch Knights, and Dragonslayers. If you decide to dip into those PrCs AND the Abjurant Champion, you can make a pretty overpowered character. ...maybe. I would say it depends on the build and how much do your abilities work a cross purposes. If an abjurant champion takes spellsword and dragonslayer... he's gotten a lot of things he'll have to chose either or... like the ability to ignore some ASF from spellsword and light, medium, and heavy armor proficiency from dragonslayer. I'm also well aware of all the abuses that Clerics and Druids can also do, but pointing to other overpowered builds doesn't make the AC any less overpowered. And here is where I think we reach the real point of contention... Cleric and druid aren't overpowered builds. They are overpowered classes. Wizards and sorcerers aren't overpowered classes... they get access to some overpowered spells... and I'll make the distinction that some spells, when used together create great synergy rather than being overpowered... Wizards of the Coast is not going to issue any sort of reconstructed cleric/druid anytime soon to make their power more in line with the other classes... nor are they going to create an extensive errata for spells... (even though they did sort of try with the polymorph line of spells). I don't feel that it is a horrible thing to increase the abilities of other characters to be closer to the more powerful classes... and I say characters because some straight classes don't handle certain concepts, so this has to include builds, which gishes usually are. There have been some attempts at base class gish types (hexblade and duskblade), but those aren't so great and do a poor job at handling a lot of concepts. If you have a problem with the RAW use of the abjurant champion, feel free to house rule changes for your games. Some will and some do. As it stands, I don't see a need to beat the class with the nerf stick. If you do smack it around with the nerf stick, there are all sorts of options to persue... such as either removing the first level of casting... or making the first level ability the ability to cast in light armor without arcane spell failure... or you could make the abjurant armor ability equal one half the levels in abjurant champion rounded up... so +1 to armor/shield bonus abjuration spells at levels 1 and 2, +2 at 3 and 4, and +3 at level 5. As it stands, I have three different beliefs about the abjurant champion... The RAW use of the abjurant champion, although silly as written, is fine. I don't feel it would break with the inclusion of mage armor. If you feel the abjurant champion is overpowered and you absolutely must change something... keep the changes minor, since you are talking about a character concept that is difficult to accomplish effectively in the current D&D system. |
| Navigator07-06-07, 08:11 PM | I can't believe theres this much discussion on a dispel-able +10 to AC. You are all aware that you can make full plate armor and wear it as a Wizard with no ASF? It's written in the CO Boards, and I would link it, but I'm not on my own computer. Getting a very high AC as a gish is extremely possible, Abjurant Champion just gives you a simple answer. Also, let's consider something else. Believe it or not, there is a cost to not wearing any armor at all. Namely, Heavy Fortification, or any other special quality for armor and shields. Anything you fight that can dispel your buffs can freely stab you all they want. Abjurant Champion really is a great class, and I do believe that it should be modified by knocking down the d10 to at least a d8, but that is definitely not because it has a (extremely unreliable) way to get a competitive AC. |
| forsaken111107-06-07, 08:34 PM | Also, let's consider something else. Believe it or not, there is a cost to not wearing any armor at all. Namely, Heavy Fortification, or any other special quality for armor and shields. Anything you fight that can dispel your buffs can freely stab you all they want. I got around that quite easily by buying a pair of Bracers of Armor +1, which according to the MIC you can enchant with armor special abilities. ^.^ |
| zuul8807-07-07, 06:41 PM | Not to go off-topic but here I go...What would be a good equalivent for the still spell feat when playing a Psionic Abjurant Champion? I wear heavy armor and have no ASF so why would I learn something that has no purpose. So thanks in advance if anyone chimes in. Respect Nathan P.S. On topic Mage Armor is not abjuration so AC abilities dont apply. My :twocents: |
| forsaken111107-07-07, 07:25 PM | Not to go off-topic but here I go...What would be a good equalivent for the still spell feat when playing a Psionic Abjurant Champion? I wear heavy armor and have no ASF so why would I learn something that has no purpose. So thanks in advance if anyone chimes in. Respect Nathan P.S. On topic Mage Armor is not abjuration so AC abilities dont apply. My :twocents: Well in keeping with your RAW position, psionics has no abjuration discipline nor anything like it... so its not really possible to convert the class to psionics. |
| zuul8807-07-07, 07:39 PM | Well in keeping with your RAW position, psionics has no abjuration discipline nor anything like it... so its not really possible to convert the class to psionics. It has an adaption for psionics paragraph in the PrC(just like Daggerspell Mages) so it obvisously "intends"(dreaded word right there) for there to be psionic Abjurant Champions(anyways it says that any power that resembles a Abjur. spell is what is counted.) That is not what I am trying to figure out. That is already taken care of. The only thing that isnt easily converted from magic to psionics is the Still Spell since psionics has no equivalent. So what would be a good thing to replace that with? Respect Nathan |
| forsaken111107-07-07, 07:51 PM | It has an adaption for psionics paragraph in the PrC(just like Daggerspell Mages) so it obvisously "intends"(dreaded word right there) for there to be psionic Abjurant Champions(anyways it says that any power that resembles a Abjur. spell is what is counted.) That is not what I am trying to figure out. That is already taken care of. The only thing that isnt easily converted from magic to psionics is the Still Spell since psionics has no equivalent. So what would be a good thing to replace that with? Respect Nathan Sounds like the psionic version will be quite a bit better than the arcane version then. Anyway, you could substitute it with Unconditional power... so you could always armor yourself even if somewhat...incapacitated. |
| runestar07-08-07, 12:43 AM | The designer could have simply made an honest mistake and thought that mage armour was an abjuration spell. But I guess we will never know.:) |
| zuul8807-08-07, 03:51 AM | Sounds like the psionic version will be quite a bit better than the arcane version then. Anyway, you could substitute it with Unconditional power... so you could always armor yourself even if somewhat...incapacitated. That is a pretty nice idea. The 8 PP is very steep though. I like it even with the high cost. Keeps with the defensive abilities with a high cost to use. I guess the psionic version could be a little stronger but you could nova using the bonus muiltpier and the powers that do the same thing last more then the immediate round. It still is viable to save the powers known and blow the PP as needed. Course I am only taking it for the full BAB/ML, need to fill levels until my CaradHarkar goes into Epic. Respect Nathan |
| The_Shaman07-08-07, 05:15 PM | Not to go off-topic but here I go...What would be a good equalivent for the still spell feat when playing a Psionic Abjurant Champion? I wear heavy armor and have no ASF so why would I learn something that has no purpose. So thanks in advance if anyone chimes in. Respect Nathan P.S. On topic Mage Armor is not abjuration so AC abilities dont apply. My :twocents: Unconditional power, although I don't really like it... TBH psionics does not have a still spell equivalent, simply as it does not have ASF or the like. |
| zuul8807-09-07, 02:16 AM | Unconditional power, although I don't really like it... TBH psionics does not have a still spell equivalent, simply as it does not have ASF or the like. That is the second Unconditional Power vote but since I dont really like it I think it is good enough. Any other thoughts? Respect Nathan |
| forsaken111107-09-07, 06:45 AM | That is the second Unconditional Power vote but since I dont really like it I think it is good enough. Any other thoughts? Respect Nathan Other options would be to reduce the power point cost of those powers by one, or make them manifest as if you're one manifester level higher allowing you to augment them by one more than normal. |