| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| the0ni12-31-06, 08:08 PM | So I got complete mage for Christmas, and was intrigued by the abjuriant champion prestige class. The only thing that's bugging me is that the class makes several references to how they "rely on spells like mage armor in place of actual armor"..... theres just one problem:the class gets boosts to Abjuration spells, but both the PHB and spell compendium list mage armor as being a conjuration(creation) spell. What gives? Is mage armor supposed to be an abjuration? Is it one of the new "dual school" spells? Has it been reprinted somwhere? Or did the developers just not bother to look up the spell before hey made the prestige class? |
| megageek1212-31-06, 08:31 PM | It's a typo. |
| Rhonin the Big12-31-06, 08:52 PM | Dont bother questioning the Abjurant Champion. Anybody who uses Abjur Champ in their campaign obviously does not give a **** about game balance. |
| the0ni12-31-06, 09:16 PM | hHow is the abjuriant champion any worse for game balance than any of the classes that allow caster level progression in more than one class? A fighter-mage that has decent base attack and caster level progression dosent seem that bad compared to the theurge types. Sure, they get bonuses to abjuration armors, and can lose spells for 1 round of ok bonuses... still, I think the only real problem would be the d10 hit die for an arcane caster. Make that a d6 or d8 and theres nothing too amazing to the class. |
| megageek1212-31-06, 09:49 PM | Errrrrr... I don't have complete mage but they have get massive bonuses on abjuration spells, and a d10 hd and 8/10? caster progression. |
| TheDarkLord12-31-06, 09:55 PM | Dont bother questioning the Abjurant Champion. Anybody who uses Abjur Champ in their campaign obviously does not give a **** about game balance. Well, the same could be said about the fighter too :rolleyes: . To answer your question, Mage Armor cannot be used with the Abjurant champion PrC. This was asked in an article and the designer pretty much said "to bad". |
| Rhonin the Big12-31-06, 10:04 PM | d10 HD, full spellcasting, full BaB, and stuff ontop of that all in 5 levels with easy entry requirements. We now have a campaign-neutral pRc with easy requirements that gives gishes +18 BaB and 9th level spellcasting without even trying. The abjur champ is transparantly overpowered, the only thing a gish sacrifices now is the $35 for complete mage ... well I didnt buy it, so that balance factor is out the window! Im not saying abjur champs will break the game, but ontop of any gish build it is a gain without sacrifice; its the Philosopher's Stone of d&d gish prestige classes. |
| Engilbrand01-01-07, 12:35 PM | So someone will actually be effective?!?! DAMN! To all of your complaints, I ask: So? The best that I can see, and I'm no optimizer, is a 20th level Elven Wizard/Sorceror having a caster level of 20 and a BAB of 12. How do you get BAB 18 and 9th level spells? Or did you mean a caster level of 9? It's not the sort of thing that will break the game. It just adds a little power and fun. Did you even play the class, or did you just look at it and shout, "OMGs!!1one THAT CLAS IS TEH BWOKKEN!!!"? To which I respond, "If you haven't tried it, why does your opinion actually matter?" |
| the0ni01-01-07, 03:19 PM | Exactly. it's a 5 level prestige class, so either an elf goes into it at 10th level and gets 2 points of free BaB and some hit points over 5 levels, at a loss to wizard bonus feats or .. well, ok, no real loss as a sorcerer... or people of other races burn levels in a martial class to get in. Admitedly, It's not as crappy as many prestige classes, but I still havent seen how this is any worse than somthing like the mystic theurge (which is from the DMG of all places) that allows caster level progression and spells per day in 2 classes at once. The biggest problem I see with the abjuriant champion is that they will almost always hit with their ranged touches, but then again, why shouldn't a martial spellcaster have a decent to-hit progression. Go take a look at duskblades, they get arcane casting from armor with the full 1 for 1 base attack bonus. The fact is, in the rare instance that somone goes directly into the class from mage or wizard, they will get somthing for nothing. that will only happen in the case of an elf or somone that actually burned a feat on a martial weapon. in all other cases, you will come into the class as a more martial charicter to begin with, with only a few spells per day. the class features will do what they are meant to:make up for the armor that you know how to wear, but can't wear to cast in. |
| The_Shaman01-01-07, 07:19 PM | The way I see it, the Martial Arcanist thing is a serious boost. Techically, that means a wiz 15/AC 5 has a BAB of 20. That's... not bad, to say the least ;) Plus, there are more than a few ways to gain one martial weapon proficiency, such as a level in Ruathar or Dragonslayer. |
| Magrus01-01-07, 07:43 PM | The way I see it, the Martial Arcanist thing is a serious boost. Techically, that means a wiz 15/AC 5 has a BAB of 20. That's... not bad, to say the least ;) Nope. Your caster level equals your BAB. Which really doesn't at all benefit a wizard/AC at all. It benefits those who would take only 1 level in wiz/sorc then take a run through the AC class for 5 levels with a lot of fighter levels though. a Fighter 14/Wiz 1/AC 5 would now have 6 levels of wizard progression, but an effective Caster level of 19 for effects. |
| the0ni01-02-07, 02:32 AM | exactly, it is more a benifit to effects based on caster level for a mostly marshal charicter than it is for a mostly arcane caster. it's also nice if you take practised spellcaster, since you can then mix and match your post Ab Champ levels as a caster or martial charicter, ans still keep your caster level high for effects. Again, I think it's a darn nice class, and it's nice weather you go mostly martial, mostly caster, or a mix, but I dont think it's overly broken. if it were a 10 level class, and you could extrapolate benifit's beyond 10th level so you just got to the PRC and took the rest of your levels as an abjuriant champion, then yes, it would be broken. As it stands, after your 5th level of abjuriant champion, you need to decide weather to let your caster level and BaB fall behind, or stop getting spells per day and spells known. you only get to have your cake and eat it too for those 5 levels. |
| Stormbrand01-02-07, 02:45 AM | The fact it is only 5 levels stops the class from being too obscene. It is a way for fighter-mages to catch up. Martial Arcanist merely makes spells competitive in higher level games, takes away the main weakness of gish. Abjurant Armour only works for Shield, which is pretty neat but no substitute for heavy armour. If you notice, their abilities mostly cover what a single class fighter or mage has over the multiclass. |
| Jaisin01-02-07, 04:50 PM | It makes a powerful gish: Crusader or Fighter 1/Wizard 5/Spellsword 1/Eldritch Knight 8/Abjurant Champion 5 That's +17 BAB, Wizard Casting 18. Exchange 2 levels of EK for 2 more levels of Spellsword and you've a +17 BAB, 17th level wizard walking around firing meteor swarms and Quickened dispel magic's in +1 twilight mithril full plate and a shield spell that gives a +9 bonus to AC without an ounce of arcane spell failure. Don't forget the Extended prismatic sphere you dumped on the BBEG a second ago. If they get too close? 4 attacks. 5 with a speed weapon, or haste. 31 AC with a decent Dex and you're not even trying. It's a great cap to a gish build. |
| TheDarkLord01-02-07, 05:57 PM | It makes a powerful gish: Crusader or Fighter 1/Wizard 5/Spellsword 1/Eldritch Knight 8/Abjurant Champion 5 That's +17 BAB, Wizard Casting 18. Exchange 2 levels of EK for 2 more levels of Spellsword and you've a +17 BAB, 17th level wizard walking around firing meteor swarms and Quickened dispel magic's in +1 twilight mithril full plateExtended prismatic sphere you dumped on the BBEG a and a shield spell that gives a +9 bonus to AC without an ounce of arcane spell failure. Don't forget the second ago. If they get too close? 4 attacks. 5 with a speed weapon, or haste. 31 AC with a decent Dex and you're not even trying. It's a great cap to a gish build. Speaking from personal experience, most of the people I know that play DnD outside of these forums do not allow such multiclassing, requiring you to stay in the PrC you started. Though these groups also have alot of Homebrew things that many on these forums would consider overpowered for the very fact of the Multiclassing and dipping that goes on here, taken outside of the forums, the Abjurant Champion is a so-so class still being eclipsed by the Red Wizard and Archmage in power, by far. |
| megageek1201-02-07, 08:27 PM | Though these groups also have alot of Homebrew things that many on these forums would consider overpowered for the very fact of the Multiclassing and dipping that goes on here, taken outside of the forums, the Abjurant Champion is a so-so class still being eclipsed by the Red Wizard and Archmage in power, by far. Your joking right? |
| TheDarkLord01-02-07, 08:48 PM | Your joking right? Red wizard and Archmage being more powerful than the Abjurant champion? Nope, what good is +5 bab to someone who never uses an attack bonus? I'd much rather boost my caster level or my save DC's. Once again, why use a shield spell when Greater invisibility, fly, dimension door, and long range spells exist? Also why bother with it when you can spam out Summon spells and use them for AC and protection? |
| Magrus01-02-07, 08:54 PM | Red wizard and Archmage being more powerful than the Abjurant champion? Nope, what good is +5 bab to someone who never uses an attack bonus? I'd much rather boost my caster level or my save DC's. Once again, why use a shield spell when Greater invisibility, fly, dimension door, and long range spells exist? Also why bother with it when you can spam out Summon spells and use them for AC and protection? It does have a use though. Ranged and touch spells use your BAB. There are ways to play a useful wizard that uses spells such as rays and the like. In fact, you could take the archmage class as well as the Abjurant Champion, and have on average 15 more HP and 5 higher BAB, and lose nothing but a feat in the process. Wiz 10/Abjurant 5/ Archmage 5 wouldn't be a bad build at all for an elf. 15d4 and 5d10 HD, 12 BAB, full caster progression and archmage abilities? Whats not to like? |
| Cold Napalm01-02-07, 09:02 PM | Seems people have a mighty big fear of gishes for some reason when a straight druid/cleric has more power then most gish builds out there. The abjurant champion just makes the gap of playing a gish a bit smaller compared to clerics and druids. |
| Howland Reed01-02-07, 10:26 PM | Two things: 1.) The designer said "too bad"? Why nerf his own class instead of re-writing it to give the Abjurant Armor bonus to any spell (abjuration or not) that gives you an armor/shield bonus? Then his own frigging example would actually make sense (Caspian LaMont is shown with a +9 armor bonus to his AC, from mage armor/Abjurant Armor). For that matter, why is Mage Armor even a conjuration spell in the first place? Sure, you could say that you "conjure" the armor...but all other spells that create force effects (shield, wall of force, tenser's disk) are evocations...why aren't they conjuration, when they're doing practically the same thing? I see no problem houseruling it...either making the change to Abjurant Armor ability I mentioned above, or simply moving Mage Armor to the Abjuration school (where it probably belongs anyway). 2.) Just wanted to mention AbjChamp meshes very nicely with Argent Savant, which gives you more boosts on force effects (shield/mage armor). While you're at it, take the Blade of Force reserve feat. Force Gish! I love it. |
| Jaisin01-03-07, 01:10 PM | Seems people have a mighty big fear of gishes for some reason when a straight druid/cleric has more power then most gish builds out there. The abjurant champion just makes the gap of playing a gish a bit smaller compared to clerics and druids. This is a great point, and I hope its not lost on here, even in light of the Abjurant Champion and this thread. Right now, I'm playing in a group of five - Warrior, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric, and Bard - your standard. It takes two of any of the other classes (which are well constructed, and magnificently played) to equal the might of the Cleric. And the Cleric took a non-caster level for RP purposes! He dominates the battlefield with control spells, a reach weapon, and heavy armor, then still has it together enough to play 'band-aid' when things cool down. Surprisingly, as far as versatility is concerned in such a rich RP environment, the Bard dominates. I play the wizard, and though able to take out some foes with a number of different spells effectively, I considered taking a level of fighter and building a gish from this point onward. It still wouldn't compare to the Cleric - the best I can hope for are more caster levels and higher level spells, and then the Wizard is only screwed if someone approaches within 10'. One of our main enemies is a druid of some power, and even with such a great group, my powerfully constructed wizard is afraid of that one enemy more than the others he knows is looming. <hr> I do tend to agree that Archmage and Red Wizard are more powerful PrC's, but the entry costs dictate that - each one requires 3 feats. At least the Red Wizard feats are universally useful, whereas the qualifications for Archmage are somewhat. . . lacking. However, the class abilities gained from the Abjurant Champion are almost as onerous as some of the ones from Sand Shaper - limitless Quicken spells of 3rd level or less? limitless Extend spells per day without an increase in spell level? Those are powerful additions. This would make a great cap on a Red Wizard who specialized in Abjuration, even. In any case, it is a powerful PrC. There are few others out there that could compare with its versatility, IMO. |
| TheCheeseWiddler01-03-07, 10:49 PM | There are more abjuration spells that give bonuses to armor and shield, than just the shield spell. I can't remember what they are at this point in time, but I know they're out there. -Ky:f: |
| unusualsuspect01-05-07, 02:14 AM | 1. There are a few more abjuration spells that grants a shield bonus, and there are exactly two abjuration spells that grant armor bonuses - Luminous Armor and its Greater varient, both exalted and from the Book of Exalted Deeds. 2. Arcane casters are, generally speaking, considered one of THE most powerful classes within the game, core or otherwise. With easy access to very powerful melee capability through shapechanging magic (among other things) even within core-only, one of the very, very few things keeping arcanists from dominating melee in the same manner as it arguably dominates other aspects of the game (wizards have the best, most versatile spell list available, I'd argue, if not in every aspect, then overall), and that generally consists of lower AC, lower HP totals, the need to spend quite a few rounds buffing to be effective, and a low bab preventing multiple attacks. A maximum of 3 lost feats should not be equivalent to +3 bab, +15 HP, FREE extending of abjuration spells, FREE quickening of low level abjuration spells, and built in Arcane Strike (less powerful, but much more versatile). For a sorcerer, this can be as low as 1 feat. 1 feat for ALL THAT. It's way, way unbalanced. It's fine for its target - warrior mages, focused mostly on warrior, who want a little magic on the side - but it is majorly broken for a full spellcaster, who due to exceeeedingly lax requirements, can EASILY gain access. |
| SageBahamut01-05-07, 02:34 AM | Abjurant Champion just does better what the Eldritch Knight already gives us in Core. So you basically trade being a bit specialized, for being good at your specialty. Both of these are principles that exist in /core/. A wizard has to impose a somewhat artificial limit on himself to benefit from most of the AbjChamp's abilities, like spending spell slots armoring up instead of blasting. It's obviously meant for fighters who dabble in wizardry. As I see it, it gives the Wizard3/Ftr2/EldritchKnight10 something to do with those last 5 levels. |
| Marcus Majarra01-05-07, 12:58 PM | SageBahamut, there's no such thing as a Wiz3/Ftr2/EK10. You need to be able to cast 3rd-level spells to enter EK, which means at least Wiz5. A typical build incorporating EK and AC would be Wiz6/Ftr1/EK8/AC5 or Sor6/Ftr1/EK8/AC5. Dwarves should even substitute 2 Wiz levels with Runesmith levels for more gishness. That's my dwarf gish of choice: Wiz4/Ftr1/Runesmith2/EldritchKnight1/AbjurantChampion5/EldritchKnight+7. Just the +5 Battle Plate and a swift action Shield spell are worth a base AC of 33. |
| Jaisin01-05-07, 02:59 PM | A maximum of 3 lost feats should not be equivalent to +3 bab, +15 HP, FREE extending of abjuration spells, FREE quickening of low level abjuration spells, and built in Arcane Strike (less powerful, but much more versatile). For a sorcerer, this can be as low as 1 feat. 1 feat for ALL THAT. It's way, way unbalanced. It's fine for its target - warrior mages, focused mostly on warrior, who want a little magic on the side - but it is majorly broken for a full spellcaster, who due to exceeeedingly lax requirements, can EASILY gain access. Even less now if one wants to take the Stalwart Sorcerer variant from Complete Mage - Free Martial Weapon Proficiency and Weapon Focus with that weapon, +2hp per Sorc level all for 1 less higher level spell (think the exact opposite of the Elven Wizard sub-level). With this option, it is an open invitation for a Sorc to enter Abjurant Champion. That floating spell doesn't hurt in the least with PrC's like Frost Mage, Sand Shaper, or even spending a feat for Arcane Disciple until the +5 BAB is reached. And it would be consistent with the role the Stalwart Sorcerer is supposed to play, making it such an easy transition that its not even funny. Adding those free metamagic feats without the Spontaneous Meamagic alternative from PHB II is even better. Definitely more room for abuse than the average PrC. |
| Xienith01-11-07, 03:31 PM | My player is going a monk/sorc/AC build With the A.Mage feat, it gives him a crazy bonus on AC since he chose a race that gives bonuses to dex and chr. His normal AC at higher lvls will roughly be 21ish...then he can cast shield and mage armour type spells. Shield alone brings his AC up by 9 and different armour spells can roughly increase his ac by 6...thats not to mention that circle of protection spells are abj. and get the AC increase... Im curious if he made a mistake at all because the AC seems a little too high. |
| Cold Napalm01-12-07, 02:57 AM | Two things: 1.) The designer said "too bad"? Why nerf his own class instead of re-writing it to give the Abjurant Armor bonus to any spell (abjuration or not) that gives you an armor/shield bonus? Then his own frigging example would actually make sense (Caspian LaMont is shown with a +9 armor bonus to his AC, from mage armor/Abjurant Armor). For that matter, why is Mage Armor even a conjuration spell in the first place? Sure, you could say that you "conjure" the armor...but all other spells that create force effects (shield, wall of force, tenser's disk) are evocations...why aren't they conjuration, when they're doing practically the same thing? I see no problem houseruling it...either making the change to Abjurant Armor ability I mentioned above, or simply moving Mage Armor to the Abjuration school (where it probably belongs anyway). 2.) Just wanted to mention AbjChamp meshes very nicely with Argent Savant, which gives you more boosts on force effects (shield/mage armor). While you're at it, take the Blade of Force reserve feat. Force Gish! I love it. 1) because then he'd have to admit he was a moron...so he'd rather act like one then admit he was one and actually do something constructive. That's just how people are. Oh and cojuration get all those spells it really shouldn't (orb spells anyone? especially force?) because somebody in charge at wizards has a conjuration fetish. 2) yes they do work well together. |
| High Octane01-13-07, 05:53 PM | Doesnt the Abjurant Champions caster level equal his BAB only for Abjuration spells? |
| stsword01-17-07, 09:51 PM | Doesnt the Abjurant Champions caster level equal his BAB only for Abjuration spells? No, all spells from one arcane class. |
| Dr. Awkward01-18-07, 04:55 PM | Two things: 1.) The designer said "too bad"? Why nerf his own class instead of re-writing it to give the Abjurant Armor bonus to any spell (abjuration or not) that gives you an armor/shield bonus? Then his own frigging example would actually make sense (Caspian LaMont is shown with a +9 armor bonus to his AC, from mage armor/Abjurant Armor). Actually, the designer thinks that it should work the way it looks like it should work. See this thread (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=185644). However, CustServ says otherwise. |
| The_Shaman01-20-07, 04:11 AM | Hey, here's a little idea: protection from (alignment) is an abjuration and gives a deflection AC bonus against creatures of 1 alignment. Would it benefit from the Abjurant Champion bonus? |
| Dr. Awkward01-20-07, 01:53 PM | Hey, here's a little idea: protection from (alignment) is an abjuration and gives a deflection AC bonus against creatures of 1 alignment. Would it benefit from the Abjurant Champion bonus? No. Only armor and shield bonuses are affected. |
| The_Shaman01-20-07, 05:37 PM | Pity, that. What was the abjuration that gives armor bonus to AC, luminous armor? |
| Gothenem01-21-07, 05:26 PM | Pity, that. What was the abjuration that gives armor bonus to AC, luminous armor? I think it was supposed to mean mage armor because someone forgot it was a conjuration spell. That said, is luminous armor an abjuration spell?? Edit: Oh and the Ftr 1/Wiz 5/Spellsword 1/EK 8/AC 5 is only 17 levels of spellcasting, not 18 (no spellcasting on 1st level of EK) |
| Xylem01-21-07, 05:42 PM | Luminous Armor (2nd) and Greater Luminous Armor (4th) are abjuration spells from the Book of Exalted Deeds. They are also sanctified spells that can in theory be cast by any class that prepares its spells, but have a cost in strength damage on the caster (not the target) once the spell wears off. Andthey can only be cast on good characters. They give you a real nice armor bonus (+5 and +8 respectively) and give sighted attackers an additional -4 to hit because the subject glows so brightly. They're also a bit light painting a target on the subject ... |
| Rhonin the Big01-21-07, 07:34 PM | Actually, the designer thinks that it should work the way it looks like it should work. See this thread (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=185644). However, CustServ says otherwise. I read that thread, it says nothing. I can go onto any forum and say Im President Bush and I meant to invade Iran and not Iraq even though Im not, doesnt clear up anything about the author's intent. If he really did help design the abj champ he would be on the WoTC boards with a name like WoTC_Conjuration_lover or something less insulting, or he would write an article about it like they did with the invisible blade. The bottom line is that the ability as written = massive suckitude. You either take your two abj spells that grant an armor or shield bonus to AC or you houserule. SageBahamut, there's no such thing as a Wiz3/Ftr2/EK10. You need to be able to cast 3rd-level spells to enter EK, which means at least Wiz5. By stacking abilities that increase the level of the spell you can meet minimum spell level prerequisites as early as 1st level. For example, stacking sanctum spell + improved sigil (krau) ontop of magic missile means I now cast 3rd level spells off of a 1st level slot. The abjurant champion is overpowered, there are very few ways to say it isnt. The requirements for entry are too easy, the HD is too high, the investment is too small. My definition of overpowered is when compared to a similar character of equal level you see an increase in power with fewer weaknesses. Let us compare this build to a wizard20: naenkrau illumian wiz3/fighter1/eldritch knight10/abj champ5/spellsword1. What does this build lose? Two feats, hardly nothing. What does it gain? Everything! +18BaB, 9th level spells, 30 more HP on average HD alone, 5 fighter bonus feats, casting in light armor (medium with a feat), free quickened AND extended abjuration spells and many more. There are no disadvantages, you gain sheer versitility. The fighter need not pick up his sword and the backup arcane caster of the group need not cast any spells in combat. Unless you are a d&d purist like I am, why bother not playing a gish like this? My point of all this is that multiclassing of any sort must come with a cost. A Gish should not have access to 9th level spells and high HD by definition, you gave up your dreams of casting Gayte and Mordenkainen's Game-balance Disjunction when you decided to study swordplay. When you design a pRc without sacrifice you design a class that, by its very nature, is overpowered. The abjurant champion is one of them, its the philosopher's stone of Gish pRc. |
| TheDarkLord01-21-07, 08:49 PM | I read that thread, it says nothing. I can go onto any forum and say Im President Bush and I meant to invade Iran and not Iraq even though Im not, doesnt clear up anything about the author's intent. If he really did help design the abj champ he would be on the WoTC boards with a name like WoTC_Conjuration_lover or something less insulting, or he would write an article about it like they did with the invisible blade. The bottom line is that the ability as written = massive suckitude. You either take your two abj spells that grant an armor or shield bonus to AC or you houserule. Likin' it so far... By stacking abilities that increase the level of the spell you can meet minimum spell level prerequisites as early as 1st level. For example, stacking sanctum spell + improved sigil (krau) ontop of magic missile means I now cast 3rd level spells off of a 1st level slot. Ok.... The abjurant champion is overpowered, there are very few ways to say it isnt. Um.. No. The Abjurant champion is not overpowered. Thats one way to say it. The requirements for entry are too easy, the HD is too high, the investment is too small. My definition of overpowered is when compared to a similar character of equal level you see an increase in power with fewer weaknesses. So? Why is it people believe you have to give up something to gain something? It isn't true in Real Life, I've gained and gained and gained and have had to give up hardly nothing. I work, I play DnD, am an active member of the NRA, I have a wife and 2 kids. I own a house, 2 cars (one of which is a new 2007 Jeep Commander), and a boat ('99 Ranger with a Mercury 225). What Did I give up to get all of that? Absolutely nothing. You could make the argument about giving up time, but Time is relatively cheap and should be easy to give away. So if it isn't true in Real Life, why must it be true in the DnD World? Let us compare this build to a wizard20: naenkrau illumian wiz3/fighter1/eldritch knight10/abj champ5/spellsword1. Why not compare a base human Wizard 20 to a Wizard 15/Abj champion 5, instead of that multiclassed build you threw up there? It would make more sense to say something is overpowered when taken with only one class than with the base class and four other PrC's wouldn't it? Or would it not prove your point that way?. The abjurant champion gains some nifty abilities with the loss of one feat true, but to say it's overpowered is quite another thing. A wizard 20 would still be just as powerful as a Wizard 15/Abjurant champion 5 with 9th level spells alone. What does this build lose? Two feats, hardly nothing. What does it gain? Everything! +18BaB, 9th level spells, 30 more HP on average HD alone, 5 fighter bonus feats, casting in light armor (medium with a feat), free quickened AND extended abjuration spells and many more. Once again, what is BAB to a wizard who never enters melee? Who rarely uses ranged touch attacks? Why should he, his most versatile spells doesn't need an attack per say. 30hps? At 20th level 30 hps can be done sneezing on someone if you try. It's a drop in the bucket, you still wont survive very long if you are a wizard with an extra 30 hps in melee. As far as the 5 fighter bonus feats, woohoo, you can now maximize your ability to swing a weapon you'll probably only wield against lesser foes. As the Free Quickened and Extended abjurations, these only extend up to 3rd level spells, so your really powerful abjurations are not affected. Also, there is no substitute during actual gameplay for not reaching 9th level spells at 17th level, that alone is enough for me not to multiclass out of wizard, or if I do, multiclass into something with full caster progression. In my games, at 17th level and beyond you'd better be able to cast wish. You are not going to find it on a scroll, your not going to be able to buy a ring of three wishes. If you give up CL progression in exchange for craptastic BAB and an extra 30 HP you'd better have some real abilities to counteract that, or I should say abilities that mimic those high level spells you're missing out on. There are no disadvantages, you gain sheer versitility. The fighter need not pick up his sword and the backup arcane caster of the group need not cast any spells in combat. Unless you are a d&d purist like I am, why bother not playing a gish like this? Why not? Gishes are good on paper, trying to play one through a campaign though is a bit harder, I've tried. Sure it pays off at 20th level, but 17th-19th, you are really nothing more than a backup everything, that meatshield is still running interference for you. My point of all this is that multiclassing of any sort must come with a cost. A Gish should not have access to 9th level spells and high HD by definition, you gave up your dreams of casting Gayte and Mordenkainen's Game-balance Disjunction when you decided to study swordplay. When you design a pRc without sacrifice you design a class that, by its very nature, is overpowered. The abjurant champion is one of them, its the philosopher's stone of Gish pRc. And I challenge that a Wizard 20 is still one hell of a gish for the simple spell known as a Shapechange. Cost is overrated. You don't have to work for everything you get. If PrC comes along that is a Gishes dream, doesn't mean it's overpowered, it's just different. At levels where you start comparing wizard 20 to anything you should compare to what a Wizard 20 can do.If you think having 30hps, +18 bab, and can wear medium armor will help you stare down another wizard 20 who has used his entire feat selection on Metmagic and Item creation feats, then that's your perogative, I can still show you ways how that plain wizard 20 will own a Multiclass gish type character in anything he can do. Broken, No. Overpowered, No. Comparative in power, yes. |
| Gothenem01-22-07, 05:15 PM | Likin' it so far... Ok.... Um.. No. The Abjurant champion is not overpowered. Thats one way to say it. So? Why is it people believe you have to give up something to gain something? It isn't true in Real Life, I've gained and gained and gained and have had to give up hardly nothing. I work, I play DnD, am an active member of the NRA, I have a wife and 2 kids. I own a house, 2 cars (one of which is a new 2007 Jeep Commander), and a boat ('99 Ranger with a Mercury 225). What Did I give up to get all of that? Absolutely nothing. You could make the argument about giving up time, but Time is relatively cheap and should be easy to give away. So if it isn't true in Real Life, why must it be true in the DnD World? Why not compare a base human Wizard 20 to a Wizard 15/Abj champion 5, instead of that multiclassed build you threw up there? It would make more sense to say something is overpowered when taken with only one class than with the base class and four other PrC's wouldn't it? Or would it not prove your point that way?. The abjurant champion gains some nifty abilities with the loss of one feat true, but to say it's overpowered is quite another thing. A wizard 20 would still be just as powerful as a Wizard 15/Abjurant champion 5 with 9th level spells alone. Once again, what is BAB to a wizard who never enters melee? Who rarely uses ranged touch attacks? Why should he, his most versatile spells doesn't need an attack per say. 30hps? At 20th level 30 hps can be done sneezing on someone if you try. It's a drop in the bucket, you still wont survive very long if you are a wizard with an extra 30 hps in melee. As far as the 5 fighter bonus feats, woohoo, you can now maximize your ability to swing a weapon you'll probably only wield against lesser foes. As the Free Quickened and Extended abjurations, these only extend up to 3rd level spells, so your really powerful abjurations are not affected. Also, there is no substitute during actual gameplay for not reaching 9th level spells at 17th level, that alone is enough for me not to multiclass out of wizard, or if I do, multiclass into something with full caster progression. In my games, at 17th level and beyond you'd better be able to cast wish. You are not going to find it on a scroll, your not going to be able to buy a ring of three wishes. If you give up CL progression in exchange for craptastic BAB and an extra 30 HP you'd better have some real abilities to counteract that, or I should say abilities that mimic those high level spells you're missing out on. Why not? Gishes are good on paper, trying to play one through a campaign though is a bit harder, I've tried. Sure it pays off at 20th level, but 17th-19th, you are really nothing more than a backup everything, that meatshield is still running interference for you. And I challenge that a Wizard 20 is still one hell of a gish for the simple spell known as a Shapechange. Cost is overrated. You don't have to work for everything you get. If PrC comes along that is a Gishes dream, doesn't mean it's overpowered, it's just different. At levels where you start comparing wizard 20 to anything you should compare to what a Wizard 20 can do.If you think having 30hps, +18 bab, and can wear medium armor will help you stare down another wizard 20 who has used his entire feat selection on Metmagic and Item creation feats, then that's your perogative, I can still show you ways how that plain wizard 20 will own a Multiclass gish type character in anything he can do. Broken, No. Overpowered, No. Comparative in power, yes. Hear, Hear!! I could not have said it better myself. Balance is more than comparing numbers and saying "It's Broken". I have found the Mystic Theurge, long held to be "broken" as underpowered. More powerful than a Wiz/Cleric of equal level, yes, but not as good as a Wizard of equal level, or a cleric of equal level. This character would not have the same feat selection as a Wiz 20, he would have some more combat-related feats, and fewer metamagic feats. Thus, the character has nowhere near the spellcasting versatility of the Wiz 20. And, the resourse of 1 9th level spell compared to 4 9th level spells. Umm, yeah, you gain some nice bonuses, a decent BAB, slightly better hp, the ability to actually hit something when in an antimagic field. You give up 3 9th level spells, a pair of 8th-level spells, and the focus that comes with only having one class. About the only benefit they have over their Wizard 20 counterpart is a better AC, and even then, it just doesn't compare to a Fighter 20.... |
| Mouseferatu01-22-07, 09:16 PM | I read that thread, it says nothing. I can go onto any forum and say Im President Bush and I meant to invade Iran and not Iraq even though Im not, doesnt clear up anything about the author's intent. If he really did help design the abj champ he would be on the WoTC boards with a name like WoTC_Conjuration_lover or something less insulting, or he would write an article about it like they did with the invisible blade. We humble freelancers don't get special "WotC_Whatever" names on the forums. Nor do we have carte blanche to write whatever web articles we want to. I made the point in the other thread that when I designed the abjurant champion, it didn't have the abjurant armor ability, so I cannot say how development intended it. Any opinion I offer into how it "should" work is just that, opinion. I have a long-established presence on both ENWorld and here, under this screen name. You may choose to believe I am who I am, or not, as you choose. |
| mittenninja01-23-07, 03:21 AM | We humble freelancers don't get special "WotC_Whatever" names on the forums. Nor do we have carte blanche to write whatever web articles we want to. I made the point in the other thread that when I designed the abjurant champion, it didn't have the abjurant armor ability, so I cannot say how development intended it. Any opinion I offer into how it "should" work is just that, opinion. I have a long-established presence on both ENWorld and here, under this screen name. You may choose to believe I am who I am, or not, as you choose. Amen to that. |
| teshen01-23-07, 03:52 PM | "Teh" instead of "The" is a typo. Saying something works one way (abjuration spells) and using an example (mage armor) that doesn't fit makes me guess that someone working at wizards that doesn't play D&D much figured mage armor gives an armor bonus so it qualifies. It falls into the much bigger realm I think of as "Oversight." I don't feel like buying more books to find the three or four other spells that qualify for the ability (Customer service could only point out two in their explaination if I remember correctly)... though the business that publishes them would like me to. The Book of Exalted Deeds is not a good example either. If I'm playing a character that raids other creatures homes and murders them for fun and profit (in other words, your average adventure) I don't want to have to look for philosophically friendly adventures for the religiously challenged... or have to go to the 9 hells and look for someone that gives demons and devils the shivers to rob/beat down without a crisis of conscience just so I can get my abilities to work. If, as the original designer intended (and thank you Mouseferatu for your insights), you think the abjurant champion is overpowered, then substitute the original ability in where they cast in light armor rather than giving a boost to armor/shield bonus spells and and see how they fare, Rhonin the Big. I have to side with TheDarkLord, however, (I don't get to say that too often... :D ) that the class gives only a minor bonus to wizards and sorcerers (average of 15 hit points, +2 or 3 to base attack, and a couple of nifty abilities) is nice, but of limited utility at higher levels where pure arcanists qualify for abjurant champion with so many other prestige options. Most of the criticism so far saying that the class is overpowered focuses on the use of the "gish" concept. Can you still spend most of your free feats to leap about from PrC to PrC to gain the maximum numeric advantage without the Abjurant Champion? Yes. Will it stop the people who are going to? No. Will it make it too easy to do so? ... What do you mean by too easy? Is a gish (any gish) still going to be feat light? Probably. Is it still going to be hit point light? Probably. Congratulations. You've spent 20 levels making a class that emulates a fighter, emulates a wizard, isn't quite as capable as a pure version of either, and is... somewhat unique, with the exception that a whole lot of people have tried their hands at fighting mage builds since D&D came out. Which is pretty much the same point others have made in that this helps make a multiclass viable. |
| TheDarkLord01-24-07, 01:07 AM | I have to side with TheDarkLord, however, (I don't get to say that too often... :D ) Was it really that hard to choke out? :D |
| teshen01-24-07, 01:56 PM | I have to side with TheDarkLord. . . Was it really that hard to choke out? :D Its just that I had this image of the emperor from star wars when I wrote it... either that or some faustian pact. :emp: :eek: :evillaugh |
| Stormbrand01-24-07, 10:49 PM | Abjurant Champion has it's own unique style - blending arcane resources with combat ability. You don't take the class for arcane cannonfire, you take it to use magic effectively at upper levels without being mage-focused. The intended strategy is to buff up with protections quickly and then walk up and hit things. Think of it, instead of mage-focused or gish Abjurant Champions, consider the warrior based ones - Fighter14/Wiz1/AbjCh5. Devestating in melee, combined class features = a +9 AC bonus for 38 rounds (an entire fight) as a swift action. Being able to raise a Magic Circle or Prot vs Alignment when needed can be invaluable, or be able to Arcane Lock doors in a high speed chase. A little more creativity is needed, that is all. My Paladin/Sorcerer/Abjurant Champion/Eldritch Knight was enjoyable to play, in part because of the more interesting method of spellcasting. I was still zapping with Blindness at 18th level. Arcane Boost enabled me to circumvent the limited Spells Known because I could pay more attention to non-combat and defensive magic, and could still rule the battlefield by burning higher level slots to add +12-14 extra damage per hit on a full attack. Combining Smite Evil with Arcane Boost and Power Attack with a greatsword did a marvellous job of making the DM cry. Add buffs such as Divine Favour, Bull's Strength and the mount using it's attacks to Aid Another (extra +6 if it spends it's full attack) & we can see why I ruled the battlefield. My point is, Abjurant Champion is great for those of us who actually play Abjurant Champions, not for those who want to play blaster mages. |
| navar10002-13-07, 03:57 AM | Combining Smite Evil with Arcane Boost and Power Attack with a greatsword did a marvellous job of making the DM cry. Add buffs such as Divine Favour, Bull's Strength and the mount using it's attacks to Aid Another (extra +6 if it spends it's full attack) & we can see why I ruled the battlefield. My point is, Abjurant Champion is great for those of us who actually play Abjurant Champions, not for those who want to play blaster mages. :eek: The Paladin's Mount using its action to Aid Another for the Paladin, a +2 to hit or a +2 to AC! Why didn't I think of that?! Not that I've played a 3E paladin, but I have considered combat options on deciding whether to play one or not. I learn something D&D new every day. |
| Mouseferatu02-13-07, 04:25 AM | and the mount using it's attacks to Aid Another (extra +6 if it spends it's full attack) & we can see why I ruled the battlefield. Aiding another in combat requires a standard action. It's only +2, no matter how many attacks the mount might otherwise have. Still a pretty good idea, though. :) |
| InterSilva02-13-07, 04:38 AM | My player is going a monk/sorc/AC build With the A.Mage feat, it gives him a crazy bonus on AC since he chose a race that gives bonuses to dex and chr. His normal AC at higher lvls will roughly be 21ish...then he can cast shield and mage armour type spells. Shield alone brings his AC up by 9 and different armour spells can roughly increase his ac by 6...thats not to mention that circle of protection spells are abj. and get the AC increase... Im curious if he made a mistake at all because the AC seems a little too high. 21 isn't very impressive at higher levels, or even at mid levels. Also, monks can't wear armor, or they lose a ton of stuff, so I don't see why he's using Armored Mage. Also, Monks get bonus AC from Wisdom, not Charisma. |
| enygmatic_me02-13-07, 04:49 AM | My player is going a monk/sorc/AC build With the A.Mage feat, it gives him a crazy bonus on AC since he chose a race that gives bonuses to dex and chr. His normal AC at higher lvls will roughly be 21ish...then he can cast shield and mage armour type spells. Shield alone brings his AC up by 9 and different armour spells can roughly increase his ac by 6...thats not to mention that circle of protection spells are abj. and get the AC increase... Im curious if he made a mistake at all because the AC seems a little too high. I have a player who's character is a Strongheart Halfling Monk with Sacred Vow and Vow of Poverty. At 4th level his AC is 24. 21 at Higher levels is not a big deal. That said, check his character over. If he is wearing armor (via the Armored Mage feat) then he should lose a bunch of his monk abilities...including the bonus to AC. |
| Dethro02-14-07, 01:21 AM | It's possible he meant Ascetic Mage, not Armored Mage. The former exchanges your Wis-to-AC bonus for a Cha-to-AC bonus, which is always preferrable and reduces MAD to playable levels. |
| Raede03-06-07, 10:07 PM | All I have to say is that you get to tell the 20th level full caster why his gish protege can cast everything that he can, quite nearly as well as he can, but the gish gets to have a great BAB, weapon and armor proficiencies, a titanic AC, much better hit points and saves, and is generally much better in every way. hmmmmm... Lets also compare the abjurant champion to every other gish prestige class in 3.5... eldritch knight? no loss of spellcasting, full BAB, +9AC as a swift action that lasts 2 min/lvl, some neat abilities VS almost full spellcasting, full BAB. advantage: abj champ. spellsword? no loss of spellcasting, full BAB, +9AC as a swift action that lasts 2 min/lvl, some neat abilities VS half spellcasting, full BAB, armored spellcasting, and some abilities. advantage: abj. champ. is slightly better, but the two play well together bladesinger? HAHAHAHAHAHA advantage: abjurant champion. It's a no-brainer. So better than everything else, and so good at combining fighting and casting you may as well be playing gestalt, except that gestalt character would have a lower AC. |
| TheDarkLord03-06-07, 11:47 PM | Man I thought this thread was dead. So um.. Are you trying to say that it's overpowered compared to a 20th Level wizard? Do you want me to get into the myriad of way's a 20th level pure caster owns a gish? How about a 17th level caster versus a 17th Level Gish? Just because Gish's are popular and you can do things In melee, doesn't mean they are overpowered. At 20th level if a spellcaster intends to enter melee at all I should call a psych ward to come pick the character up. |
| Fluid_Dragon03-07-07, 12:18 PM | Man I thought this thread was dead. So um.. Are you trying to say that it's overpowered compared to a 20th Level wizard? Do you want me to get into the myriad of way's a 20th level pure caster owns a gish? How about a 17th level caster versus a 17th Level Gish? Just because Gish's are popular and you can do things In melee, doesn't mean they are overpowered. At 20th level if a spellcaster intends to enter melee at all I should call a psych ward to come pick the character up. Not to mention that any gish compared to a halfway decent cleric or druid is not nearly as good. Clerics and Druids are gish without giving up anything. Frankly a gish needs the AC class. A full caster of any flavor will trump a gish. The AC just brings a Gish closer to what the divine characters can do themselves. And if a full caster takes AC instead of the other good PrC's they need their head examined. There are better classes out there for full casters. |
| Raede03-15-07, 02:37 AM | Man I thought this thread was dead. So um.. Are you trying to say that it's overpowered compared to a 20th Level wizard? Do you want me to get into the myriad of way's a 20th level pure caster owns a gish? How about a 17th level caster versus a 17th Level Gish? Just because Gish's are popular and you can do things In melee, doesn't mean they are overpowered. At 20th level if a spellcaster intends to enter melee at all I should call a psych ward to come pick the character up. What's a full caster get at 20th level that an optimally-built AC doesn't? A few more high level spell slots per day. What's the AC get that the caster doesn't? Good hit points, AC, attack bonus, proficiencies, saves, and a way to be effective in random encounters without wasting good spell slots. The AC has every strength of a full sorcerer or wizard without any of the weaknesses. I can build an Abj. Champion with an armor class so high at 20th level that the Tarrasque would need a natural 20 to hit it with a regular attack, especially if you include mage armor being made stronger by its abilities. Combined with good fort and will and decent HP, it makes for a nearly impossible-to-kill character who can do nearly anything, including cast 9th-level arcane spells. Yeah, that's balanced. If you're going to say anything further supporting the idea that an AC is not better than a full caster, your comment should include an answer to "What can a 20th level caster do that an AC can't?" and "Why is a few more high level spells per day worth having crappy HP, AC, and fort saves, mechanically?" |
| TheDarkLord03-15-07, 05:32 PM | What's a full caster get at 20th level that an optimally-built AC doesn't? A few more high level spell slots per day. And that right there is the Reason a 20th level wizard is light years ahead of a 20th level Gish. those few spell slots could mean the difference between living through an encounter and destroying the world. What's the AC get that the caster doesn't? Good hit points, AC, attack bonus, proficiencies, saves, and a way to be effective in random encounters without wasting good spell slots. On average 30 more HP's than a full caster. That'll last long in melee when monster's and NPC's can average 50-60 hp's per single attack. Armor class can be gained through wizards low level spells, on average the Wizard and a Gish will have roughly the same AC. But the question remains, why would a wizard need the AC when he doesn't intend to get caught in melee? A smart caster will never get caught in melee, because melee=death for casters. And with the paltry HP's of most gishes sustained melee=Death for them as well. Once again, why does a Caster need BAB? Touch attacks are about the only thing that is useful to them. Then again, some of the best wizard spells do not even have an attack per-se. BAB is useless to them. Wizards have enough spellslots at 20th level where they can get off great spells and still go nova when they need to. A gish has to be really careful about it because of the lower CL, MAD, and fewer spells, he can't afford to waste spells. The AC has every strength of a full sorcerer or wizard without any of the weaknesses. I can build an Abj. Champion with an armor class so high at 20th level that the Tarrasque would need a natural 20 to hit it with a regular attack, especially if you include mage armor being made stronger by its abilities. No, the AC has a few nice abilities that can help out his shielding, a Wizard 15/Abj champ 5 is not a gish, but is a full caster than can use some neat tricks on his low level abjuration spells. And mage armor, RAW, doesn't work with the class. 1-3rd level Abjurations are the highest that you can effect with the AC's ability. Against melee monsters this is fine, but when it comes to fighting intelligent spellcasting foes, such as outsiders and dragons, he has the same weaknesses as a wizard and all those abilities are meaningless. A tarrasque might need a natural 20 to hit you, but Wail of the banshee, Finger of death, slay living still kills you regardless how high your AC is. Combined with good fort and will and decent HP, it makes for a nearly impossible-to-kill character who can do nearly anything, including cast 9th-level arcane spells. Yeah, that's balanced. What good fortitude? Your fortitude still sucks because of the caster levels, an extra +3 to fort is about meaningless because your Con isn't there to back it up. Decent HP's? An extra 30 is meaningless at higher levels. And the lack of 9th level spells kills a gish in any kind of contest. Those are its balancing factor, it is missing it's greatest weaponry. If you're going to say anything further supporting the idea that an AC is not better than a full caster, your comment should include an answer to "What can a 20th level caster do that an AC can't?" and "Why is a few more high level spells per day worth having crappy HP, AC, and fort saves, mechanically?" 1. Go Nova and still be usefull to the party afterwards. 2. High level spells completely negate any HP, AC, and Fortitude advantage an AC gish could have. Gate, Shapechange, Timestop, MDJ, all in one round or multiple rounds, Gishes cannot pull that off effectively. If you have SpC, then a full caster widens the gap even further between himself and a gish. Gishes have to pay for a weapons and armor. I have never had a wizard that had anything greater than a +2 weapon at 20th level. Why? Because I never needed it. I needed scrolls, I needed staffs, wands, rods, rings. All of these are way better investments for a caster than a weapon and armor. |
| teshen03-15-07, 08:46 PM | And that right there is the Reason a 20th level wizard is light years ahead of a 20th level Gish. those few spell slots could me the difference between living through an encounter and destroying the world. . . High level spells completely negate any HP, AC, and Fortitude advantage an AC gish could have. Gate, Shapechange, Timestop, MDJ, all in one round or multiple rounds, Gishes cannot pull that off effectively. If you have SpC, then a full caster widens the gap even further between himself and a gish. Hallelujah and Amen :clap: |
| Cold Napalm03-16-07, 03:14 AM | What's a full caster get at 20th level that an optimally-built AC doesn't? A few more high level spell slots per day. What's the AC get that the caster doesn't? Good hit points, AC, attack bonus, proficiencies, saves, and a way to be effective in random encounters without wasting good spell slots. The AC has every strength of a full sorcerer or wizard without any of the weaknesses. I can build an Abj. Champion with an armor class so high at 20th level that the Tarrasque would need a natural 20 to hit it with a regular attack, especially if you include mage armor being made stronger by its abilities. Combined with good fort and will and decent HP, it makes for a nearly impossible-to-kill character who can do nearly anything, including cast 9th-level arcane spells. Yeah, that's balanced. If you're going to say anything further supporting the idea that an AC is not better than a full caster, your comment should include an answer to "What can a 20th level caster do that an AC can't?" and "Why is a few more high level spells per day worth having crappy HP, AC, and fort saves, mechanically?" And I can make a monk/wizard/duelist/bladesinger with an AC so high that dieties will need a nat 20 to hit with normal attacks...so?!? You realize that the CO people can get ACs into triple digits WAY before level 20 right? You do know what the most optimized way to play a gish is right? Druid 10/planar shepherd 10...followed by druid 20. Oh and those also happens to be the best CASTERS to play as well. With class imbalance like this, ANY call of it's over powered unless it's directed at those 2 classes is rather moot. Oh and right because having on average of 70 hp more, 5 more AC, +4 fort saves is worth 3 shapechange or wish or MDJ...right...Oh and I have feats I can actually USE to improve my magic instead of using them all up on pre-reqs. I'm sorry but a wizard 20 is gonna waste ANY gish unless it's in a magic dead zone or other very biased encounter set up AND the wizard player isn't a tard. |
| Raede03-18-07, 03:33 PM | A few things here: We're talking about an adventuring party who has multiple encounters in a day, not a one-on-one arena duel. It doesn't matter who can kill who, it matters who is grossly more effective in typical adventuring play. I couldn't care less about arena fighting, that isn't what D&D is made for or balanced around. We're also talking about a character progression from first to 20th. Not a straight-out-of-the-box 20th level character who then goes off and does what? May as well be talking epic then, and I have no interest in epic play. And just because a smart wizard would never be near melee doesn't mean that all your enemies are stupid and will avoid you. Most high level encounters know what a wizard is, what it does, and that it sucks in melee, and will rip them to pieces before turning on the rest of the party. Just because you don't melee doesn't mean monsters won't melee you. If I had a nickel for every low-AC, low-HP caster that got ripped to pieces by a physical monster, I'd be a rich man. You can be all the smart caster you want, a crafty enemy can get you in melee. I don't care what you can build a monk/wizard/duelist/bladesinger to do. We're not talking about that here. This is a full arcane caster/Abj. Champion discussion. Likewise, I don't care what a Druid 10/planar shepherd 10 can do. Again, neither is a full arcane caster or an abjurant champion. The AC can get 10 more armor than a wizard, but they have to use the stuff from spell compendium. There may be an abjuration armor spell from elsewhere. Alos, many people I have talked to strongly advocate letting the AC get 5 more AC from mage armor, arguing for the spirit over the letter. Also, the gish could get a few spellsword levels and wear armor, then enchant that. 1 or 2 pre-req feats aren't going to kill your abilities as a caster either, and combat casting is hardly a bad feat for low levels. When I say 'optimally built', I mean something like ftr1/wiz4/AC5/EK 10. That's just off the top of my head, I'm sure someone can come up with something better. Throw some spellsword in there if you want to wear armor or use shields. I'd personally abuse polymorph/shapechange, mage armor, and shield. Supposedly there's a spell from the spell compendium that's an abjuration giving an armor bonus. I don't own that book. A few more spell slots per day will help you a little bit, but if you go all crazy with your 9th levels every combat, you will quickly run out in the multiple encounters per day that D&D is balanced around. An AC can save those slots and be effective in combat while being untouchable, while a wizard will have to spend some magic to be effective each round. As for caster level, if an optimally-built AC takes practiced spellcaster, they're at the same CL as a full wizard. What good fortitude? Your fortitude still sucks because of the caster levels, an extra +3 to fort is about meaningless because your Con isn't there to back it up. Decent HP's? An extra 30 is meaningless at higher levels. And the lack of 9th level spells kills a gish in any kind of contest. Those are its balancing factor, it is missing it's greatest weaponry. Good fortitude comes from splashing around in spellsword, eldritch knight, and possibly fighter. I'm seeing a base fort at least 6 higher than a wizard's. The will save will also be higher, oddly enough. I have no idea why "your Con isn't there to back it up." Is there a rule somewhere where gishes all have no Con? Shapechange and polymorph can fix that anyhow. As for HPs, the optimally-built gish will have 50 more or so, which is very significant when you compare it to the 20-con wizard's 150 or so. That's the difference between dying to a full attack and getting healed by your cleric buddy. Not that they'll be able to hit the AC of the AC. (haha, acronyms) 1. Go Nova and still be usefull to the party afterwards. 2. High level spells completely negate any HP, AC, and Fortitude advantage an AC gish could have. Gate, Shapechange, Timestop, MDJ, all in one round or multiple rounds, Gishes cannot pull that off effectively. If you have SpC, then a full caster widens the gap even further between himself and a gish. 1. I think you mean the optimally built AC is still useful after "going nova." A wizard without spells isn't very handy last I checked. This wizard may be able to "go nova" twice to the AC's once, depending on how many spells are chucked, but ultimately we're not talking about something you're gonna do every fight in that day. A wizard who blows his load gets to shove his thumb up his butt and rotate for all the good that'll do. An optimally-built AC gets to remain effective by attacking with weaponry with his almost-full base attack (+18 at 20.) 2. How exactly? The gish can cast those same spells, albeit twice to the wizard's 4 times for 9th level spells, and virtually the same for the rest of the levels. If they both cast spells as effectively, why does this spellcasting help the wizard more? The full wizard has 2 more 9th level spells (4 vs 2), 1 more 8th level spell (4 vs 3), 1 more 7th (4 vs 3), and IDENTICAL everything else, compared to the build I proposed above. Same caster level. Caster gets 3, maybe 4 more feats at the most to play with for casting. More if full wizard. When you've got 7 or 8 feats, your bases are already covered. You've got your quicken, your empower, your focus, your penetration, whatever. The few additional options granted to the full caster for feats are really the only advantage they get. And it's not a big one. Gishes have to pay for a weapons and armor. I have never had a wizard that had anything greater than a +2 weapon at 20th level. Why? Because I never needed it. I needed scrolls, I needed staffs, wands, rods, rings. All of these are way better investments for a caster than a weapon and armor. For one thing, the AC casts his armor and shield. They need not buy it. That's just one other thing making them better than regular gishes, thanks for bringing that up. An AC still needs a nice weapon, but that leaves a whole lot of cash for other stuff. In fact, an AC can afford to have better weapons then the fighter, but has the versatility to use wands and scrolls and all that goodness as well, freely switching from utterly outclassing the fighter to keeping pace with the wizard's casting, yet having better defences than both. I feel I should reiterate the direction I'm going with this: The AC is better than every other gish option, going so far as to make gishes so nearly as effective spellcasters as their full-caster counterparts that the difference is negligible. All the full caster has to show for the weaknesses they take is at most 2 more of the highest level spell they can cast per day. In return, the AC gish is disgustingly tough. On the other end of the spectrum we have the fighters, who are badly, badly outclassed by the AC gish, except in antimagic zones. One gets a few more high level spells and more casting feats than the AC gish, one gets more fighting feats than the AC gish. The AC blends the two so well that a gestalt character looks at the AC with envy. Would you let a gestalt character play in a party with regular characters and call it balanced? Not likely. In a typical adventuring campaign, over the course of 20 levels the AC consistently outclasses the wizard and the fighter in terms of survivability, is almost equal to the wizard in terms of power, is better than the fighter in terms of power, is better than the wizard in terms of being fully effective in many fights in the same day, nearly equal to the fighter in terms of being fully effective in many fights in the same day, and completely outclasses both in terms of versatility. Better than both (average over power, survivability, being fully effective in many fights during a single day, and versatility) but gives up almost nothing to do so? Broken. |
| Cold Napalm03-18-07, 04:28 PM | A few things here: We're talking about an adventuring party who has multiple encounters in a day, not a one-on-one arena duel. It doesn't matter who can kill who, it matters who is grossly more effective in typical adventuring play. I couldn't care less about arena fighting, that isn't what D&D is made for or balanced around. We're also talking about a character progression from first to 20th. Not a straight-out-of-the-box 20th level character who then goes off and does what? May as well be talking epic then, and I have no interest in epic play. Okay do you play gishes in normal play? Because I do and I can tell your for a fact that the the EK and spellsword alone are weak. Way WAY too weak. As in you can get outshined by a fighter 20 weak (unless you play your EK like a wizard who just lost 2 9th level spells in which case why are you a EK again?). Now if you mix then in combination, you get a BARELY viable character. And just because a smart wizard would never be near melee doesn't mean that all your enemies are stupid and will avoid you. Most high level encounters know what a wizard is, what it does, and that it sucks in melee, and will rip them to pieces before turning on the rest of the party. Just because you don't melee doesn't mean monsters won't melee you. If I had a nickel for every low-AC, low-HP caster that got ripped to pieces by a physical monster, I'd be a rich man. You can be all the smart caster you want, a crafty enemy can get you in melee. And if your wizard hasn't set up for melee types wanting to squish you first with your mighty 27 int then you should die. Horrible. The player should also not play wizards. DD, fly, ethrealness all of which will basically negate the melee monster from doing any damage to the caster. Mirror image and displacement basically reduces the chance of damage to pretty negligable. Improved invis also makes many thing unable to attack you effectively. And this isn't even going into spell compendium when you can use similar effect as imediate actions if your get caught out of turn. I don't care what you can build a monk/wizard/duelist/bladesinger to do. We're not talking about that here. This is a full arcane caster/Abj. Champion discussion. Likewise, I don't care what a Druid 10/planar shepherd 10 can do. Again, neither is a full arcane caster or an abjurant champion. The AC can get 10 more armor than a wizard, but they have to use the stuff from spell compendium. There may be an abjuration armor spell from elsewhere. Alos, many people I have talked to strongly advocate letting the AC get 5 more AC from mage armor, arguing for the spirit over the letter. Also, the gish could get a few spellsword levels and wear armor, then enchant that. The spell compendium has NO spells that add armor bonus. It has one spell that adds situational armor bonus(incorporeal touch attacks). The bookd of exalted deed is the ONLY place that armor bonus as abjuration spells can be found and those spells have a strength damage component. So you get 5 more ac...whoop di doo. Yeah 5 AC is so worth 3 meta magic feats. Even 10 AC isn't worth it for a pure caster...much less what your giving up not going into incantrix or some other actually caster PrC for 10 levels. 1 or 2 pre-req feats aren't going to kill your abilities as a caster either, and combat casting is hardly a bad feat for low levels. Your NOT LOSING 1-2, your are losing 2-3 depending on if your an elf or not. When I say 'optimally built', I mean something like ftr1/wiz4/AC5/EK 10. That's just off the top of my head, I'm sure someone can come up with something better. Throw some spellsword in there if you want to wear armor or use shields. I'd personally abuse polymorph/shapechange, mage armor, and shield. Supposedly there's a spell from the spell compendium that's an abjuration giving an armor bonus. I don't own that book. So by optimally built, you mean illegally. Good to know. A few more spell slots per day will help you a little bit, but if you go all crazy with your 9th levels every combat, you will quickly run out in the multiple encounters per day that D&D is balanced around. An AC can save those slots and be effective in combat while being untouchable, while a wizard will have to spend some magic to be effective each round. Umm no, there are quote a few spells the wizard can use to be effective each round against less deadly foes. Also a wizard at level 20 has at LEAST 4 9th levels spells. That means you can use one per encounter going by the 4 encounter by day suggestion. Guess what, most 9th level spell are encounter enders. you ONLY need one unless you up against another equal level caster. As for caster level, if an optimally-built AC takes practiced spellcaster, they're at the same CL as a full wizard. So we wanna give up 4 feats now instead of 3...okay, sure. Lets be even WEAKER. Good fortitude comes from splashing around in spellsword, eldritch knight, and possibly fighter. I'm seeing a base fort at least 6 higher than a wizard's. The will save will also be higher, oddly enough. I have no idea why "your Con isn't there to back it up." Is there a rule somewhere where gishes all have no Con? Shapechange and polymorph can fix that anyhow. As for HPs, the optimally-built gish will have 50 more or so, which is very significant when you compare it to the 20-con wizard's 150 or so. That's the difference between dying to a full attack and getting healed by your cleric buddy. Not that they'll be able to hit the AC of the AC. (haha, acronyms) Sure we can ignore MAD...why not you ignore everything else that makes gishes weak. 1. I think you mean the optimally built AC is still useful after "going nova." A wizard without spells isn't very handy last I checked. This wizard may be able to "go nova" twice to the AC's once, depending on how many spells are chucked, but ultimately we're not talking about something you're gonna do every fight in that day. A wizard who blows his load gets to shove his thumb up his butt and rotate for all the good that'll do. An optimally-built AC gets to remain effective by attacking with weaponry with his almost-full base attack (+18 at 20.) No a gish is VERY much dead in the water as much as the wizard without spells. I'm sorry but if that little fact escapes you, you NEVER played a gish and you shouldn't be making balance calls on gish PrCs or builds. BAB isn't the be all end off of melee combat. Without the fighter HP, armor, strength, con or FEATS, your still gonna die as fast as the wizard. Even a spellsword splash to wear light armor isn't gonna help much. 2. How exactly? The gish can cast those same spells, albeit twice to the wizard's 4 times for 9th level spells, and virtually the same for the rest of the levels. If they both cast spells as effectively, why does this spellcasting help the wizard more? The full wizard has 2 more 9th level spells (4 vs 2), 1 more 8th level spell (4 vs 3), 1 more 7th (4 vs 3), and IDENTICAL everything else, compared to the build I proposed above. Same caster level. Caster gets 3, maybe 4 more feats at the most to play with for casting. More if full wizard. When you've got 7 or 8 feats, your bases are already covered. You've got your quicken, your empower, your focus, your penetration, whatever. The few additional options granted to the full caster for feats are really the only advantage they get. And it's not a big one. And this is based of 1) and illegal build and 2) if you actually get into melee, you still as dead as the wizard 20 ANYWAYS. I can spend by your count 4 meta magic feats so I can fight in melee if I have to...oh right except I still DIE if I do something that foolish with that build. For one thing, the AC casts his armor and shield. They need not buy it. That's just one other thing making them better than regular gishes, thanks for bringing that up. An AC still needs a nice weapon, but that leaves a whole lot of cash for other stuff. In fact, an AC can afford to have better weapons then the fighter, but has the versatility to use wands and scrolls and all that goodness as well, freely switching from utterly outclassing the fighter to keeping pace with the wizard's casting, yet having better defences than both. And there by wasting at least 1 extra round of combat. You have ANY idea how much that is worth?!? I'm sorry but even AC based gishes still wear twilighed armor. Usually mithril breastplat with thistledown padding for 0% ASF. I feel I should reiterate the direction I'm going with this: The AC is better than every other gish option, going so far as to make gishes so nearly as effective spellcasters as their full-caster counterparts that the difference is negligible. All the full caster has to show for the weaknesses they take is at most 2 more of the highest level spell they can cast per day. In return, the AC gish is disgustingly tough. On the other end of the spectrum we have the fighters, who are badly, badly outclassed by the AC gish, except in antimagic zones. And considering how BAD the EK and spellsword are as stand alone 10 level prestige classes, you think that the AC being good is a BAD thing? Oh and I wouldn't call some measly HP and 5 extra AC disgustingly tough. One gets a few more high level spells and more casting feats than the AC gish, one gets more fighting feats than the AC gish. The AC blends the two so well that a gestalt character looks at the AC with envy. Would you let a gestalt character play in a party with regular characters and call it balanced? Not likely. And the AC does it for 5 levels because the gish archetype NEEDS it. If it was 10 levels, way WAY broken. If they punlish more so that you can take another like this class and the AC at the same time...broke. As it is now, it make the gish playable. In a typical adventuring campaign, over the course of 20 levels the AC consistently outclasses the wizard and the fighter in terms of survivability, is almost equal to the wizard in terms of power, is better than the fighter in terms of power, is better than the wizard in terms of being fully effective in many fights in the same day, nearly equal to the fighter in terms of being fully effective in many fights in the same day, and completely outclasses both in terms of versatility. Better than both (average over power, survivability, being fully effective in many fights during a single day, and versatility) but gives up almost nothing to do so? Broken. And the AC still does NOTHING for the wizard compared to say the incantrix or even the loremaster. And you give up 4 feats. 4...thats almost 25% of your feat resources. You thinks thats NOTHING?!? And your a gish, you NEED fighter feats and wizard feats. Feats are damn precious to you. Unless your playing that stupid illegal build of your where your sword is just there for looks with no feats to back it up. At which point, once again the wizard left alone is better. Go play a gish in a game and come back here and tell us that it doesn't need something like the AC. |
| TheDarkLord03-18-07, 05:17 PM | Cold Napalm covered it mostly, I'd just add a couple of more things. Thanks to the introdution of Meta-magicked scrolls, Meta-magic rods, and a few other sources of casting coming from elsewhere, a typcal 20th level wizard could possibly go nova 3-5 times a day. PrC's such as Incantatrix, Archmage, Red Wizard are all much better option's for a caster that widens the gap even further from a Gish build. And really, with that 200,000+ GP weapon and armor you are running around with as a gish, I now have a couple of nice metamagic rods (Medium and Greater of course), and anywhere from 6-50 9th level scrolls at my disposal. |
| Raede03-18-07, 10:54 PM | And if your wizard hasn't set up for melee types wanting to squish you first with your mighty 27 int then you should die. Horrible. The player should also not play wizards. DD, fly, ethrealness all of which will basically negate the melee monster from doing any damage to the caster. Mirror image and displacement basically reduces the chance of damage to pretty negligable. Improved invis also makes many thing unable to attack you effectively. And this isn't even going into spell compendium when you can use similar effect as imediate actions if your get caught out of turn. Right, so all casters are completely invulnerable. I must have forgotten. How silly of me. A dragon with blindsight has no way of flying after a caster, and will be fooled by displacement, invisibility, and mirror image. Casters can also cast all these spells in the same turn to protect themselves, and still do something useful to defeat that encounter that same turn. I forgot. Thank you for bringing up the complete and total invulnerability of a d4 hp caster. My bad. :rolleyes: Your NOT LOSING 1-2, your are losing 2-3 depending on if your an elf or not. Why are you losing 2-3? Abjurant champion requires combat casting and a martial weapon proficiency. A level of fighter and a single feat satisfies this. EK and spellsword require no feats. Maybe I'm just dumb, but I count one feat. 2 if you have no fighter level. For my off-the-cuff optimal build, 2 feats including practiced spellcaster. So by optimally built, you mean illegally. Good to know. I said off the top of my head for a reason :P So, call it Ftr1/Wiz6/Spellsword1/AC5/EK7. 2 fighter bonus feats, one wizard bonus feat, +17 BAB, 18th level for spellsknown/per day, 10% arcane spell failure ignored. 1 feat spend for prereq, 1 feat spent to bring CL to 20 (which probably isn't worth it.) 8 feats left to play with, which is more than some characters ever get. Umm no, there are quote a few spells the wizard can use to be effective each round against less deadly foes. Also a wizard at level 20 has at LEAST 4 9th levels spells. That means you can use one per encounter going by the 4 encounter by day suggestion. Guess what, most 9th level spell are encounter enders. you ONLY need one unless you up against another equal level caster. That may be your experience, but I've never seen a 9th level spell resolve an appropriately CRed fight on its own. That Pit Fiend laughs at your meteor swarm, and saves against anything else you throw. I envy your high level play, you seem to fight creatures who are foiled completely by illusion spells, can only walk, and have no SR, saving throws, hit points, or energy resistances. Nice. Sure we can ignore MAD...why not you ignore everything else that makes gishes weak. Pardon my ignorance, what the heck is MAD? And why does that matter? (the second question is probably answered by the first) No a gish is VERY much dead in the water as much as the wizard without spells. I'm sorry but if that little fact escapes you, you NEVER played a gish and you shouldn't be making balance calls on gish PrCs or builds. BAB isn't the be all end off of melee combat. Without the fighter HP, armor, strength, con or FEATS, your still gonna die as fast as the wizard. Even a spellsword splash to wear light armor isn't gonna help much. I've always used buff magic for my gishes, whereas a normal caster tends to cast spells that do something short-term or instantaneous and are then done. A gish doesn't go through spells like a caster does, at least not if you're using buff magic instead of playing a wizard -2 caster levels. And, as you said, you might as well be playing a full caster then. BAB may not make you awesome on its own when you're swinging weapons, but it sure is hard to do a damn thing without it. You have the fighter HP, armor, strength, con, and some of the feats. Therefore you will not die as fast as the wizard (whoops, I forgot wizards are invulnerable as you say in the beginning of your post. I'm so forgetful.) Shapechange to a pit fiend and you've got more HP, armor, strength, and con than the fighter could ever hope to have. Use bull's strength, bear's endurance, etc. at lower levels and with the shapechange to be completely powerful. Gaining all the energy resistances, immunities, SR, and REGENERATION are just side benefits. Wield that weapon you bought with a size penalty, it matters not, you've got 41 strength. Cast mage armor before combat (without getting +5 to it) and shield (free action to cast), and you're sitting on a 55 AC before counting rings of deflection, amulets of natural armor, etc. With your ~350 HP, 55 AC, fort save over 20, will save close to that, energy resistances, immunities, and regeneration, you're real fragile....yeah. All these spells are prep except shield, which is a swift action to cast thanks to AC. This is 2 first level spells, 3 second, and 1 9th. You can get great results with polymorph as well, though not quite as spectacular. Throw on a monk's belt, a ring of deflection, and some other AC items and you can get a 65 without breaking a sweat. And this is based of 1) and illegal build and 2) if you actually get into melee, you still as dead as the wizard 20 ANYWAYS. I can spend by your count 4 meta magic feats so I can fight in melee if I have to...oh right except I still DIE if I do something that foolish with that build. Solved problem #1. As for #2, I believe I have adequately addresse how a gish becomes nigh-invulnerable. And there by wasting at least 1 extra round of combat. You have ANY idea how much that is worth?!? I'm sorry but even AC based gishes still wear twilighed armor. Usually mithril breastplat with thistledown padding for 0% ASF. Shield is a free action to cast thanks to AC, and most of the other buff spells can be cast outside of combat. No need to waste combat rounds, that's just silly. You can go with armor or without as an AC, mage armor lasts for hours, and you should probably be running about polymorphed anyhow. And the AC still does NOTHING for the wizard compared to say the incantrix or even the loremaster. And you give up 4 feats. 4...thats almost 25% of your feat resources. You thinks thats NOTHING?!? And your a gish, you NEED fighter feats and wizard feats. Feats are damn precious to you. Unless your playing that stupid illegal build of your where your sword is just there for looks with no feats to back it up. The AC is for the gish, not the wizard, and it takes only one or two feats anyway. You lose 3 casting feats, and gain 2 fighter feats in their place. 8 feats is a very playable amount, even split between casting and fighting. Go play a gish in a game and come back here and tell us that it doesn't need something like the AC. I've played many gishes and many full casters, and built even more. I say to you good sir, go play a full caster. You really sound like someone who wants their favorite concept to be the most powerful. And really, with that 200,000+ GP weapon and armor you are running around with as a gish, I now have a couple of nice metamagic rods (Medium and Greater of course), and anywhere from 6-50 9th level scrolls at my disposal. My level 20 AC would have a +10 weapon and for the sake of argument will have +5 twilight armor. No need for a shield when you can cast one that gives you +9 AC as a free action for a 1st level spell. That leaves 500,000+ GP left to spend on scrolls/wands/rods/etc. Plenty, if you ask me. I can still afford dozens of 9th level scrolls along with at least one greater metamagic rod of each type in the DMG, with hundreds of thousands of GP left over. |
| Cold Napalm03-18-07, 11:57 PM | Right, so all casters are completely invulnerable. I must have forgotten. How silly of me. A dragon with blindsight has no way of flying after a caster, and will be fooled by displacement, invisibility, and mirror image. Casters can also cast all these spells in the same turn to protect themselves, and still do something useful to defeat that encounter that same turn. I forgot. Thank you for bringing up the complete and total invulnerability of a d4 hp caster. My bad. :rolleyes: And if I was against a dragon I'd go ethreal and transdimentional spell him from the ethreal plane. Guess what, flight, blind sight matter not a wit while I an ethreal. Why are you losing 2-3? Abjurant champion requires combat casting and a martial weapon proficiency. A level of fighter and a single feat satisfies this. EK and spellsword require no feats. Maybe I'm just dumb, but I count one feat. 2 if you have no fighter level. For my off-the-cuff optimal build, 2 feats including practiced spellcaster. From a pure caster you need 1-2 feats and you lose one because your not taking 5 levels of wizard for the bonus opne so 2-3. If your talking using the AC as a gish as it should be, then yes you lose one feat...but as a gish EVERY feat is important as you have to split them up so your melee doesn't suck along with some for your magic. One feat is a HUGE deal to many gish builds. I said off the top of my head for a reason :P So, call it Ftr1/Wiz6/Spellsword1/AC5/EK7. 2 fighter bonus feats, one wizard bonus feat, +17 BAB, 18th level for spellsknown/per day, 10% arcane spell failure ignored. 1 feat spend for prereq, 1 feat spent to bring CL to 20 (which probably isn't worth it.) 8 feats left to play with, which is more than some characters ever get. and that is still gonna get creamed by wizard 20, much less anything stronger (like a prced wizard or cleric or druid). I fail to see how that example shows how the AC is broken when the build example is rather weak. You gave up 2 9th level spells and god know how many caster bosting feats for what exactly? 10% ASF ignore? A twilight mithral breastplate with padding already cover armor pretty well. +7 BAB, some extra hit points and +5 AC for what? Unless your spend more then half those free 8 feats on fighter feats your pretty much useless as a gish (be it spiked chain tripper or power attacking charger). So your looking at spending 2 or 3 for caster feats. Your dead against a caster, period. I can transdimential spell. I can instant maxmize. I can cast twinned spells. I cast repeat spell. Your power is nowhere near that as a caster and for what? +7 BAB some extra HP and +5 ac...All that so you can do what the fighter does...only worse because you need rounds of buffs before you can fight...yeah thats worth it. I don't play gishes because they are good. I play them because I like playing one. If I wanted power, I'd play a wizard 10/incantrix 10 or a druid 20 (I have yet to meet a DM that allows planar shepherd). That may be your experience, but I've never seen a 9th level spell resolve an appropriately CRed fight on its own. That Pit Fiend laughs at your meteor swarm, and saves against anything else you throw. I envy your high level play, you seem to fight creatures who are foiled completely by illusion spells, can only walk, and have no SR, saving throws, hit points, or energy resistances. Nice. And if you use MS against a pit fiend your wizard should be shot. I mean honestly if this is how the wizard you have been playin with use their spell, no wonder you think the wizard 20 is so weak. Pardon my ignorance, what the heck is MAD? And why does that matter? (the second question is probably answered by the first) Multiple attribute disorder. I means a build requires many ability scores being high to be effective. In the case of the gish, int(or cha), str, dex and con needs to be high vs say just int (and maybe con) for the wizard. I've always used buff magic for my gishes, whereas a normal caster tends to cast spells that do something short-term or instantaneous and are then done. A gish doesn't go through spells like a caster does, at least not if you're using buff magic instead of playing a wizard -2 caster levels. And, as you said, you might as well be playing a full caster then. BAB may not make you awesome on its own when you're swinging weapons, but it sure is hard to do a damn thing without it. You have the fighter HP, armor, strength, con, and some of the feats. Therefore you will not die as fast as the wizard (whoops, I forgot wizards are invulnerable as you say in the beginning of your post. I'm so forgetful.) Shapechange to a pit fiend and you've got more HP, armor, strength, and con than the fighter could ever hope to have. Use bull's strength, bear's endurance, etc. at lower levels and with the shapechange to be completely powerful. Gaining all the energy resistances, immunities, SR, and REGENERATION are just side benefits. Wield that weapon you bought with a size penalty, it matters not, you've got 41 strength. Cast mage armor before combat (without getting +5 to it) and shield (free action to cast), and you're sitting on a 55 AC before counting rings of deflection, amulets of natural armor, etc. With your ~350 HP, 55 AC, fort save over 20, will save close to that, energy resistances, immunities, and regeneration, you're real fragile....yeah. All these spells are prep except shield, which is a swift action to cast thanks to AC. This is 2 first level spells, 3 second, and 1 9th. You can get great results with polymorph as well, though not quite as spectacular. Throw on a monk's belt, a ring of deflection, and some other AC items and you can get a 65 without breaking a sweat. Once again if you don't play by the rules...well DUH it's broken. I can make a fighter broken by saying that x3 on a charge that gets doubled does x6 damage and double again for x12 but then again I'm not following the rules now am I. ALL items when you shapechange is now melded into your form now and made useless. So no magic items for you. Also HP remains unchanged. So your gonna spend 4+ rounds of spell casting before you go fight...right I'm sure the party loves this idea. Also if your wizards really are playing THAT dumb, that they blow a majority of their spells on what looks like damage type spells, then by all means, gishes MUST be stronger then the wizard because all wizard players play them like bloody morons while the gish player plays one inteligently(and by your example cheats)...maybe the way they are played might have something to do it. I'm sorry to say, but your play experience seems to be one of badly played wizards compared to a semi well played and cheating gish...wonder why the gish seems so strong...oh it can't possible be how they are played, oh no. Shield is a free action to cast thanks to AC, and most of the other buff spells can be cast outside of combat. No need to waste combat rounds, that's just silly. You can go with armor or without as an AC, mage armor lasts for hours, and you should probably be running about polymorphed anyhow. Other then mage armor, I didn't know that durations of 1 min or 10 min per level was considered long enought to keep around ALL the time. I'm sorry how many level 9 spells do you have that you can keep up shapechange around all the time? Polymorph is 1 min per level there so thats out of the question (and no longer persistantable as it's no longer a personal spell). Those stat boosters are also 1 min per level as well. I mean really it's becoming rather more and more obvious that you honestly have no idea about gish play (or your basically playing not by the rules in your group) if you think you can run around with poly up all the time. The AC is for the gish, not the wizard, and it takes only one or two feats anyway. You lose 3 casting feats, and gain 2 fighter feats in their place. 8 feats is a very playable amount, even split between casting and fighting. Well 8 is a doable amount, but this once again means that your below the powerlevel of the wizard AND the fighter. The fighter WILL be able to do much more then you can with your meager 8 feats (even if you dedicate it all to fighting feats). You can poly yourself or the fighter...guess what's more effective? You can bull str yourself or the fighter...once again guess what's more effective? Gishes are WEAK period. Mechanic, they need the AC to even get on par with a FIGHTER in effectiveness of party balance. Oh and if you use all 8 to boost your caster aspect...why even bother with the sword and BAB at that point. You should just be a straight caster and play like one and be way WAY more effective that way. I've played many gishes and many full casters, and built even more. I say to you good sir, go play a full caster. You really sound like someone who wants their favorite concept to be the most powerful. No if I want power, druid 20 works for me just fine. In ANY high power game I play, I just stick with druid 20 with a splash of wizard 10/incantrix 10 every now and then. I want my favorite archetype to be PLAYABLE however. Other then some experiemental runs, I basically stopped playing gishes due to how unplayable weak they are. Even with the AC, they maybe too weak for me to use in many games (we are currently in a rash of using published adventurers around here...at least with home brew games the difficulty can be toned to suit a gish in play, but in publish...nigh useless). So you say you play gishes a lot, well get some people, make a gish and run through a long 1-20 published game with one. Don't use the AC, no spending all 8 feats on caster stuff and tell me how effective that was that game. Been there, done that, with several builds. Gonna try with an AC build 1-19 published game to see if helps much. I have tried the 1-20 AC build in homebrew games and it seems pretty weak still, bu tthe other people's reactions seems to be that this finally is a doable gish. |
| Raede03-19-07, 02:52 PM | And if I was against a dragon I'd go ethreal and transdimentional spell him from the ethreal plane. Guess what, flight, blind sight matter not a wit while I an ethreal. Transdimentional spell says that it has full effect on creatures on the ethereal plane. It says nothing about hitting creatures on the material plane from the ethereal plane. DMG says that no creature on the etheral plane can affect the material plane, not even magically. Only certain effects from the material can effect the ethereal. Your etheral caster is ten kinds of useless, but relatively safe...so long as they remain useless. and that is still gonna get creamed by wizard 20, much less anything stronger (like a prced wizard or cleric or druid). I fail to see how that example shows how the AC is broken when the build example is rather weak. You gave up 2 9th level spells and god know how many caster bosting feats for what exactly? 10% ASF ignore? A twilight mithral breastplate with padding already cover armor pretty well. +7 BAB, some extra hit points and +5 AC for what? Unless your spend more then half those free 8 feats on fighter feats your pretty much useless as a gish (be it spiked chain tripper or power attacking charger). So your looking at spending 2 or 3 for caster feats. Your dead against a caster, period. I can transdimential spell. I can instant maxmize. I can cast twinned spells. I cast repeat spell. Your power is nowhere near that as a caster and for what? +7 BAB some extra HP and +5 ac...All that so you can do what the fighter does...only worse because you need rounds of buffs before you can fight What are these amazing feats that a gish absolutely has to have to keep up with a fighter? A gish sticking to the basics of AC, hit, and damage should be fine, because they already excel at that. This admittedly suboptimal AC build I came up with can have twinned spell, repeat spell, etc. +7 BAB is a LOT. That means at least one more attack on a full attack, and if you needed a 10 to hit without it for one of your iterative, that means that iterative is almost gauranteed to hit. 5 AC means that if a monster needed a 10 to hit you before now hits only ~25% of the time rather than ~50%. If they needed a 15 before, now they need a 20, which means they're hitting you one-fifth of the times that they used to. And you can do much better than a fighter on the defensive end. And you need no round of buffs. Your shield is a swift action, your mage armor (if you use it) lasts all day. Your shapechange or other 10min/level buffs last 200 or 180 minutes, which is plenty. Rarely have I not had one of those buffs up when it mattered. Ignore the bull's strength etc., I forgot that you're better off using items that give enhancement bonuses anyhow. They still last 20 or 18 minutes, which is enough to clear the floor of a dungeon, and they're low level enough that you can cast them every floor. No combat rounds needed to buff. If your DM just has random creatures attack you at random times in the day, yeah, it could be a problem. Taking a round to cast shapechange and be unhittable still isn't a bad idea. Originally Posted by Raede That may be your experience, but I've never seen a 9th level spell resolve an appropriately CRed fight on its own. That Pit Fiend laughs at your meteor swarm, and saves against anything else you throw. I envy your high level play, you seem to fight creatures who are foiled completely by illusion spells, can only walk, and have no SR, saving throws, hit points, or energy resistances. Nice. And if you use MS against a pit fiend your wizard should be shot. I mean honestly if this is how the wizard you have been playin with use their spell, no wonder you think the wizard 20 is so weak. I said "and saves against everything else you throw." Way to misread, tear apart what you incorrectly thought I said, and not respond to my assertion that 9th level spells typically don't solve CR20 encounters. I never claimed wizard 20 was weak, either. I merely claim that the optimally built AC gish is just as strong with many, many benefits besides. I. ALL items when you shapechange is now melded into your form now and made useless. So no magic items for you. Also HP remains unchanged. So your gonna spend 4+ rounds of spell casting before you go fight...right I'm sure the party loves this idea. Also if your wizards really are playing THAT dumb, that they blow a majority of their spells on what looks like damage type spells, then by all means, gishes MUST be stronger then the wizard because all wizard players play them like bloody morons while the gish player plays one inteligently(and by your example cheats)...maybe the way they are played might have something to do it. I'm sorry to say, but your play experience seems to be one of badly played wizards compared to a semi well played and cheating gish...wonder why the gish seems so strong...oh it can't possible be how they are played, oh no. My PHB says that if the new form can use the items, then it does. I understand there was some kind of rule change for polymorph, but it isn't part of the official errata in the errata section of the website, so I am both ignorant of its contents and they seem not to be canon. Why should the party complain if I take a minute to buff myself before going in a dungeon? It hurts them none, and takes almost no time. If I was in that party I'd get my canteen out, take a drink, and by the time I was done, the gish is ready to go. What spells does a wizard cast to change the nature of a combat that lasts between combats? Wall spells? no. Damage? no. Enchantments? no. Conjurations? rounds/level, so no. Buffs? possibly, but these typically aren't the ones cast in combat, and the ones cast in combat are rounds/level. So, in a given combat, what spells does your theoretical wizard cast to help the fight? Are any of these going to help him in the next fight? Apparently he just casts etherealness and sits in a corner. I've played many high level casters, and am aknowledged as a very good player of casters in our organization. I can tell you, every fight in which my spells are needed, I spend resources that I can't get back until the next day. Yeah, wizards who cast spells sure are badly played. Don't go there. We're talking builds, not playstyles. Your wizard's apparently all-mighty and powerful tricks are so many paper tigers. Other then mage armor, I didn't know that durations of 1 min or 10 min per level was considered long enought to keep around ALL the time. I'm sorry how many level 9 spells do you have that you can keep up shapechange around all the time? Polymorph is 1 min per level there so thats out of the question (and no longer persistantable as it's no longer a personal spell). Those stat boosters are also 1 min per level as well. I mean really it's becoming rather more and more obvious that you honestly have no idea about gish play (or your basically playing not by the rules in your group) if you think you can run around with poly up all the time. It doesn't have to be all the time, unless you're jumped randomly by monsters throughout the day. 6 hours of shapechange is usually plenty, though with an extend rod (greater), you get 12 hours of shapechange.If you get a 28 in your casting stat, you can have 18 hours of shapechange. At lower levels, you may have to cast polymorph in combat, but you should be able to extend it and cast it before. A stat booster lasting 40 minutes is generally long enough, and as a 3rd level spell can be recast if needed. You can poly yourself or the fighter...guess what's more effective? You can bull str yourself or the fighter...once again guess what's more effective? Gishes are WEAK period. Mechanic, they need the AC to even get on par with a FIGHTER in effectiveness of party balance. Oh and if you use all 8 to boost your caster aspect...why even bother with the sword and BAB at that point. You should just be a straight caster and play like one and be way WAY more effective that way Yourself, a fighter is crap without their stuff. The polymorph in my book is personal, but I think you're using the new thing which, according to you, can be cast on others. Why not polymorph both? It's a 4th level spell, go nuts. Bull's strength for everyone as well! You should have 7 or 8 slots of that level counting bonus spells and pearls of power, plenty of love to go around. You can hardly base your argument that something is weak because it gives its resources to others. A little arcane strike and maybe power attack and cleave are all a gish really needs from the fighter side. That's plenty reason to use a weapon, but he's not effective becuase of feats, he's effective because of spells. That may be why your gishes have all been weak. Based on the scenarios, numbers, and actual rules I've used in my arguments, gishes are not "WEAK." Please use some actual basis for your arguments if you wish to support your idea that the AC gish is weak, rather than speculations. Tell me what feats they can't have that they need. I think you'll find that when you try to support your argument with facts, it falls apart. Other then some experiemental runs, I basically stopped playing gishes due to how unplayable weak they are. Even with the AC, they maybe too weak for me to use in many games (we are currently in a rash of using published adventurers around here...at least with home brew games the difficulty can be toned to suit a gish in play, but in publish...nigh useless It is true that gishes are amongst the most difficult to build and play effectively, but I assure you, it can be done. I've done it regularly with the old material, and I blew my load when I read the AC for the first time. It's like an easy button from Staples, but for gishes. |
| Cold Napalm03-19-07, 06:05 PM | Okay raede, it seems it's rather clear that the problem is that your group seems to be using non updated rules (i.e. 3.0 poly if it is still written as personal), along with no updated erratas (i.e. polymorph and shapechange rules change. It's in the errata, look closer). Well you know if you mix rule sets, guess what, it breaks. Rules that you are not following aside (since we are talking about mechanical balance, please at least use the SRD for reference), some of your logic is flawed. So as a gish to be effective I have to use ALL my 9th level spells and 3 uses of a greater meta magic rod and this doesn't seem like a poor choice to you? As for the wizards...last I checked gate doesn't have a save...umm neither does time stop. Hell even maze doesn't have a save. or a twinned avasculate. Oh and if your wizards save DC is so bad that it's near DC 20 (pit fiends have +19 to +21 to save), then your a very poor wizard. Int 17+5 for levels+6 for item+5 for inherent = DC of at least +21 + spell level. That means that wizards wail has a DC of 30 (and this isn't even using any other DC boosts like oh say feats)...I'd hardly call that abile to save all the time for the pit fiend. I can get my 9th level save DC well into the 30 if I want...yeah the pit fiend is making that save all the time (i'm sorry but my d20 only goes to 20...what does your DM's d20 go to?!?). As for polymorphing and buffing everyone, well if your gonna do that, WHY a gish?!? Your straight caster can do it better, sooner and more often. As for transdimenstial spell, well it can be ruled either way (strict reading of the benefit section...which ends up making very little sense once you start plane hopping) or by the text before it (since the prime is coexistant to the ethreal it should work from ethreal to prime as well). But hey, if your DM rules your way, fine...a wall of force placed just right can work as well...or force cage(widened if needed because the dragon is a red great wyrm...cr 26). |
| teshen03-19-07, 07:42 PM | Transdimentional spell says that it has full effect on creatures on the ethereal plane. It says nothing about hitting creatures on the material plane from the ethereal plane. DMG says that no creature on the etheral plane can affect the material plane, not even magically. Only certain effects from the material can effect the ethereal. Good. Next time I play a game where the DM pulls out ethereal creatures, I'll laugh at them and tell them they can't touch me... up til the point they drain me to death. A ghost touch weapon or armor works on both planes. The transdimensional spell feat is like ghost touch for spells. What are these amazing feats that a gish absolutely has to have to keep up with a fighter? A gish sticking to the basics of AC, hit, and damage should be fine, because they already excel at that. And a fighter already gets base attack. So he's got the 'to hit' as covered as he's going to. 'Damage' can come from multiple sources, such as various power attack feat chains/combinations. Part of it can be magical equipment. Part of it can be combinations of prc features and feats that create a fighting style, like a tripper or an opportunist. And even though every character gets 7 character feats (8 if human), it helps to finish such feat chains early when they are more effective... and the only way to do that is get the feats earlier... which a gish doesn't do. He depends on spells (a finite source) over feats (a no limit per day thing). As long as your DM doesn't send you up against hoards of enemies, you'll be fine... If your DM just has random creatures attack you at random times in the day, yeah, it could be a problem. Taking a round to cast shapechange and be unhittable still isn't a bad idea. Hmmm.... random creature tables... a staple of D&D in all the editions... No, surely not...:rolleyes: And you need no round of buffs. Your shield is a swift action, your mage armor (if you use it) lasts all day. Your shapechange or other 10min/level buffs last 200 or 180 minutes, which is plenty. Rarely have I not had one of those buffs up when it mattered. Ignore the bull's strength etc., I forgot that you're better off using items that give enhancement bonuses anyhow. They still last 20 or 18 minutes, which is enough to clear the floor of a dungeon, and they're low level enough that you can cast them every floor. No combat rounds needed to buff. Except on the first one... where you threw up a quickened shield and then shapechanged... but on the whole your right. But for a gish with fewer high level slots... he can only use this puppy once or twice, so make it count... He could scribe some, but you can't quicken a scroll... I said "and saves against everything else you throw." Way to misread, tear apart what you incorrectly thought I said, and not respond to my assertion that 9th level spells typically don't solve CR20 encounters. I never claimed wizard 20 was weak, either. I merely claim that the optimally built AC gish is just as strong with many, many benefits besides. But a well used 9th level spell can end a CR 20 encounter. A character with high knowledge skills knows his enemies. He should be using the right tool for the right job... Not throwing fortitude based spells at tough monsters, reflex spells at quick monsters, and will saves against strong willed monsters... Enemy has a high AC? Throw something that requires a touch attack... or better yet, something that doesn't even require a to hit roll. Creature has spell resistance? Overpower it with feats like fortify spell if you must... or use some other avenue, like dropping shrunken heavy things on the critter, like a handful of rocks that become boulders. I saw a level 20 wizard end a fight with a heightened charm spell. He got the enemies to in-fight and it was done. My PHB says that if the new form can use the items, then it does. I understand there was some kind of rule change for polymorph, but it isn't part of the official errata in the errata section of the website, so I am both ignorant of its contents and they seem not to be canon. Errata isn't cannon? Cool. I'm still going to use the original Weretouched master then... Knowing something has changed and then deliberatly basing things on obsolete data is a poor way to argue a point. Google Polymorph errata. Why should the party complain if I take a minute to buff myself before going in a dungeon? It hurts them none, and takes almost no time. If I was in that party I'd get my canteen out, take a drink, and by the time I was done, the gish is ready to go. Theoretically yes. What spells does a wizard cast to change the nature of a combat that lasts between combats? Wall spells? no. Damage? no. Enchantments? no. Conjurations? rounds/level, so no. Buffs? possibly, but these typically aren't the ones cast in combat, and the ones cast in combat are rounds/level. So, in a given combat, what spells does your theoretical wizard cast to help the fight? Are any of these going to help him in the next fight? Apparently he just casts etherealness and sits in a corner. No. You miss the point. This is where having four 9th level spell slots verses a minmaxed gish's one or two allow an arcanist to do the same thing again if he needs to. If, as a gish, you blow your shapechange earlier in the day and you need it again latter (and your druid is off navel gazing)... you got nothing. As an arcanist, you can do it again (especially if you spent a feat on signature spell or you are a sorcerer). I've played many high level casters, and am aknowledged as a very good player of casters in our organization. Your organization? Do you have a D&D mafia? :incog: If you mean your gaming circle/buddies, then maybe you're the big fish in a small pond. I played with a group that didn't have a good grasp on all the rules when I started playing... I went down to small fish when I found a good group because my basics weren't there... I had to get a stronger grasp of things to make stronger characters to earn acknowledgement. My knowledge of D&D has grown over time, but I freely admit my minmax fu isn't that strong and I can still be surprised by things I just never noticed before, especially with the myriad of books WotC keeps pushing. I can tell you, every fight in which my spells are needed, I spend resources that I can't get back until the next day. Yeah, wizards who cast spells sure are badly played. Don't go there. We're talking builds, not playstyles. Your wizard's apparently all-mighty and powerful tricks are so many paper tigers. What are you trying to say here? The Abjurant Champion does indeed play to a certain style. The Abjurant Champion doesn't use armor and his techniques play to the buffing, quick, fighter caster. You can build a gish that depends on heavy armor if you tack on the right prcs and that difference in build will in turn determine the character's strengths and, thus, the playstyle. And if you talk about wizards 'all-mighty and powerful tricks are so many paper tigers' then are you denying that high level spells aren't strong and certain spell combinations aren't even more potent? Tack on either feats or prcs or both that add even more power to the magic of a focused caster and you can effectively cast 9th level spells from seventh level slots or worse... It doesn't have to be all the time, unless you're jumped randomly by monsters throughout the day. 6 hours of shapechange is usually plenty, though with an extend rod (greater), you get 12 hours of shapechange.If you get a 28 in your casting stat, you can have 18 hours of shapechange. Six hours is easily circumvented. However, you are right that regularly having twelve can usually cover your bases. (Except a druid has as many hours as he has levels... and he could do it all the time... opps... I forgot, you seem to play core games without clerics or druids). At lower levels, you may have to cast polymorph in combat, but you should be able to extend it and cast it before. A stat booster lasting 40 minutes is generally long enough, and as a 3rd level spell can be recast if needed. True enough. And as you pointed out, stat boosting items can be just as good or better at these points. Yourself, a fighter is crap without their stuff. The polymorph in my book is personal, but I think you're using the new thing which, according to you, can be cast on others. Why not polymorph both? It's a 4th level spell, go nuts. Bull's strength for everyone as well! You should have 7 or 8 slots of that level counting bonus spells and pearls of power, plenty of love to go around. You can hardly base your argument that something is weak because it gives its resources to others. But if everyone can have it, it ceases to be a contributing factor to differences in power. Also, the idea that something is less special because it is not exclusive is easy to make. A little arcane strike and maybe power attack and cleave are all a gish really needs from the fighter side. That's plenty reason to use a weapon, but he's not effective becuase of feats, he's effective because of spells. That may be why your gishes have all been weak. Based on the scenarios, numbers, and actual rules I've used in my arguments, gishes are not "WEAK." Please use some actual basis for your arguments if you wish to support your idea that the AC gish is weak, rather than speculations. Tell me what feats they can't have that they need. I think you'll find that when you try to support your argument with facts, it falls apart. And you're right that a gish uses spells instead of feats... but a fighter can get to the end of a feat chain/feat combination many levels sooner than a gish ever could... so those spells better do what the feats of a power charger allow him to do... It is true that gishes are amongst the most difficult to build and play effectively, but I assure you, it can be done. I've done it regularly with the old material. . . And that statement is making a host of assumptions I don't even want to tackle... Such as... Did you play straight through, 1-20, or did you skip the first couple of levels? What kind of a storyteller do you have? How long have you known him/her? Did you talk about the game outside of the game... getting hints as to what is coming up so you'd tailor your characters? Do you own a lot of game material to draw from? Does your storyteller get creative or does he just throw things at you? Did your DM ever take it easy on you? . . .and I blew my load when I read the AC for the first time. :gah: T(oo)M(uch)I(nformation). I have to agree with Cold Naplam that if you play the game with new material without the new changes, things are going to go poorly. |
| Raede03-19-07, 10:09 PM | Apparently, noone at WotC can agree on exactly what the new errata is for polymorph. The best I could find was here: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=589497 This ruling means that shapechanging in combat would not allow you to use items, but if you shapechange first, and then put on the items, you're good to go. It wouldn't boost your HP, but it would crank your ref, fort, AC, and strength. Now then, rebuttal goodness! Good. Next time I play a game where the DM pulls out ethereal creatures, I'll laugh at them and tell them they can't touch me... up til the point they drain me to death. Ghosts get an ability called manifestation which lets it partly enter the material plane. Straight from the SRD: "While its possible to hit ethereal enemies with a force spell cast on the Material Plane, the reverse isnt possible. No magical attacks cross from the Ethereal Plane to the Material Plane, including force attacks." It's easier to get effects to cross from material to ethereal but not reverse. A ghost touch weapon or armor works on both planes. The transdimensional spell feat is like ghost touch for spells. Ghost touch is for incorporeal creatures, not ethereal. Big difference. That's why it specifies that a ghost has to be manifesting to wield the weapon against material foes. Hmmm.... random creature tables... a staple of D&D in all the editions... No, surely not... I've not had a DM roll on this for ages. The random encounter table is for when the DM hasn't prepared material for the plot. Therefore, by definition the monsters generated won't matter for the purpose of furthering the plot, and can be ignored or trampled as necessary. This is a tool for unprepared DMs, not a regular story item. Except on the first one... where you threw up a quickened shield and then shapechanged... but on the whole your right. I keep trying to say that shapechange can be done out of combat. I'm playing a gish right now in a game that even at level 7 (started at 3) has never had to fight without his 10min/lvl buffs, and he can only cast them once per day. But a well used 9th level spell can end a CR 20 encounter. A character with high knowledge skills knows his enemies. He should be using the right tool for the right job... Not throwing fortitude based spells at tough monsters, reflex spells at quick monsters, and will saves against strong willed monsters... Enemy has a high AC? Throw something that requires a touch attack... or better yet, something that doesn't even require a to hit roll. Creature has spell resistance? Overpower it with feats like fortify spell if you must... or use some other avenue, like dropping shrunken heavy things on the critter, like a handful of rocks that become boulders. I saw a level 20 wizard end a fight with a heightened charm spell. He got the enemies to in-fight and it was done. Dragon comes at you. What 9th level spell ends that encounter? Summoning an outsider with a gate spell helps, but doesn't fix it, and that costs XP. Even a save is only 50/50 at best, and I've never known a DM to give out a creature's exact saves with a knowledge check. You get 1 interesting tidbit per 5 you get above the base difficulty set by its HD, and high level creatures have alot of resistances to go through. Errata isn't cannon? Cool. I'm still going to use the original Weretouched master then... Knowing something has changed and then deliberatly basing things on obsolete data is a poor way to argue a point. Google Polymorph errata. WotC as a company has endorsed no change to polymorph that I can find. If it was an official errata, it would be in the errata section you'd think. If I'm wrong, link me to the page. This is where having four 9th level spell slots verses a minmaxed gish's one or two allow an arcanist to do the same thing again if he needs to. If, as a gish, you blow your shapechange earlier in the day and you need it again latter (and your druid is off navel gazing)... you got nothing. As an arcanist, you can do it again (especially if you spent a feat on signature spell or you are a sorcerer). It's the difference between twice and four times. Really splitting hairs. Your organization? Do you have a D&D mafia? Yes. And we're looking in your window this very moment :detect: Nah, the 30 gamers or so at my college in our gaming club. And if you talk about wizards 'all-mighty and powerful tricks are so many paper tigers' then are you denying that high level spells aren't strong and certain spell combinations aren't even more potent? I'm talking about these theoretical awesome spells which completely solve an encounter. The last time I played a high level caster, it was virtually impossible for me to affect the DMs precious NPCs. He protected them that well because of what I had done at lower levels. Outside of that game, I have never seen a spellcaster end the fight with the BBEG in one round. Or any other challenging fight, for that matter. But if everyone can have it, it ceases to be a contributing factor to differences in power. Also, the idea that something is less special because it is not exclusive is easy to make. I think you missed the point. I mean that just because you're buffing teammates rather than yourself doesn't make the build any less strong. A character that can make their allies powerful is still a strong character. And that statement is making a host of assumptions I don't even want to tackle... Such as... Did you play straight through, 1-20, or did you skip the first couple of levels? What kind of a storyteller do you have? How long have you known him/her? Did you talk about the game outside of the game... getting hints as to what is coming up so you'd tailor your characters? Do you own a lot of game material to draw from? Does your storyteller get creative or does he just throw things at you? Did your DM ever take it easy on you? Assume a normal D&D game. Various levels, various sections of play, never all the way from 1-20. I have played all levels 1-20 gish, but noncontiguous. All that stuff about the storyteller gets into metagaming. I've had many storytellers, none of whom spilled the beans before a session. I used to have a small pool of options to draw on, but as 3.5 expanded, so did the options. I always at least had complete warrior. So as a gish to be effective I have to use ALL my 9th level spells and 3 uses of a greater meta magic rod and this doesn't seem like a poor choice to you? Not if it makes you into a god-tank. Being nearly unstoppable and nearly invulnerable seems a fantastic tradeoff. I maintain that you should be able to get most jobs done in 6 hours. You may have only a couple DMs who have massive time intervals thrown in always for some reason, I can't say. I have been in dozens of games where that has not been the case. I can't think of one where encounters all day was a rule rather than an exception. It happens sometimes in a game, to be sure, but not often. As for the wizards...last I checked gate doesn't have a save...umm neither does time stop. Hell even maze doesn't have a save. or a twinned avasculate. Oh and if your wizards save DC is so bad that it's near DC 20 (pit fiends have +19 to +21 to save), then your a very poor wizard. Int 17+5 for levels+6 for item+5 for inherent = DC of at least +21 + spell level. That means that wizards wail has a DC of 30 (and this isn't even using any other DC boosts like oh say feats)...I'd hardly call that abile to save all the time for the pit fiend. I can get my 9th level save DC well into the 30 if I want...yeah the pit fiend is making that save all the time (i'm sorry but my d20 only goes to 20...what does your DM's d20 go to?!?). Last I checked a gate spell was never going to instantly resolve an encounter, either. Time stop has no save, but stopping time for 1d4+1 rounds doesn't kill the monster. It lets you cast some other stuff, but those are other spells, and combined are not likely to destroy the monster either. Yes an easy encounter for you only makes the save half the time (CR 20 for a level 20 party) The thing is, the AC build I proposed can do the same thing, with a DC only 2 or 3 lower at most. But, like you say, there is no DC on gate or time stop. And, instead of trying to kill the thing outright, they have the BAB worth spending an enhancing spell on themselves for, and can pummel the enemy into submission. Most DMs I know wouldn't send an encounter level lower 22 at a level 20 party, because level 20 parties tend to be very strong. As for transdimenstial spell, well it can be ruled either way (strict reading of the benefit section...which ends up making very little sense once you start plane hopping) or by the text before it (since the prime is coexistant to the ethreal it should work from ethreal to prime as well). But hey, if your DM rules your way, fine...a wall of force placed just right can work as well...or force cage(widened if needed because the dragon is a red great wyrm...cr 26). This isn't a gray area to be houseruled, it's pretty clear. "A transdimensional spell has full, normal effect upon incorporeal creatures, creatures on the Ethereal Plane or Plane of Shadow, and creatures within an extradimensional space in the spell's area." Do you see material creatures or the material plane mentioned anywhere in that? Also, as I mentioned earlier in this post, even force spells cast on the ethereal plane do not affect the material. It's in the SRD. Houserule forums are elsewhere. Now for further discussion: Shapechange and polymorph is not necessary to make an AC strong. It just lets them be cheesy. We'll pretend those spells don't exist for a moment even though they do and they let the AC be very powerful. The AC gishes are still strong when they use magic armor, with their shield spell, almost-full BAB (3 off), and almost full spellcasting (2 off). I can still get an AC's AC to 50 on 250k gold, which is only 1/3 of a 20th level character's gold. I'd like to see a full caster get that high. I've left off discussion of clerics and druids because divine magic is not the same as arcane magic. Not necessarily weaker, just different. It is in the design of the game to make arcane more difficult to do, probably because it works so well for so many things. Arguing arcane vs divine is outside the scope of this thread. Arguing that AC is nearly as potent magically as a full caster and much more potent as an overall character is what my argument is. |
| Cold Napalm03-20-07, 03:52 AM | Okay raede, I tried to to polite about this but IF YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO USE STANARD RULE SET (i.e. errata/SRD at the very least) THEN YOU NEED TO BOW OUT OF THE BALANCE ISSUE NOW. Stop giving me you can't find it excuse, use the SRD and stop giving well my group do it this way or my old book says this. We are talking about mecahnical balance and your not playing by even remotely stanard rules at this point so all your argument is quite moot. Your groups don't use random encounter...great...most here do. To say it's negligable because YOUR group doesn't use it is rather egotistical isn't it? Not to mention it's a stable of most published adventures as well. Oh and it's so nice to know that you DM is nice enough to to let you know when your about to fight. 70 min buffs for EVERY fight?!? Give me a break. If they enemies are that bloody dumb all the time, well I guess your gish the the l33t. Honestly the more and more you talk, the more and more it sounds like your a big fish in a little tiny pond. If you think that divine vs arcane is just different, you honestly have no idea. Go visit the CO board and see what they do with clerics and druid compared to you uber gish build. Hell compare their uber gish build to their clerics and druids. It's not even funny. A dragon comes at me, I dont even need a 9th level spell. 7th will do just fine. Force cage. 40 hours of dragon stuck in a cage where we can plink at it from 1000 feet away with arrows. Sure we have -20 to hit, but we have 40 HOURS. Besides my full caster saves at level 20 has reach over 40 for 9th level spells (well technically over 60 using the wu jen) so 50/50 my butt. I'm looking at 5-10% failure rate here. If your spell casters have never ended a fight in a round, they are pretty bad spell casters. Let see, spells that ended an encounter (or good as) in a round...dominate, charm, hold person, stinking cloud, force cage, prismatic shpere, shivering touch(okay so this spell is kinda broke and it was maximized), ray of stupidity, ray of dizziness, Orb of ice (well it was twinned and maximized and empowered and I rolled well on the empowered part...although I think the dice roll was over kill as it did 180 damage before the empowered)...to name a few. As for a full caster getting high AC, the point is you don't HAVE to. The reason gishes get hit is because they go into melee. If you get hit before your ready, you as dead as the wizard. The wizard should if played smart never get into that situation. You spend your round to buff, me as a wizard use that round to either make me safe or more intelligently to elimate the threat. Okay so the DM can use situations the screw over wizards (like say using a bunch of hidden and invisiable and silenced rogues since most wizards have pretty bad spot checks to begin with...not that anyone will make the DC to spot a rogue with full ranks AND +20 bonus) while making the gish more useful (since they have more flat footed AC and HP...but then again the fighter will shine even more in this case and the rogue will be in nova shiny mode) and it should come up sometimes, but if it's happening all the time, it's not a balance issue so much as a DM issue. The point of buffing the ally is that your BETTER at it if your not a gish so why do it? If all your gonna do is spend round after round buffing (hopefully smartly on the fighter or rogue or somebody who can use it better then you) then why even bother with the AC and hit points and BAB if your not gonna use it?!? IF this is what you do with a gish, then don't be a gish and waste all those resources, just be a caster out and out. Your not a gish at that point, you a caster who just gave up roughly 75% of your power for stuff your not using 90% of the time. IF you play like a gish, then you as a party are just that much weaker. Oh great, we have a low HP, low feat charactering up ther tanking instead of the high HP, high feat character who could have been made oh so much better then you. |
| Archangel6203-20-07, 04:27 AM | The actual question is more this, if I do this and you want to compare me to a pure caster, why not compare my Gish build with AC to...say a wizard/Incantatrix, or maybe a Wizard/Master Specialist/Archmage? Or would that be closer to comparing the relative power of prestige classes in different scenarios and designs? A Gish design can be nice, but the real problem is that divine has better buffs and boosters, and they can go in full armor from the get-go. A gish needs more upgrades and redesigns to work that way. Consider other prestige classes like the phantom knight, or any other dozen designs out there for gishes and you'll start to see that the term overpowered is often used out of context versus what the class could do if it was designed differently. |
| Dethro03-20-07, 04:32 AM | The point of buffing the ally is that your BETTER at it if your not a gish so why do it? If all your gonna do is spend round after round buffing (hopefully smartly on the fighter or rogue or somebody who can use it better then you) then why even bother with the AC and hit points and BAB if your not gonna use it?!? IF this is what you do with a gish, then don't be a gish and waste all those resources, just be a caster out and out. Your not a gish at that point, you a caster who just gave up roughly 75% of your power for stuff your not using 90% of the time. IF you play like a gish, then you as a party are just that much weaker. Oh great, we have a low HP, low feat charactering up ther tanking instead of the high HP, high feat character who could have been made oh so much better then you. I will agree with you on all of your points, but at this one I have to say that I've found one of the few situations where this actually doesn't apply: If you are a psion. I'm playing a psion 'gish', and they are about the only blasting class that benefits from being a tank as well. Kinda figures too, since they aren't really a team player. Still, I agree with what you are saying. My group uses random encounters sparingly but, nonetheless they are there. |
| Archangel6203-20-07, 04:44 AM | I will agree with you on all of your points, but at this one I have to say that I've found one of the few situations where this actually doesn't apply: If you are a psion. I'm playing a psion 'gish', and they are about the only blasting class that benefits from being a tank as well. Kinda figures too, since they aren't really a team player. Still, I agree with what you are saying. My group uses random encounters sparingly but, nonetheless they are there. Meh, if I want to be a buffing arcanist I play a war weaver, if I just want to be a buffer I go cleric so I can heal too. |
| Raede03-20-07, 02:35 PM | Okay raede, I tried to to polite about this but IF YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO USE STANARD RULE SET (i.e. errata/SRD at the very least) THEN YOU NEED TO BOW OUT OF THE BALANCE ISSUE NOW. Stop giving me you can't find it excuse, use the SRD and stop giving well my group do it this way or my old book says this. We are talking about mecahnical balance and your not playing by even remotely stanard rules at this point so all your argument is quite moot. I'm simply using the SRD. Because noone seems to be able to find the polyomprh errata, I restructured my argument without polymorph spells. Before you tell me to 'stop giving you the can't find it excuse' find it yourself. I can't be held accountable for something that doesn't exist. If it does exist, prove it. Until I see a link on the WotC site saying that there is a single official polymorph errata, I cannot assume that it is part of the rules. In the meantime, I took you at your word and stopped using polymorph spells altogether in my example. Just because you want to houserule transdimensional spell doesn't mean that it works that way by RAW. Tell me, what rules exactly am I using incorrectly? I want to know. I'm happy to learn my mistakes. I'm using completely standard rules. I'd say your argument is moot, but you haven't made a coherent one. What is your argument anyway? What's your thesis? Oh and it's so nice to know that you DM is nice enough to to let you know when your about to fight. 70 min buffs for EVERY fight?!? Give me a break. If they enemies are that bloody dumb all the time, well I guess your gish the the l33t. Honestly the more and more you talk, the more and more it sounds like your a big fish in a little tiny pond. I've been in two fairly large 'ponds' (20 and 30) in two different states. Noone in either group relied on random encounters to move the game along. Used them occasionally, yes. The reason my lvl 7 gish has been so successful in keeping buffs up is that it's an urban game, and we go on missions to raid drug labs, kill monsters, etc. This format is very amenable to buffing because most of the time we choose when to start a fight. In other games, I buff before going into the dungeon, etc. Most of the time, you know that something bad is probably around the corner, or you can send a stealthy scout ahead. You've made plenty of assertions to the backwardness of my group. What kind of gaming group ('pond') do you come from Napalm? A multinational conglomeration of thousands? If you think that divine vs arcane is just different, you honestly have no idea. Go visit the CO board and see what they do with clerics and druid compared to you uber gish build. Hell compare their uber gish build to their clerics and druids. It's not even funny. No idea what this 'CO' board is, but again, you try to turn this into a gish vs cleric/druid argument, which it isn't. A dragon comes at me, I dont even need a 9th level spell. 7th will do just fine. Force cage. 40 hours of dragon stuck in a cage where we can plink at it from 1000 feet away with arrows. Sure we have -20 to hit, but we have 40 HOURS. Besides my full caster saves at level 20 has reach over 40 for 9th level spells (well technically over 60 using the wu jen) so 50/50 my butt. I'm looking at 5-10% failure rate here. Unless the dragon is too big to fit, or casts disintegrate on the forcecage, or casts teleport or dim door. There's a counter to pretty much everything. I have no idea how you'd get a save to DC 40 from starting with an 18 using any non-setting specific PrC in a WotC supplement. Even with feats or special abilities giving you a +4 DC and a +6 item, you're still looking at a 34. You must play with some broken, broken stuff. No wonder you think the AC is weak if such powerful other tools are lying around. You spend your round to buff, me as a wizard use that round to either make me safe or more intelligently to elimate the threat. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: I'll say it one last time, and put it in caps. This makes it at least the third time I've said it. MY GISH EXAMPLE DOES NOT SPEND THE FIRST ROUND OF COMBAT BUFFING. He casts a quickened shield in the first round, and then he can throw forcecage or a 9th level spell or whatever. If you're going to argue with my post, at least read it. I did say that sometimes they may want to cast shapechange or polymorph in the first round, which is a good option, but they don't have to in order to be effective. Because noone has shown me a WotC article on polymorph errata, I'm not using it, which puts me at a disadvantage, but that's ok with me. You keep saying it's easy to find, but I haven't seen anyone come up with anything. Maybe it isn't so easy? As for a full caster getting high AC, the point is you don't HAVE to. The reason gishes get hit is because they go into melee. If you get hit before your ready, you as dead as the wizard. The wizard should if played smart never get into that situation. You spend your round to buff, me as a wizard use that round to either make me safe or more intelligently to elimate the threat. Okay so the DM can use situations the screw over wizards (like say using a bunch of hidden and invisiable and silenced rogues since most wizards have pretty bad spot checks to begin with...not that anyone will make the DC to spot a rogue with full ranks AND +20 bonus) while making the gish more useful (since they have more flat footed AC and HP...but then again the fighter will shine even more in this case and the rogue will be in nova shiny mode) and it should come up sometimes, but if it's happening all the time, it's not a balance issue so much as a DM issue. It is true that the wizard is generally in melee less often, but they can still be put there by many enemies. Ranged attacks can also turn a caster into a pincushion. The two weaknesses of an arcane caster are defenses and resources that can only be used a few times per day. The gish eliminates the first and helps greatly with the second. The point of buffing the ally is that your BETTER at it if your not a gish so why do it? If all your gonna do is spend round after round buffing (hopefully smartly on the fighter or rogue or somebody who can use it better then you) then why even bother with the AC and hit points and BAB if your not gonna use it?!? IF this is what you do with a gish, then don't be a gish and waste all those resources, just be a caster out and out. Spending round after round in combat buffing is indeed silly. I'm not advocating doing that. You seem to be the only one saying that gishes need to buff in combat. I've made no such argument. Your not a gish at that point, you a caster who just gave up roughly 75% of your power for stuff your not using 90% of the time. IF you play like a gish, then you as a party are just that much weaker. Oh great, we have a low HP, low feat charactering up ther tanking instead of the high HP, high feat character who could have been made oh so much better then you. 4 spells per day spread over a few levels, a couple points in the casting stat, and 2 or 3 extra feats is all the AC gish example has given up. Hardly 75% of your power. No reason you can't play an AC gish like a full spellcaster, either. Your DCs may be 2 or 3 lower, but there are plenty of good spells where DC is not a factor. If you're smart, you'll blend fighting and spellcasting, which brings us back to comparing the AC gish and an arcane spellcaster. After arguing for a while, and giving it some more thought, it boiles down to this: What tradeoff do you think is appropriate for a few levels of spellcasting or a few feats? For the overall AC gish build I speculated, the tradeoff is two levels of spellcasting for +7 BAB, +9AC (because they don't have to waste combat rounds to cast shield in combat), weapon and armor proficiencies, ability to wear armor and cast (no idea where thistledown padding is from, but it sounds broken. Noone uses it around here), +~50 hit points, and +5 fort, +1 will, and -1 ref. Having to take combat casting is balanced by the fact that EK gives you a bonus feat. Too much, if you ask me. For a full caster to splash AC, they are sacrificing one or two feats and getting +9 AC (being able to cast shield every combat as a swift action), all their abjurations extended for free, 2 feats, 3 BAB, and +~15 HP. The arcane boost ability probably won't help them much, but it might. I think that trade gives you a little too much. For a fighter-type to splash a caster level and then AC, they are sacrificing a lot to get some neat tricks, but generally it isn't that great of an option for most builds. Basically, it's too good for casters and gishes alike IMO. Not enough sacrificed for too much gained. I do agree that EK is too weak (and AC is basically EK but much much better.) This is my opinion. This is what everything boils down to. The crux. We can bicker about little things all day long, but this is the essential point. What tradeoff is appropriate? Your opinion obviously differs on this. I'd personally would be satisfied if the first or second level and the fifth level of AC had no spellcasting. It would make gishes work just a little harder, and deter spellcasters. The 5th level ability is for fighters anyway. I also think that EK needs some abilities similar to what the AC gets (not for abjuration effects, but some sort of ability to blend casting and fighting.) That's where I think the balance point lies, and it is essentially impossible to prove definitively that one opinion is too good, or one too weak. It all comes down to a subjective opinion. If I was a full caster, I would look at my gish ally casting the same levels of spells at me as stepping on my niche a bit, but since he's 3 levels of spells/day/known, I'd still be the clearly superior caster, especially with my feats and PrC options. When he's just 2 levels down, he is always one step behind me, and at the end casts the same spells I do. When he's 3 down, he is a step and a half behind me, filling in my gaps for me, and at the end can only do 1/4 as much of the really powerful spells as I can. This progression of casting is incredibly playable for the gish because AC gives him some nice abilities too. I can feel secure in my superior survivability so that the caster doesn't outshine me, and Between the two of us we can organize some really cool stuff, especially with some of the newer combo spells (like that buffed-up ray of enfeeblement on fatigued or exhausted targets). Then caster can do waves of fatigue and the gish can do the ray so that between the two of them, the enemy is completely hosed. It's all about synergy and playing in a party. I believe a gish should not be as good of a caster as the caster, or as good of a fighter as the fighter, but should blend the two and be as effective as 3/4 of either alone, and because of the synergy of blending casting and fighting comes out as a whole character. That being said, I'd like to have a duskblade that gets up to 8th level spells and picks off the main sorc/wiz list, but has a 3/4 BAB. I've learned a good deal arguing and counter-arguing in this thread, and all sarcasm aside I really would love it if someone linked to a WotC official endorsing new polymorph errata. Anyway, it's been fun. My arguments are there. I'm fairly sure I've said all I need to say, and though Napalm will probably misinterpret some of the things I say, that's alright. People can read for themselves. |
| AllisterH03-20-07, 03:13 PM | 1. Ninth level spells are just plain broken. No question about it, EVERY argument on this board with regard to balance between the classes seems to focus on the 9th level spells. 2. Pretty much, when 9th level spells kick in, it doesn't matter how many you have, but just who goes first so I tend to side with Raede in this debate with regard to the supposed advantage of knowing MORE spells. 3. The AC highlights the weakness of the design of the wizard class. In a vacuum of there being only 1 prestige class, pretty much there is no reason NOT to become an AC but this applies to pretty much EVERY SINGLE full spellcasting level prestige class WOTC has printed except ironically for the first one, namely Loremaster. 4. It also doesn't factor in what happens before 17th level is reached. A 1/9/5 Ftr/Wizard/AC versus a 15 wizard seems quite clearly tilted towards the gish even though the single class wizard gets access to 8th level spells. (8th level spells are better than 7th but many are just SLIGHTLY improved unlike the jump from 8th to 9th). Hell, make it a 10/5 wiz/AC and I'm not seeing any reason NOT to take that prestige class. |
| Cold Napalm03-20-07, 04:21 PM | Okay raede, I call everything you get as as a gish and tell me how that even remotely compares to...4 meta magic feats, instant metamagic twice per day (no raise in spell level or casting time), Can apply meta magic to spell other casts, effects in place and spell from spell trigger, steal concentration spells and ALL meta magic cost 1 less spell level (min 1)...all this for iron will (and a meta magic feat...oh that is such a cost for a wizard). No your cheesy gish build just isn't gonna hold up at all. You are in a small pond because the DM and players you play with skill level, not the size. Let see I play RPGA living grey hawk, living city (both which ARE multi-national conglmerations of thousands) as well as play with people from germany, italy, england, japan as well as from local. So yeah I guess maybe my group is a bit more diverse then your 2 states...but I live in a metroplitian area so that is to be expected. But that said, most of the groups I play in are in fact small ponds. In most groups my gish builds would be considered broken and over powered because they just don't understand and use the rules to that level of efficency. The cleric is a healer and the druid wildshapes for movement effect. Spell are not chosen wisely and the wizard is played more like a warmage (in fact in many of my groups the warmage is considered broken...without the rainbow servant PrC). But there are a few groups here that play more aggressively. More optimized and intelligently. This is the big pond and in these groups, I'm considered one of the weaker players. You sir are in a little pond. No random encounter, no smart enemies that cast divination spells that see what the party does at their enterence so that the enemies can retreat and hide for all those short term buff that the party throw up goes away, no alarm traps or spells, no just teleporting away or using excape doors and fighting at a more advantageous point, no use of scouts (if you use scouts...like you should, why are the bad guys not doing the same)? Basically what your descibing is a small pond game. The bad guys aren't smart and effective. Your party is probably not scared to death of kobalds (they all have craft trap in class after all). The dragon will only be too big as the oldest red dragon in which case widened works fine. They can counter act it if they have selected the right spells with their sorcerer spell list true, but that is one round that the dragon can't do anything else. Hey guess what a round is worth in high level play? It usually means death since a fighter can do over the dragon's HP in damage in a round with the right build (one of our fighter in game does over 400 damage in a round at level 14). And the ONLY reason you don't buff in combat is because you DM allows that to happen. Guess what, many games don't work like that. Even in my small pond groups, the DM plays critters smarter then that. Since you admit that the types of game involves a bias towards this maybe it is once again your playstyle that is the issue at hand and not a mechanical imbalance? Oh no that just couldn't be it.... In general your gonna have to spend a round at least buffing up before a fight (usually more before shapechange as going into a fight as a gish in annis hag form with gish HP mean death...you need things like displacement). Transdimential spell specifically says that the spell effects coexistant planes (read the part before the benefits). The benefit gives a list based off if your in the prime. But guess what, EVERY SINGLE ONE of those planes are not coexisitant if you in the outer planes (in which case the astral plane is the coexisitant one I believe unless the cosmology changed from 2nd and 3rd since I didn't buy the 3rd ed plane book...can somebody with that book check please). If you are ethreal, then the shadow plane is no longer coexistant and if you are in the shadow, then the ethreal is no longer coexistant. If your argument is that no effect from ethreal goes to the prime, then I can just do this from the shadow plane as that has no such restriction. In anycase in most of our groups, we use the coexistant plane rule over the what seems to be an example given off prime that is in the benefit section. Of course I have seen it ruled otherwise so it is something that very much a DM call since the rules are kinda contradictory in this case (like so many rules are in D&D). Once again if your wizards enter melee or are pin cushioned all the time while your gishes NEVER have to worry about buffing in combat, me thinks there is a DM issue here and not a mechanical issue. The EK is a WEAK class. It's used as a filler class for gishes because there is NOTHING else. The AC alone looks good, too good. But when you apply it to casters, well why is the caster taking AC instead of master specalist or incantrix or haluraa elder or even the red mage or lore master? When you apply to gish build, it makes it so that a weak, VERY weak acrhetype is shored up in power a bit. The class alone is very powerful, but in applicable use, it's not. Now if we have another class like this available, we're gonna start having some balance issues. Hopefully wizards will be smart about this, but I bet is no (so yes it does have the potential to break). Try playing shackled city with gish builds and see how that works out. |
| TheDarkLord03-20-07, 05:11 PM | 1. Ninth level spells are just plain broken. No question about it, EVERY argument on this board with regard to balance between the classes seems to focus on the 9th level spells. No, just because through highly intelligent metagame use of said spells doesn't mean they Are broken, it means they Can be broken. Meteor sworm and Wail of the Banshee are not broken, and in fact, I hardly ever see Meteor swarm used except to finish off an encounter the PC's are about to win anyway. 2. Pretty much, when 9th level spells kick in, it doesn't matter how many you have, but just who goes first so I tend to side with Raede in this debate with regard to the supposed advantage of knowing MORE spells. From a single encounter per day standpoint this is true. More does not equal better. But a multiple encounter a Day issue comes up during standard play. Going nova once is good and all, but to do it effectively more than once you have to have access to more High level spells per day. Hence the reason gishes cannot last at high level's as effectively as a full caster. 3. The AC highlights the weakness of the design of the wizard class. In a vacuum of there being only 1 prestige class, pretty much there is no reason NOT to become an AC but this applies to pretty much EVERY SINGLE full spellcasting level prestige class WOTC has printed except ironically for the first one, namely Loremaster. AC's are weak for full spellcasters. You get much greater benefit from the other PrC's out there. Even in a vaccum, I might not take the AC because I need my feats for all those delicious Metamagic feats available out there. 4. It also doesn't factor in what happens before 17th level is reached. A 1/9/5 Ftr/Wizard/AC versus a 15 wizard seems quite clearly tilted towards the gish even though the single class wizard gets access to 8th level spells. (8th level spells are better than 7th but many are just SLIGHTLY improved unlike the jump from 8th to 9th). Hell, make it a 10/5 wiz/AC and I'm not seeing any reason NOT to take that prestige class. Even before 17th level, I would put my money on any optimally built wizard over an optimal gish. And there are many 8th level spells out there that rock, Maze, Polymorph any Object, Prismatic Wall, Telekinetic sphere, those are just to name a few. After 13th level, Melee becomes secondary to any kind of casting. Once 7th level spells come into play (ie Finger of Death, Limited Wish, Prismatic Spray, Forcecage), Casters Will always Win. |
| Raede03-20-07, 08:23 PM | You are in a small pond because the DM and players you play with skill level, not the size. Let see I play RPGA living grey hawk, living city (both which ARE multi-national conglmerations of thousands) as well as play with people from germany, italy, england, japan as well as from local. So yeah I guess maybe my group is a bit more diverse then your 2 states...but I live in a metroplitian area so that is to be expected. But that said, most of the groups I play in are in fact small ponds. In most groups my gish builds would be considered broken and over powered because they just don't understand and use the rules to that level of efficency. The cleric is a healer and the druid wildshapes for movement effect. Spell are not chosen wisely and the wizard is played more like a warmage (in fact in many of my groups the warmage is considered broken...without the rainbow servant PrC). But there are a few groups here that play more aggressively. More optimized and intelligently. This is the big pond and in these groups, I'm considered one of the weaker players. You sir are in a little pond. No random encounter, no smart enemies that cast divination spells that see what the party does at their enterence so that the enemies can retreat and hide for all those short term buff that the party throw up goes away, no alarm traps or spells, no just teleporting away or using excape doors and fighting at a more advantageous point, no use of scouts (if you use scouts...like you should, why are the bad guys not doing the same)? Basically what your descibing is a small pond game. The bad guys aren't smart and effective. Your party is probably not scared to death of kobalds (they all have craft trap in class after all). You'll find this funny: not only do I play Living Greyhawk in the RPGA...I run it. In fact, I charge 10$ a head and people consider themselves well off, going so far as to cross state lines to play. I have experience with 2nd, 3rd, and 3.5 ed d&d, old WoD (hunter, vamp, werewolf), new WoD (vamp, werewolf, mage, promethean), d20 modern, Midnight, BESM, star wars, DeadEarth, Arcana Evolved, and a few other small things. I've played shackled city, but mostly people tend to run homebrews because modules tend to be thin excuses to kill things with a hokey storyline thrown in for kicks. I've been playing at 3.5 since it came out, and have made and played dozens of characters in as many games with a host of different DMs as well as DMing a few myself. So don't look down on me because you think I'm in some backwater with 4 other guys in the basement of the DM's parent's house. I've played with many people, in many circles, in many places, in many games, and am involved in the same organization you cling to to show your superiority. I think you'll find my pond to be quite vast, and certainly larger than yours. As for transdimentional spell, like any feat in D&D you go off the rule text under "benefit", not the flavor text. Just like you go off of the full spell description and not the short listing in the front of the spell section when there is a discrepancy between the two. You learn these things once you're a veteran like me. Okay raede, I call everything you get as as a gish and tell me how that even remotely compares to...4 meta magic feats, instant metamagic twice per day (no raise in spell level or casting time), Can apply meta magic to spell other casts, effects in place and spell from spell trigger, steal concentration spells and ALL meta magic cost 1 less spell level (min 1)...all this for iron will (and a meta magic feat...oh that is such a cost for a wizard). No your cheesy gish build just isn't gonna hold up at all. I like my casters to survive what the enemy can throw. All the amazing abilities in the world don't mean squat if you're dead. I'm guessing you're referencing the incantrix? Never read it, but like I said in my first post, power creep is a problem in WotC products, and there may come a time when the power of all other PrCs has advanced to a point where the AC is balanced, but, again, balance is mostly subjective. My school of thought says that power creep is a bad thing, but a few biffs of the nerf bat generally fixes things. Also, case in point, Living Greyhawk does not allow the Abjurant Champion, almost certainly because it's too good. It's their opinion as well as mine. Yours is different, and you're entitled to that, but if you show up at my game with an AC, I'll tell you to rewrite it because it's illegal. |
| Archangel6203-20-07, 08:54 PM | Also, case in point, Living Greyhawk does not allow the Abjurant Champion, almost certainly because it's too good. It's their opinion as well as mine. Yours is different, and you're entitled to that, but if you show up at my game with an AC, I'll tell you to rewrite it because it's illegal. They also don't allow the warlock so my guess is more that Living Greyhawk has something against fun and interesting characters. |
| TheDarkLord03-20-07, 09:41 PM | They also don't allow the warlock so my guess is more that Living Greyhawk has something against fun and interesting characters. Or it just sucks, along with the RPGA, but eh, Greyhawk and the RPGA don't believe in effective gishes. |
| Dethro03-21-07, 01:18 AM | The warlock, if used in the right way, can be very useful. However, it can also be very unbalancing in certain types of play, so that might be the reason why it is banned. It wouldn't surprise me if the same holds true for Abjurant Champion, because I can see where it becomes very powerful in certain games. |
| Cold Napalm03-22-07, 03:29 AM | Well RPGA doesn't allow a lot of things and anything from a new books takes at least 6 months of review before it's even remotely considered for addition so ANYTHING from complete mage would be out still. They are STILL reviewing thing from the earlier complete from crying our loud. That said, they are an example of a big pool of players that are all small pond players. Even multi national conglermeration of thousands does not help with this (and this is in fact something artifically controlled by the people in charge of RPGA who actually do know the rules so well which is why they review the hell out of everything before letting it in because they are catering to small pond players...since your so good and confortable with RPGA, maybe that style of gaming is for you, in which case since your core druid isn't gonna do what we do with them, the AC might be overpowered for your group). But that aside we are talking about balance from what is out there now, not somebody's personal game. The AC builds will be considered broken in many games where the wizard is slinging damage spells, the fighter who does 20 damage a hit is considered too strong and the cleric does nothing but heal. This is a group issue and not a mechanical one. In that group, the AC is unbalanced, but that isn't a mechanical issue. Mechanically the AC build is weaker then a core druid. Forget oh it get this for almost nothing. The druid get ALL it's power for not even a feat wasted. Forget that it's better then anything you have seen before. Forget all that and play it. With people who play at the same level as you and for DM bias reasons, use a published adventure (no really, no random encounter REALLY favors the gish that it's not even funny). Basically, if you find the AC overpowered, you have yet to understand the mechanics of this game. No really, 3.x D&D is a HORRIBLE system. It's so unbalanced and contradictory that it's not even funny (and designers playing favorites doesn't help either). Okay if you only go by the benefit and ignore what you call the flavor text, then how are you gonna rule this spell works if your in the shadow plane? The ethreal isn't coexistant with the shadow. Or the outer plane? Your saying for +1 spell level, I can get a spell that will spand the multiverse to hit somebody...and this doesn't seem bad to you? I mean honestly how do you rule the darkwood buckler? By the flavor text, it being called a buckler and all, it's a buckler. But by the discrpitive text, it's a darkwood light shield. What you call "flavor" text is in fact rules. EVERYTHING written is rules because they did not color code what is a flavor text and what is actual mechanical rules. You can call one thing a rule and one a flavor text but everyone will call that differently (which is why either ruling works by RAW). This is once again, why the system is so messed up. Your over simplify it to make it easy (like using only the benefit section). This is why you don't understand how the big pond players work. We sit, we analyse, we argue, we take this game apart. We would never do anything so simplified as that. You can believe that the AC is broken all you want (and in your games, with your players, that maybe true), but it is NOT a mechanical issue. It is a situational issue. Mechanically the AC is not broken or even overpowered. |
| AllisterH03-22-07, 07:46 AM | Oh yeah, the druid. :mad: :mad: EVERYTHING the pro-AC base their arguments on is, "Well, its not as powerful as the druid". Nevermind the fact that the druid is acknowledged as being TOO DAMN POWERFUL by pretty much everyone on this board AND the CO board. As well, given the fact that since 3E, there have been over 20 other base classes, and other than the artificer and maybe, just maybe the Psion, its acknowledged by most that no base class equals the power of a single class wizard it should tell you that the baseline comparison IS NOT the bloody druid. A better comparison would be a single class wizard or sorceror. Hell, why not compare the power to the new arcane classes like the warmage, warlock or the beguiler? The actual facts are this. An AC when compared to a single class arcane wielder. +3 BAB +15 HP Same net saves, but higher WILL, lower FORT & REF Several extra class abilities, including Swift/Extended Abjuration No familiar advancement More class skills versus what the arcane wielder gets, 1-2 fewer regular feats, 1 fewer wizard bonus feat Note: An elf sorceror only loses 1 general feat if I'm reading this right. If your argument is "well, this is not as powerful as Incantrix", well congratulations for you for stating the obvious. That doesn't tell us ANYTHING about how powerful the prestige class is since the default IS NOT EVERY PRESTIGE CLASS is available outside of the core books. So basically put, the AC is the equivalent of 1-3 feats. In my opinion, that is too good a deal. |
| TheDarkLord03-22-07, 12:13 PM | +3 BAB Meaningless, how many times do I have to say it. BAB higher than what the Wizard already has is completely pointless and irrelevant. +15 HP Once again, meaningless. An extra 15 HP's on top of the wizard is a drop of water in a very large ocean. Most creatures will sneeze and do this kind of extra damage. You're still not going to last long if someone actually get's to enter melee with you. Then again, why would a wizard get caught in melee. He's the smartest of the Core classes, perhaps people should play him as such. Same net saves, but higher WILL, lower FORT & REF Lower Fort and Ref balance out the Higher will. Damage spell's kill wizards just as Fast as Save or Die spells. And now the Enemy get's his pick because your Fort and Ref both suck. Several extra class abilities, including Swift/Extended Abjuration These work only on level 1-3 abjurations. I'd still rather have a couple of extra Metamagic feats to use on my higher level offensive spells and use my lower slots for basic defense. No familiar advancement I hardly ever play with a Familiar anyway, most of the time I use a class variant. But some people this might be a problem to using certain builds. More class skills Why does it matter? Knowledge, Concentration, and Spellcraft are about the only useful skills you need. The rest of the skills available to characters can often be replicated or replaced entirely by spells on the Wizards spell list. |
| Cold Napalm03-22-07, 01:37 PM | Why the druid? Because I have NEVER played in a game that banned classes for being broken that didn't ban this little gem of broken goodness. I'd take the argument of taking the druid out of the argument if people who called that the AC is broken banned druids in their game. They don't, so it's in. And and clerics are more powerul then wizards too, as is the artificer(assuming the DM isn't shafting them in wealth since the artificer is very VERY much wealth based power). You think +3 bab, 15 hp and other minor things that the AC gets is worth 2-3 meta feats to a pure wizard?!? Get real. I would take 3 meta feats over those anyday as a wizard. |
| Fluid_Dragon03-22-07, 01:45 PM | Meaningless, how many times do I have to say it. BAB higher than what the Wizard already has is completely pointless and irrelevant. Once again, meaningless. An extra 15 HP's on top of the wizard is a drop of water in a very large ocean. Most creatures will sneeze and do this kind of extra damage. You're still not going to last long if someone actually get's to enter melee with you. Then again, why would a wizard get caught in melee. He's the smartest of the Core classes, perhaps people should play him as such. Lower Fort and Ref balance out the Higher will. Damage spell's kill wizards just as Fast as Save or Die spells. And now the Enemy get's his pick because your Fort and Ref both suck. These work only on level 1-3 abjurations. I'd still rather have a couple of extra Metamagic feats to use on my higher level offensive spells and use my lower slots for basic defense. I hardly ever play with a Familiar anyway, most of the time I use a class variant. But some people this might be a problem to using certain builds. Why does it matter? Knowledge, Concentration, and Spellcraft are about the only useful skills you need. The rest of the skills available to characters can often be replicated or replaced entirely by spells on the Wizards spell list. Don't think he cares. Some people think the AC is the ultimate class despite anything said to them. He put the same post in another thread. He obviously thinks the AC is a great full caster class. What he just doesn't get is that to take the AC you are giving up 5 levels of another PrC that would actually make you a better caster. It is not what a base wizard gives up it is the PrC they COULD HAVE TAKEN. Which is the whole point. Some people seem play wizards like they really wished they played a fighter. Rather than exploiting the true power of a wizard which lies not in HP BaB or +5 to your shield spell. They have either never seen a good wizard played or just don't get it. Like a player with a 12 INT playing a character with a 27 INT. I don't know. Personally I don't get it. If you want a Full Caster with a good BaB there are some Gish builds that with use of the Militia feat and multiple PrC and the cost of most of your feats for prereqs that will give you casting at 20th level on par with a 20th level wizard. You will have some class abilities and work good as a 2nd line fighter. BUT you give up PrC and Feat options you could have used for a wizard based PrC. In the same campaign do you really think a tricked out Gish casting the same as a 20th level wizard would be compared to a BASE wizard? Please. More like the full caster Gish vs The Incantrix/Arch Mage Wizard. Who do you think would be more powerfull? It is not what the Gish Classes give a wizard it is what the Caster Classes WOULD HAVE given the same character. You trade magic power for physical power. It is a real and tangible trade. AllisterH and others are just seeing a good BaB, a few HP and Full Casting and think it is da bomb! What they DON'T see or refuse to see because they just don't want to be proven wrong, is that the real cost is NOT what you have to pay to get into the AC. The real cost is not being able to take 5 levels of another PrC that will enhance your casting. A wizX/AC5 pales in comparision to nearly any wizX/caster PrC (Red Wizard, Master Specialist, Ultimate Magus, Mystic Thurge, DRUID:D , Arch Mage, Incantrix [its not banned in all games] etc) THAT my friend is the REAL cost. The core base classes design is outdated compared to the new base classes. Adding a PrC to any full arcane caster and clerics is a no brainer. A tricked out cleric is still going to wipe the floor with any gish build (they get all the gishiness for free). Regardless if the gish has AC5 in there. And in regards to the party is more desireable. And what group with a tricked out gish is going to have a standard base cleric? Please they will have access to all the cleric goodies, complete divine etc. When the core cleric, much less the druid is better than a tricked out gish the AC arguments just don't hold up. But hey because the cleric also has to be the medic its OK that they are uber.... Don't really think AllisterH cares. He doesn't like AC and I don't see him giving up. What you really need to do is match up his wizard/ac vs a wizard/Xprc from someone who knows how to play a wizard well. |
| TheDarkLord03-22-07, 01:55 PM | Some people seem play wizards like they really wished they played a fighter. Rather than exploiting the true power of a wizard which lies not in HP BaB or +5 to your shield spell. They have either never seen a good wizard played or just don't get it. Like a player with a 12 INT playing a character with a 27 INT. I don't know. Personally I don't get it. I think that pretty much sums it up. |
| Fluid_Dragon03-22-07, 02:03 PM | Why the druid? Because I have NEVER played in a game that banned classes for being broken that didn't ban this little gem of broken goodness. I'd take the argument of taking the druid out of the argument if people who called that the AC is broken banned druids in their game. They don't, so it's in. And and clerics are more powerul then wizards too, as is the artificer(assuming the DM isn't shafting them in wealth since the artificer is very VERY much wealth based power). You think +3 bab, 15 hp and other minor things that the AC gets is worth 2-3 meta feats to a pure wizard?!? Get real. I would take 3 meta feats over those anyday as a wizard. Right On!! If you are still going to ignore the druid arguments, then you have to listen to the cleric arguments. If the game is not banning classes left and right then clerics are going to have access to all the PrC goodies, Divine Metamagic, Complete Divine, Access to every single printed cleric spell from any book the DM allows etc. Clerics can out gish any gish, take any PrC that fits their build and gives them the powers they want, get lots of goodies with the different suppliments out there. They do not have to spend any feats to have a good AC/BaB/HP/Full Casting. So all the feats and levels that a Gish has to spend to come close to a base core cleric, the cleric can spend the same feats on increasing their power. Taking 1 PrC that works good instead of trying to work with 3 or 4 to get what they want. Plus the party loves them because they are the healers. Heck you don't even have to prepare a healing spell anymore. Add in the Spell Compendium and you get to rebuild the class every day. Wizards have to spend loads of cash to have a decent access to a variety of spells and then they have and achillies heal because it is tied to a book. Clerics just say "God, can I please be a walking engine of destruction today. Thanks you really rock!" and the next day "God I would like to create an army of undead today, do you mind? Wow your awesome" a couple days later..."God there is this legendary fighter that challanged me to a dual. Um would you mind making me better than he is, its just for today...THANKS...MY GOD RULES!!!" Yet the Abjurant Champion is UBER AND SHOULD BE BANNED. It is for your GAME BALANCE!!! People will start eating babies, raping horses and riding women if you allow it in the game, but please, please don't look too close at the cleric, they just.. um .. like heal and stuff...yeah thats it... Yup not unbalanced the mighty gods of design made the PHB a bastion of balancedediness. Clerics are just fine I mean really you have to make them SO good to even get people to play them so it is ok. But hell-fire and death to a player who wants to play an Abjurant Champion!!! Out with the torches!! Boil the oil by all means we will keep the game BALANCED!!!!!!!!!! (but we will leave the cleric and druid alone and allow splat books for them, we just want to kick the gish in the nuts. shhhhhhh) |
| teshen03-22-07, 02:46 PM | EVERYTHING the pro-AC base their arguments on is, "Well, its not as powerful as the druid". Nevermind the fact that the druid is acknowledged as being TOO DAMN POWERFUL by pretty much everyone on this board AND the CO board. Or the cleric. As pointed out before, cleric is a gish without the PrCs. Average base attack, two good saves, casting in any armor, decent hit points, good buffing spells, and healing. That's without feats that turn turning into other combat resources... but cleric is overdone too. But still, cleric is core, and to get everything he gets, you are talking about a tap dance through various PrCs to build a melee arcane caster, with some of the really good PrCs (in my opinion) being race specific... stuff like runesmith for dwarves (I think that's the name...). As well, given the fact that since 3E, there have been over 20 other base classes, and other than the artificer and maybe, just maybe the Psion, its acknowledged by most that no base class equals the power of a single class wizard it should tell you that the baseline comparison IS NOT the bloody druid. I realize that you say 'just maybe the Psion' as being close to, if not equal to, the power of the wizard... I feel I need to plug this again... (even though I'm not arguing this particular point)... Psionics, despite some people's reservations about the system, is solid. I repeat, if you never go over to the psionics board for any other reason, please go over and read the Myth: The XPH is overpowered thread (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=331253). But yes, a psion is akin to a wizard, and, if done right, does very well... actually, from one standpoint, a psion is more like a sorcerer done correctly... A better comparison would be a single class wizard or sorceror. Hell, why not compare the power to the new arcane classes like the warmage, warlock or the beguiler? I think the cleric/druid comparison is used often because it's core. Since it's not going to be brought down to the other classes power levels, then the other classes need to be brought up to it. I don't think this will ever really happen, but that is possibly why. Another reason is... cleric is already a gish. Without PrCs. Full casting. In Armor. Some weapons. Buffs. Healing. Decent hit points. Decent base attack. Two good saves. This is what a gish is trying to pull off... Melee and Magic. Cleric alread does this... and mixing it up in melee is a lot of fun... so they want to try the magicial warrior archeatype. But you want to compare them to different sorcerer variations. Ok. We can do that... after you acknowledge the fundamental weakness of multiclassing. Such as a fighter/arcanist multiclass is weak. It needs help. Fighter x/ Wizard x is going to be behind it's straight classed fellows at every level... because the classes strengths don't automatically lend themselves to each other... Of course this really has been covered before... such as a lagging base attack, poor hit points, a stronger save in one area only for it to get weaker in another, poor armor or none at all, weakened casting... you trade power for options, but the options don't make up for the power lost. You combine fighter and ranger... you still get good base attack (important for melee) and you give net yourself skills and feats that you wouldn't otherwise have... but wizard or sorcerer doesn't do that well. So some combinations are alright at still doing what you want to do. Some aren't. So, thinking of the newer classes as filling a gish role... Warlock, if you pick the right invocations, can move tactically, blast from safe positions, and pull out some neat tricks... but he has to focus on those tricks to be effective. They are naturally hardier than most arcane casters as well, which makes them pretty cool... but they still aren't melee people... with low hit points, only light armor, and a finite number of tricks (yes you can keep using them... All day long. But it's still a handful of specific abilities) they can get caught in the fighter 'I hit it with my sword' but substitute hit with blast and sword with eldritch blast and you're just about done. If you adapt eldritch knight to accept warlock to try and gish, loosing some of the warlock features for a full base attack, similar hit points and in increase in invocations... I actually think warlock works better staying in his base class. Warmage... actually, make the eldritch blast limited by spell slots and it's a sucky warlock. Warmages can't melee either, with poor hit points, no buffs to speak of, and poor base attack and poor weapon selection... a warlock, in most cases, would own the competition hands down compared to a warmage. This sucker should get into something, anything else at the first possible chance. It can't fight, and it's direct damage spells are weaker at higher levels compared to many more imaginative spells/effects... Beguiler can't gish, but it is an interesting substitute for a rogue... Am I effectively addressing your question about power level? Probably not... but since the original question was about Abjurant Champion, and Abjurant Champion is meant to shore up weaknesses in magic fighter combinations, the question for me is can these newer classes fulfill the gish archeatype? Maybe, but probably not. They have different shticks. The actual facts are this. An AC when compared to a single class arcane wielder. +3 BAB +15 HP Same net saves, but higher WILL, lower FORT & REF Several extra class abilities, including Swift/Extended Abjuration No familiar advancement More class skills versus what the arcane wielder gets, 1-2 fewer regular feats, 1 fewer wizard bonus feat Yes... except familiar advancement... but that bites. And I'll say it again... even if you are only using PrCs out of the DMG like Loremaster and Archmage... those are better choices for a caster. Abjurant Champion is made to shore up weaknesses in a fighing arcanist multiclass. Note: An elf sorceror only loses 1 general feat if I'm reading this right. Yup... but there are better 'core' choices for a straight arcanist. If your argument is "well, this is not as powerful as Incantrix", well congratulations for you for stating the obvious. That doesn't tell us ANYTHING about how powerful the prestige class is since the default IS NOT EVERY PRESTIGE CLASS is available outside of the core books. Abjurant Champion isn't 'core.' If you mean the PHB, DMG, MM, and the 'Complete' books and maybe the PHBII, then there are many other feats and casting prcs that add casting power without using incantrix as an example. Think wizard 5/wildmage 6/fatespinner 4 with the legal practiced caster cheese. It's not super... but I can really monkey with an opponent's save and it's going to have an awesome caster level over a straight caster of equal level. If you squeeze in dispelling/counter spelling feats, you can take away an opponents options fast... without getting into melee. This is off the top of my head... (I'm always away from books when I post so... you get what I can remember... *shrug*) If you're just comparing it to PHB, DMG, MM then that's kind of silly since Abjurant Champion is a product of the same kind of design that has made a lot of the newer, more interesting 1 to 20 classes you want to compare them too... and that aren't in you criteria for comparison. So basically put, the AC is the equivalent of 1-3 feats. In my opinion, that is too good a deal. A magic fighter (gish) easily gives up that to multiclass. |
| Fluid_Dragon03-22-07, 03:13 PM | Teshen please stop using logic and reason to argue your position. You know thats not very fair. Can't you just FEEL that the AC is so over powered it makes the cleric pout in the corner:weep: and the druid just hides and picks his nose. The wizard rubs one out just thinking about the unmarched absolute power they will achive when they can take levels in this class, why they will even be able to out fight the fighter, who is yelling IT'S JUST NOT FAIR. The rogue gives up his lock picks and starts a soup kitchen because he is now worthless. The AC is just so good. The paladin takes up farming and the ranger opens up an animal shelter. There is just nothing for any of them to do now. He is trying to dilude the argument with the divine classes by bringing in the other classes because he is loosing his arguments with core, and he seems to really think that AC is and UBER class. Warmage is terrible. Evocation is one of the weaker schools. He gets lots of ways to blast something and um he gets to blast some more. Once they get to higher levels evocation starts to fall behind. And if you can't figure out why then you need to read some more source books. Beguiler is a neat class, and is mainly a gestalt of rogue/sorc with a focus on illusion and ecnhantment. Neat class but not even close to gishieness. Totally different concept. Duskblade suffers from the same narrow focus as Warmage. They are all in all more effective than a warmage, but they mostly just whack stuff. ALL of the new base classes are neat and give insentives to stay with the class for the long haul. But they are also very focused on a certain theme and give up the versitility that the core classes have. |
| teshen03-22-07, 03:59 PM | . . .The rogue gives up his lock picks and starts a soup kitchen because he is now worthless. . . Nah. He just waits for the fighter/wizard/eldritch knight/abjurant champion to bring home lots of gold and fall asleep... then he burgles it. :D Rogue: Yeah, I won the lottery... honest! (bluff) :dancin: He is trying to dilude the argument with the divine classes by bringing in the other classes because he is loosing his arguments with core, and he seems to really think that AC is and UBER class. And I think that's the problem. Without criteria established early on, you've got to explain what applies and what doesn't and why all over again... I think another part of the problem is the unspoken assumption that abjurant champion 'replaces' the need for both a fighter and a wizard, and somebody is trying to 'protect' their role in the adventuring party... maybe? :confused: Of course, if that were the case, then we need to throw out the eldritch knight, the mystic theurge, the arcane trickster, the cleric, the druid, and the ability to multiclass. ALL of the new base classes are neat and give insentives to stay with the class for the long haul. But they are also very focused on a certain theme and give up the versitility that the core classes have. True. But a lot of the themed abilities dovetail nicely with what they do... it just feels... right. Like beguiler's silent spell, still spell, and hidden spell DC increases... they're just so neat. :mage: |
| Spidey7603-22-07, 04:19 PM | Hi to all. I start my post with a bit of ingenuity, but...the Abjurant Armor ability does affect the Mage Armor or my pg has to know the Luminous Armor and the relative STR damage? Or all is in the hands of my DM and his decisions about the PrC? :confused: |
| Fluid_Dragon03-22-07, 04:28 PM | Hi to all. I start my post with a bit of ingenuity, but...the Abjurant Armor ability does affect the Mage Armor or my pg has to know the Luminous Armor and the relative STR damage? Or all is in the hands of my DM and his decisions about the PrC? :confused: It does not effect Mage Armor. Only Abjuration spells that grant a shield bonus or an armor bonus. I am not familliar with Luminous Armor, it it has other effects it would just add to the armor bonus or shield bonus not any secondary effects. ETA: Some people house rule that mage armor gets the bonus. Some ban the class altogether. The writter basically said they don't get it. I think they were supposed to get light armored casting and the final editors changed that to mage armor with bothering to check if that was an abjuration spell. |
| Spidey7603-22-07, 04:34 PM | Thx Fluid Dragon for your help :) I've supposed the same of you. |
| Raede03-22-07, 05:17 PM | Or all is in the hands of my DM and his decisions about the PrC? :confused: You got it. That's what we like to call "Rule 0." Text says one thing, example another, so the DM makes the call. It's his game to rule as he sees fit, unless you're playing in a league. Ignore the rest of this post if you're only interested in the abjurant champion. Okay if you only go by the benefit and ignore what you call the flavor text, then how are you gonna rule this spell works if your in the shadow plane? The ethreal isn't coexistant with the shadow. Or the outer plane? Your saying for +1 spell level, I can get a spell that will spand the multiverse to hit somebody...and this doesn't seem bad to you? I mean honestly how do you rule the darkwood buckler? By the flavor text, it being called a buckler and all, it's a buckler. But by the discrpitive text, it's a darkwood light shield. What you call "flavor" text is in fact rules. If caster is in the shadow plane? Well, let's look at the benefits section, where the feat tells you what it does. Oh, look, it only says that a caster on the material can affect the ethereal, shadow, incorporeal creatures, and creatures in an extradimensional space. Therefore, that's what it does. No more, no less. This is affecting "targets lurking in coexistent planes and extradimensional spaces whose entrances fall in the spells area." Just like the flavor text says. The benefits section clarifies that you don't affect all targets in coexistent planes, but rather only can affect those places from the material. Next you'll be arguing that because the flavor text specifies that it affects targets "lurking" in coexistent planes that all targets must currently be making hide checks, otherwise they aren't lurking. This is why you go by the benefits section, or spell description, etc. As for the darkwood buckler, what does the darkwood buckler's entry says it is? A light non-magical wooden shield. Therefore, it is a light non-magical wooden shield. Bucklers cannot be made from Darkwood because they are metal, and making an item out of Darkwood does not change what type of item it is. The price for a darkwood buckler matches neither the appropriate cost for applying darkwood to a wooden light shield OR a buckler, so that's a mistake on their part. Throw me any other rules you're having a problem understanding and I'll be glad to tell you how to solve it. I'm here to help. EVERYTHING written is rules because they did not color code what is a flavor text and what is actual mechanical rules. You can call one thing a rule and one a flavor text but everyone will call that differently (which is why either ruling works by RAW). This is once again, why the system is so messed up. Not everything written is rules. Shot on the run doesn't give you skirmish damage, though it says "you are highly trained in skirmish ranged weapon tactics." Leadership says "you are the sort of person others want to follow, and you have done some work attempting to recruit cohorts and followers", but your party still doesn't have to do a damn thing you say unless they want to, or have to follow you anywhere. It's just flavor text, with no mechanical significance. This is true for all feats. All. You can dispute the finer points of being wrong on the internet, but that doesn't make it right, nor does that mean your 'pond' is so much bigger than mine. I'm here on the same internet as you, though I usually haunt other boards. Anyhow, this has nothing to do with abjurant champion. If ther was a smiley for jumping the shark, I'd use it. |
| Cold Napalm03-23-07, 12:57 AM | If caster is in the shadow plane? Well, let's look at the benefits section, where the feat tells you what it does. Oh, look, it only says that a caster on the material can affect the ethereal, shadow, incorporeal creatures, and creatures in an extradimensional space. Therefore, that's what it does. No more, no less. No it never mention material plane at all, not once. Your once again over simplify and once again show that you do indeed play in a small pond. This is affecting "targets lurking in coexistent planes and extradimensional spaces whose entrances fall in the spells area." Just like the flavor text says. The benefits section clarifies that you don't affect all targets in coexistent planes, but rather only can affect those places from the material. Next you'll be arguing that because the flavor text specifies that it affects targets "lurking" in coexistent planes that all targets must currently be making hide checks, otherwise they aren't lurking. This is why you go by the benefits section, or spell description, etc. Lurking is not hiding. Lurking is just existsing there no problemo. As for the darkwood buckler, what does the darkwood buckler's entry says it is? A light non-magical wooden shield. Therefore, it is a light non-magical wooden shield. Bucklers cannot be made from Darkwood because they are metal, and making an item out of Darkwood does not change what type of item it is. The price for a darkwood buckler matches neither the appropriate cost for applying darkwood to a wooden light shield OR a buckler, so that's a mistake on their part. Throw me any other rules you're having a problem understanding and I'll be glad to tell you how to solve it. I'm here to help. Once again ver over simplified. Good for you and your rather simplistic view. Not everything written is rules. Shot on the run doesn't give you skirmish damage, though it says "you are highly trained in skirmish ranged weapon tactics." Leadership says "you are the sort of person others want to follow, and you have done some work attempting to recruit cohorts and followers", but your party still doesn't have to do a damn thing you say unless they want to, or have to follow you anywhere. It's just flavor text, with no mechanical significance. This is true for all feats. All. You can dispute the finer points of being wrong on the internet, but that doesn't make it right, nor does that mean your 'pond' is so much bigger than mine. I'm here on the same internet as you, though I usually haunt other boards. Sure you get skirmish damage. You get the skirmish damage listed (in this case it's not so it's 0 extra skirmish damage...go you). Leadership gives you cohorts and followers so you are in fact somebody that people want to follow. This deosn't mean ALL people or the villians would have such an easy time of world conquest as all they need is the leadership feat. You are a small pond player because you don't sit and anaylyse the rules. You simplify it so it's easy for you. There is nothing wrong with it, but that is not how some of use play. YOUR groups playstyle making the AC broken does not make the AC MECHANICALLY broken. Feel free to ban the AC in your games. It's your game (and I'll ban druids and clerics before I ban the AC thank you very much). But that still doesn't change mechanics of the prestige class. |
| Dethro03-23-07, 03:47 AM | See, this is the thing. In my group, if I were to play an AC, it would be unbalancing. The reason for that is because, in all honesty, I'm better at making characters than anyone (apart from one or two people) in the group. However, me playing a [insert character here] will also be unbalancing, BECAUSE IT WAS MADE AND PLAYED BY ME. I think part of people's problem is that, on one hand, if someone who isn't top-shape on optimizing picks up AC, they think it is so much more powerful, simply because it brings them up towards the level of standard optimizers, and on the other hand, those that know what they're doing will not bother thinking about it being uber-powerful, simply because they know that many things that are overpowering that AC just doesn't factor in well enough. I think disagreements on this, purely and simply, come down to how good they are at making characters, and how their groups playstyle is. After all, if you play in a group where you fight, rest, repeat, then the AC is pretty damn near useless, because the Wiz or Scr will just blast with their best spells until the fight is over, then rest and regain them all, whereas the AC isn't quite as powerful in that area (depending on the means you took to reach AC anyways; some builds lose no spellcasting but do sacrifice some feats, which is always a bit of a downturn). However, if you are part of a group where you have a lot of fights, and there will be times when all the arcane blaster can do is sit back and hope that a sling bullet or something else will help out, or generally be low on spells. It's then that the AC has a bit of an advantage since they have better HP and combat abilities. |
| Fluid_Dragon03-23-07, 10:23 AM | See, this is the thing. In my group, if I were to play an AC, it would be unbalancing. The reason for that is because, in all honesty, I'm better at making characters than anyone (apart from one or two people) in the group. However, me playing a [insert character here] will also be unbalancing, BECAUSE IT WAS MADE AND PLAYED BY ME. I think part of people's problem is that, on one hand, if someone who isn't top-shape on optimizing picks up AC, they think it is so much more powerful, simply because it brings them up towards the level of standard optimizers, and on the other hand, those that know what they're doing will not bother thinking about it being uber-powerful, simply because they know that many things that are overpowering that AC just doesn't factor in well enough. I think disagreements on this, purely and simply, come down to how good they are at making characters, and how their groups playstyle is. After all, if you play in a group where you fight, rest, repeat, then the AC is pretty damn near useless, because the Wiz or Scr will just blast with their best spells until the fight is over, then rest and regain them all, whereas the AC isn't quite as powerful in that area (depending on the means you took to reach AC anyways; some builds lose no spellcasting but do sacrifice some feats, which is always a bit of a downturn). However, if you are part of a group where you have a lot of fights, and there will be times when all the arcane blaster can do is sit back and hope that a sling bullet or something else will help out, or generally be low on spells. It's then that the AC has a bit of an advantage since they have better HP and combat abilities. I've posted much the same thing on other AC threads. Most gish players are by neccessity optimizers. If they are not then the gish dies a messy death very soon. Many groups at least from what I have seen online, don't like optimizers and or they are not good at it. So THEY don't see the cleric or druid being unbalanced because the twit playing them has no idea how to design an effective character, they think Toughness is a great feat. Then enters the optimizer playing a gish and he [scary movie voice]DOMINATES muhahahah[scary voice]. Then they think that a gish is the end all be all. And any class that is good for a gish is way too powerfull and must be banned. Heck I have seen threads on how the EK was way to strong and should be banned. I kid you not! In this case the AC is not the problem. You have a group/DM who does not or cannot optimize and a player who does. These are the type of poeple who think the AC is an uber class for a straight caster me thinks. As an optimizer the AC is the absolute LAST class I would take as a PrC for a wizard or sorcerer. I would take the Loremaster first for crying out loud. But some think it is great for a straight caster and I am just scratching my head:confused: wondering why? So I can fight a little less lousey and have a little better AC. So freaking what. If I want to wade into melee it will be with either Tensers Transformation or Polymorphed/Shape Changed/Body of War etc. But wait. I am a wizard with an UBER high Int. Why get my hands dirty. We have a meat shield. He bashes things. He likes it and he is good at it. If I want to bash things why not play a fighter. Or I could be the real fighter -cleric- or just be god and fight as a druid? Doesn't make a lick of sense to me. AC is not the problem. The problem is probably non-optimizers vs optimizers. That is also why they probably hate or ignore the Cleric/Druid arguments (No gish can beat a cleric/druid even if you limit it to core). They can't understand the argument because they see no problem with C/D because they have no idea how to be effective with it. OR they are proud that their game has less than 5% combat, in which case they are biased against that aspect of the game in general. Some actively un-optimize their character because they are such a good "role-player". Hey if the shoe fits and that is your game then it is people thing not a class/PrC thing. I would get frustrated with the group in short order and y'all would hate me too. Which is why for our group we kind of interview potential players go out for a drink, and see what type of game they like. If they are not good at optimizing then we teach them how. Everyone has a similar play style and expectations and it works well. |
| Raede03-23-07, 02:04 PM | Lurking is not hiding. Lurking is just existsing there no problemo. From dictionary.com: lurk (lūrk) Pronunciation Key intr.v. lurked, lurk·ing, lurks 1. To lie in wait, as in ambush. 2. To move furtively; sneak. 3. To exist unobserved or unsuspected. What's that say? Lurking IS sneaking? Lurking is also existing unobserved, so if you can see or otherwise observe the creature on the ethereal plane/whatever, you can't use transdimensional spell on it according to the flavor text then, because it is only lurking when it's unobserved. That makes a whole lot of sense :rolleyes: Geez, it's like you're disagreeing with everything I say just on principle now. It's pretty funny, actually. Your argument that everything needs to be needlessly complicated is pretty awesome. There is no flaw with my darkwood buckler interpretation. Darkwood cannot be applied to bucklers, so because it says it's a light shield, it is. When a rule explicitly states how it works, THAT'S HOW IT WORKS. The authors are not trying to confuse you, they're trying to be clear and give a little flavor. If in doubt, apply Occam's razor. You are right about transdimensional spell not mentioning the material plane. After looking more carefully indeed a transdimensional spell cast on any plane, including the material, ethereal, and shadow, affects everything listed in the feat benefit section (which does not include the material plane, but does include ethereal, shadow, extradimensional spaces, and incorporeal creatures.) |
| ArcTan03-24-07, 01:12 PM | I read that thread, it says nothing. I can go onto any forum and say Im President Bush and I meant to invade Iran and not Iraq even though Im not, doesnt clear up anything about the author's intent. If he really did help design the abj champ he would be on the WoTC boards with a name like WoTC_Conjuration_lover or something less insulting, or he would write an article about it like they did with the invisible blade. Dude, Mouseferatu is Ari Marmell. This is well known by anyone who frequents either these boards or the ENWorld boards. He doesn't have a "WotC" in his username because he's a freelancer, not an employee of Wizards of the Coast. But his name is Mouseferatu everywhere, making him easy to recognize when he goes on forums (just as Keith Baker is "Hellcow"). Look, it's even his homepage: http://www.mouseferatu.com/ He probably didn't write an article about it because he doesn't actually work for WotC as a permanent employee and doesn't have a column on their website. |
| ArcTan03-24-07, 01:20 PM | By the way, I don't give a crap about the rest of the thread, but whether or not the Abjurant Champion is overpowered, letting him use his class ability on mage armor sure as hell won't *make* him overpowered. I'm still confused as to why mage armor is still Conjuration. |
| Fluid_Dragon03-24-07, 06:09 PM | By the way, I don't give a crap about the rest of the thread, but whether or not the Abjurant Champion is overpowered, letting him use his class ability on mage armor sure as hell won't *make* him overpowered. I'm still confused as to why mage armor is still Conjuration. On point 1 agreed On Mage Armor, probably so that if you give up abjuration as one of your opposed schools you can still have a good defense. They didn't want to load all the defensive spells in abjuration. Because it is so common I would almost rather see arcane casters have a class ability that scaled with level that gave you an AC bonus for an encounter, as almost every arcane caster learns it. |