Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Rary_the_Traitor 03-09-07, 06:11 PM	I think most people who own Complete Mage agree that the Abjurant Champion is grossly overpowered. Heck, it would be overpowered even without all the nifty additional powers it gives, simply because the requirements are so low (a pure arcane caster basically needs to burn two feats, that's it!). So, as the title says, has anyone tried to create a revised and less powerful version of the Abjurant Champion?
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-09-07, 07:12 PM	I think most people who own Complete Mage agree that the Abjurant Champion is grossly overpowered. No.
Rary_the_Traitor 03-09-07, 07:33 PM	No. :weep:
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-09-07, 07:43 PM	:weep: It's okay. :) It's mostly a knee-jerk reaction. The class is solid, I can't deny that, but it's hardly overpowered. EDIT: I just realized that my previous post was just about the worst first impression I've made on anyone.
Khatoblepas 03-09-07, 07:43 PM	Looking at it, it's... for the gishes. It's really not that bad, and good for avoiding the bland theurgic levels of Eldritch Knight. If you really want to try and nerf it down, removing the first level of spellcasting might serve to make people think twice about taking it with pure arcanists. And make the prerequisite: "Proficient with ALL martial weapons." To make people take levels in a martial class... or be an outsider. I like the Abjurant Champion. =)
serow_#R 03-09-07, 11:12 PM	It's a gish class. And they need all the help they can get. And Khatoblepas' idea is solid: proficiency with all martial weapons as a prereq. Nothing extra that a gish wouldn't have already, yet makes it harder for pure arcanists to get into.
enygmatic_me 03-09-07, 11:53 PM	If you really feel it is unbalanced then you just have to consider that the one ability that most people seem to have the biggest problem with, Abjurant Armor, has a very short list of spells (about a half dozen give or take) that it works with. The class really is balanced, it just looks a little uber at first glance.
Lotus Crane 03-10-07, 01:50 AM	I think most people who own Complete Mage agree that the Abjurant Champion is grossly overpowered. Have you ever considered the possibility that it is in fact the opposite which is true; that the Abjurant Champion is well-balanced, and that previous gish classes (Spellsword, Bladesinger, and of course the useless Rage Mage) are underpowered?
Empiro 03-10-07, 02:05 AM	Have you ever considered the possibility that it is in fact the opposite which is true; that the Abjurant Champion is well-balanced, and that previous gish classes (Spellsword, Bladesinger, and of course the useless Rage Mage) are underpowered? Yes, and in both looking at theoretical builds, and some brief practical experience with one in game, I found those classes to be fairly balanced if you don't take too many levels and lose too much spellcasting (usually by taking some EK instead). I've also found plenty of CO builds that appeared to be very powerful (and would only get more powerful by replacing EK with AC). I agree they're not the most powerful PrCs out there (and the Rage Mage sucks), but they're not underpowered either.
enygmatic_me 03-10-07, 02:12 AM	Yes, and in both looking at theoretical builds, and some brief practical experience with one in game, I found those classes to be fairly balanced if you don't take too many levels and lose too much spellcasting (usually by taking some EK instead). I've also found plenty of CO builds that appeared to be very powerful (and would only get more powerful by replacing EK with AC). I agree they're not the most powerful PrCs out there (and the Rage Mage sucks), but they're not underpowered either. You are saying that they are balanced as long as you don't take to many levels of them? Then that means they aren't balanced. You can't use a statement like "I found these classes to be fairly balanced if you don't take too many levels and lose to much spellcasting...." when trying to argue that the class as a whole is balanced. It makes no sense.
Empiro 03-10-07, 02:18 AM	You are saying that they are balanced as long as you don't take to many levels of them? Then that means they aren't balanced. You can't use a statement like "I found these classes to be fairly balanced if you don't take too many levels and lose to much spellcasting...." when trying to argue that the class as a whole is balanced. It makes no sense. No, it means they're balanced at lower levels, but should be made better at higher levels, e.g. by perhaps giving the spellsword full spellcasting at higher levels so they only lose 3 levels instead of 5. However, I also said that you can still make an effective Gish by mixing those classes with others. I agree with the sentiment that you shouldn't have to use a salad bowl of PrCs to be a powerful character, but that's D&D for ya. If the Abjurant Champion were in a vacuum, I'd probably agree that it's not too powerful, and is necessary to make an effective Gish. However, as things stand now, you can make an effective gish by using a mix of (otherwise underpowered) PrCs, and adding the AC to the mix serves to make those builds overpowered. So perhaps that's the solution: to allow the AC, but to disallow the taking of other PrCs that are gish-like.
enygmatic_me 03-10-07, 02:22 AM	No, it means they're balanced at lower levels, but should be made better at higher levels. However, I also said that you can still make an effective Gish by mixing those classes with others. I agree with the sentiment that you shouldn't have to use a salad bowl of PrCs to be a powerful character, but that's D&D for ya. If the Abjurant Champion were in a vacuum, I'd probably agree that it's not too powerful, and is necessary to make an effective Gish. However, as things stand now, you can make an effective gish by using a mix of (otherwise underpowered) PrCs, and adding the AC to the mix serves to make those builds overpowered. So perhaps that's the solution: to allow the AC, but to disallow the taking of other PrCs that are gish-like. How do you feel it makes them overpowered? The increase to AC from some spells? The boost in BAB? I am just not understanding here?
Empiro 03-10-07, 02:46 AM	How do you feel it makes them overpowered? The increase to AC from some spells? The boost in BAB? I am just not understanding here? All of the above? And the fact that you lose no caster levels while doing so. Will the Abjurant Champion ruin your campaign and make your gishes god-slaying engines of destruction? No. But neither would giving clerics more BAB and more AC from spells. But is either unbalanced and overpowered? Yes. My point is that just because something doesn't make you completely uber doesn't mean that it's not too good.
enygmatic_me 03-10-07, 03:01 AM	All of the above? And the fact that you lose no caster levels while doing so. Will the Abjurant Champion ruin your campaign and make your gishes god-slaying engines of destruction? No. But neither would giving clerics more BAB and more AC from spells. But is either unbalanced and overpowered? Yes. My point is that just because something doesn't make you completely uber doesn't mean that it's not too good. The problem I am having is you are saying it is too good as when it is compared to other, similar classes when said other classes you yourself say aren't worth taking all the levels of in the first place. This leads me to believe that the problem doesn't lie in the Abjurant Champion being overpowered, it lies with the other classes being underpowered. Saying the Abjurant Champion is overpowered because it makes a better gish then the other gish oriented PrC's is like saying the other martial classes are overpowered because they are better then the fighter. It doesn't really work that way. If anything I think it says that the Abjurant Champion works the way the other gish classes should have worked in the first place.
Johannixx 03-10-07, 03:24 AM	If anything I think it says that the Abjurant Champion works the way the other gish classes should have worked in the first place. I concur. Even with the best min-maxing I could muster, the class will never be as powerful as a straight caster, but it does make a playable gish. The main power limitation is the fact that the class is only 5 levels long. If you want to keep doing the gish route, you have to go back to a sub-par class like EK or Jade Phoenix Mage. It really does work out quite well.
teshen 03-10-07, 01:29 PM	This leads me to believe that the problem doesn't lie in the Abjurant Champion being overpowered, it lies with the other classes being underpowered. Yes. I'll say it again... yes. Saying the Abjurant Champion is overpowered because it makes a better gish then the other gish oriented PrC's is like saying the other martial classes are overpowered because they are better then the fighter. It doesn't really work that way. If anything I think it says that the Abjurant Champion works the way the other gish classes should have worked in the first place. Gishes jump around so from prc to prc because it is weak to do anything else. Do you realize what has effectively replaced most gishes? Tome of Battle. Not necessarily because martial adepts have more raw power... well, they can... but because you're fighting the way you want to fight at every level, and not having to manage your entry requirements for multiple prcs over the course of your adventuring career just to be effective. Abjurant Champion is fine. I would even suggest rewording the first level ability to work with spells that grant an armor or shield bonus... It wouldn't be overpowered with the built in level restrictions on spells... but that's just my view. Do you think any of the rogue caster prcs that grant full casting are overpowered? They are based around the same idea of making multiclassing Actually Work. And it is the same for mystic theurge.
Empiro 03-10-07, 02:59 PM	The fact that other gish PrCs are underpowered in a vaccum doesn't mean that the AC is balanced. Again, people say that fighters are underpowered, yet many very optimized builds make use of one or two levels of fighter. Let me lay it out again: Gish with one of the old PrCs (e.g. fighter/wizard/spellsword): Somewhat underpowered, but still viable in my experience. Gish "salad bowl" combining all of the old PrCs (e.g. fighter/wizard/dragonslayer/spellsword/EK/...): Powerful and very flexible. Fighter/Wizard with just the Abjrant Champion: Powerful and very flexible. "Salad bowl" Gish with the Abjurant Champion: Overpowered Do you think any of the rogue caster prcs that grant full casting are overpowered? They are based around the same idea of making multiclassing Actually Work. And it is the same for mystic theurge. The only two rogue caster PrCs that I'm aware of that grant full casting are the Arcane Tricker and the Unseen Seer. The AT is balanced by having a poor BAB progression and stiff requirements. It's actually underpowered in a vaccum, but works very well in conjunction with other rogue casters. The Unseen Seer is very powerful, and somewhat overpowered. Yet still, it doesn't offer 8 skill points per level, full Sneak Attack progression, and actually lowers your caster level for many schools. The AC offers full BAB progression, d10 HD, full caster progression, and a very nifty ability that is the equivalent of a +7 animated, ghost touch heavy shield castable for free at the beginning of every combat (and it lasts long enough for several more combats). If you took any one of those things away, you're still left with a very powerful PrC, a sure sign of overpoweredness.
Cold Napalm 03-10-07, 03:40 PM	[QUOTE=Empiro;11727169] Gish with one of the old PrCs (e.g. fighter/wizard/spellsword): Somewhat underpowered, but still viable in my experience. Gish "salad bowl" combining all of the old PrCs (e.g. fighter/wizard/dragonslayer/spellsword/EK/...): Powerful and very flexible. Fighter/Wizard with just the Abjrant Champion: Powerful and very flexible. "Salad bowl" Gish with the Abjurant Champion: Overpowered [\QUOTE] Okay those are YOUR game experience. For me... 1) was unplayably weak. 2) was under powered. 3) haven't done it yet. 4) was STILL underpowered. basically when your power level can't reach what a druid can do in a CORE only build, it has yet to reach "overpowered" since all one has to do to be better is be a CORE druid.
Rulebook 03-10-07, 05:12 PM	if the Abjurant Champ could modify Mage Armor, it'd be overpowered. But they cant, so its not.
teshen 03-10-07, 05:44 PM	. . .basically when your power level can't reach what a druid can do in a CORE only build, it has yet to reach "overpowered" since all one has to do to be better is be a CORE druid. You can only use Abjurant Champion for FIVE levels. If the curve continued for another five, I might agree, but as it stands you gain... -average of 27.5 hit points -crap skills -crap skill points -five base attack -five levels of casting -the ability to quicken low level abjuration spells -up to +5 to the effect of abjuration spells with either an armor or shield bonus -the ability to burn spells to gain a minor temporary bonus -the ability to count your base attack as your caster level So, The hit points... at the level you get in... not a big deal for either a fighter/mage type combination, especially since his hit points will be lower than a single classed fighter type of equal level. Skills... so what. Nothing special there. Skill points... so what, especially since if the character is using a charisma based caster such as a war mage or a battle sorcerer, his skill totals are going to be craptactular already Good base attack... helps shore up a weakness in having to multiclass into non fighting classes. Again, you'll still be behind a pure fighter type in base attack, gaining an extra attack usually two levels behind them... Five levels of casting... if you tack this onto a regular fighter/mage multiclass, it, again, is shoring up a weakness in the build, because you have lost caster levels before now. If not, and you are in a class like battle sorcerer or war mage, you have full casting in classes that have either little spell selection or spells that have significantly decreased usefulness at higher levels (evocation). Quickening low level abjuration spells... how important is it to quicken a shield? Yeah, it's useful, especially if the rogue just sneak attacked you before you can get it up... a swift action is not immediate action. It just lets you get two buffs up for the price of one... which you will need... since you aren't casting in armor; either that or you are casting in some tricked out mithril twilight something something, making the class feature useless... Up to +5 to the effect of abjuration spells with either an armor or shield bonus... again, pretty much just shield, unless you're willing to pony up a lot of cash to buy more poorly edited WotC books... or your DM is kind enough to allow you to exercise the little used option to craft your own spells... which a lot don't since they won't be core/in print. Burning spells to gain a minor temporary bonus... I think arcane strike works better. And which is more valuable, the spell or the minor bonus? Probably the spell you just wasted... but that could just be me... Base attack as your caster level... in most 'salad bowl' gishes as you call them, the base attack and the caster level are about the same, so this is at most an extra 3 somethings, whether it be rounds or minutes for duration, or an extra couple of feet on a spell. This ability is crap. It is only useful on the characters that have focused on fighting and it winds up giving a significant increase in distance/durations/damage dice... most of which you could just as easily pick up with practiced caster... If you've focused on spell levels, this ability does nothing. If you've focused on base attack, you've lost spell levels, and higher level spell slots are exponentially stronger than those that come before. If the progression for abjurant champion went beyond five levels, I'd probably agree with you, Empiro. But it otherwise makes it easier to do something that is difficult in D&D, which is to effectively combine two classes... You say that salad bowl gishes are overpowered. Well, as Cold Napalm pointed out, they still don't match the power of a core cleric or druid. And a decently built straight arcane caster will still do much More with feats spent on casting and levels spent in casting PrCs rather than trying to fight and cast without the hit points to really stay in melee. Gish builds are cool. Gish builds are fun. But one thing they aren't is overpowered. Even the really nasty ones that wind up with 18 base attack and 18 caster levels... because you do one thing usually, and that is use magic to look good fighting. As for the arcane trickster, yeah the base attack is bad... but if you're a rogue-y intelligence based caster, the skill point cost isn't a big deal and there are enough ways to get the second die of sneak attack to get in. And you can 'fix' unseen seer's bonus to divination spells and penalty to Everything else with Practiced Caster. So you're running into the same problem you have with gish builds. They can do more than a fighter type of equal level... but that runs out as soon as their spell slots do. So what stick do I have to hit you with to make you see that, on paper, they look tough, but in play, they make a normal situation better but not a game breaking one? *cough*mystic theurge*cough*
DarkRhystar 03-10-07, 06:06 PM	basically when your power level can't reach what a druid can do in a CORE only build, it has yet to reach "overpowered" since all one has to do to be better is be a CORE druid. Then you must ask yourself if the Druid is truly the best yardstick of balance measurement. The fact that the Druid skillfully perform so many roles outside of its own suggests that balance problems may lay more so with the Druid than other classes. Either way, this isn't the thread for that discussion. The problem with Abjurant Champion is that it gives up nothing for all its abilities. You lose no BAB. You lose no spellcasting. You lose no HP. You have none of the traditional trade offs. In my experience, the hallmark of balance is found when one asks the question "Should I take a level of X or Y?" If a class is so good that the player doesn't bother to even ask that question, it's too good. Abjurant Champion is a staple in Fighter/Mage builds these days because it really is just that good. You can argue that Abjurant Champion is the appropriate power level, but that's hair splitting as either way it boils down to the fact that you have one class which is significantly better than another; by definition, a game imbalance. Ignoring balance, the Abjurant Champion seems poorly designed. We've got the Mage Armor problem which is pretty inexcusable. I personally still think it's plain wonky that one of the class features is an improved quicken ability yet Quicken Spell is mysteriously not among the class' prerequisites.
JLaurHughes 03-10-07, 06:22 PM	To the original poster: Though there are few requirements for the class, The requirement to have a +5 BaB before you can even get into the PrC. Here's a list of the Arcane Casters, out of all the books I own and levels that all pre-req's are met. PHB(Bard, Sorcerer, Wizard) 7th level. Complete Arcane(Warlock) 7th Level. Complete Arcane(Wu Jen, Warmage) 11th Level. Complete Warrior(Hexblade) 5th Level. Complete Adventurer(Spell Thief) 7th Level. Heroes of Horror(Dread Necromancer) 11th Level. That's straight Arcane classes. Even for Classes with full BaB progressions multiclassed with at least one level of arcane caster will meet all the pre-req's by 6th at the earliest. The abilities gained through the class don't really seem that overpowered. For example the one ability that people have problems with - Abjurant Armor only boosts the bonuses gained by Shield or similar spells by 1 at 1st AbjChamp level. And up by 5 at 5th level abj Champ levels. At lower levels you see monsters with up to +30 in their attack modifier. Here's a build example, making the assumption that the character has at least 13 in charisma. Sor 7/AbjChamp 5 Can get +9 AC from Shield, +4 or +6 from Mage armor/Greater Mage armor, and +1 from haste (Not sure if this counts within the same set as mage armor and shield like spells so for now not including it in the set) This gives AC from 24 to 26 before adding Dex modifier by 12th level character.
teshen 03-10-07, 08:14 PM	PHB(Bard, Sorcerer, Wizard) 7th level. Complete Arcane(Warlock) 7th Level. Complete Arcane(Wu Jen, Warmage) 11th Level. Complete Warrior(Hexblade) 5th Level. Complete Adventurer(Spell Thief) 7th Level. Heroes of Horror(Dread Necromancer) 11th Level. Wizard and Sorcerer all have poor base attack increases. That means for a straight caster of that class you have to hit level 10 to get in at level 11, just like the the Wu jen and the Warmage. The battle sorcerer variant can get in like a bard. But yes, this is something in the way of opportunity costs. For a straight caster who prcs in casting classes, they'll not get the option of entering until after level 11 (prc-ing in casting based prestige classes hurts your base attack a bit). At that point, if you take something that gives you better melee capacity verses prcs that give you stronger casting options (like archmage or shadowcrafter or any of the full/mostly full casting, magical skills prcs) you will not be as strong at your primary role. Abjurant champion is for fighter mage combinations because such combinations Need the help. To go in Melee. With Monsters. With Reach and Powers. And just because you already have a weaker way of doing it with fighter 1/wizard 4/eldritch knight x doesn't mean that it's as fun... especially when D&D can easily become rock/paper/scissors... target a gish with any spell... his fort is lower than a fighter's, his will is lower than a caster, and his reflex is abysmal. Is he going to counter the spell thrown at him? I don't see how; his casting is going to be weaker than any pure caster he takes on. You know, the one who has five different spells to get him out of melee and seven that will end melee before it starts... DnD rewards specialization to a certain degree. This is a case of the opposite. There is no large scale effort by WotC to correct the game balance of the cleric or the druid (...unless you count the shapechange nerf... which really wasn't much of a nerf according to some). So I should just suck it up and play a fighter type that consistantly gets upstaged by the tree hugging deviant who changes into monsters and does my job for me? I should just follow the cleric while he wades into melee, kicks massive amounts of butt and then spontaneously fixes everybodies' hp afterwards? A game is suppose to be fun. If it is going to be fun, everybody should get a chance to step up and excel at some point... so the game Has to take into account things like druids. A level 7 should roughly be a level 7 in power no matter what the class. If anything, the argument could be made that classes like the abjurant champion not only make multiclassing more viable, but are a way to try and catch up in power for the classes that don't have divine might or the ability to become ungodly monsters at their beck and call. You either see what I'm talking about or you don't. You think the abjurant champion is a decent prc for multiclasses or you don't. You understand the intent of the class and roll with it or you won't... and get caught up with strength on paper verses strength in game.
Dyne 03-10-07, 08:50 PM	It's a gish class. And they need all the help they can get. Gish don't need any help. The designers just need to stop releasing craptastic PrC's like Spellsword and Rage Mage. EK, on the other hand, has always been solid; a straight up Ftr/Wiz/EK can be quite powerful, especially at higher levels. The problem with Abjurant Champion is it does the same thing as EK, but three times better. Hell, it's basically a gestalt Fighter/Wizard with additional abilities on top of that! I've thought about trying to balance it out, and the first thing that comes to mind is reducing its spellcasting progression. If you keep all the other abilities, it's spellcasting should be reduced at least to 3/5 or 2/5. Full BAB and d10 HD alone are quite powerful, having Abjurant Armor and Martial Arcanist on top of that make the class more than worth it. I'd probably go with 3/5 spellcasting and reduce the hit die to d8.
Red_Rabbit 03-11-07, 09:31 PM	I think most people who own Complete Mage agree that the Abjurant Champion is grossly overpowered. Heck, it would be overpowered even without all the nifty additional powers it gives, simply because the requirements are so low (a pure arcane caster basically needs to burn two feats, that's it!). So, as the title says, has anyone tried to create a revised and less powerful version of the Abjurant Champion? I also have to say no The Rabbit
JLaurHughes 03-11-07, 10:53 PM	Wizard and Sorcerer all have poor base attack increases. That means for a straight caster of that class you have to hit level 10 to get in at level 11, just like the the Wu jen and the Warmage. The battle sorcerer variant can get in like a bard. I missed that for wiz/sorc Base attack progressions thanks for pointing that out. It didn't click when I wrote it.
HomebrewedMonster 03-12-07, 12:52 AM	Gishes do not need to be complained about anymore because there is something that will always be better, the Duskblade.
dragynson1 03-12-07, 04:06 PM	hell who cares about gishing with the abjurant champion. id sacrifice a feat for a martial weapon as a wizard or sorcerer and take it without a second thought. even if i wasnt playing an elf. then i can quicken mordekainens disjuction , quickened greater dispel is always a good thing too.
Fluid_Dragon 03-12-07, 04:06 PM	For the people who are whining about the AC being 'unbalanced' the problem is not the AC. The Base Classes, core base classes are unbalanced. The Cleric and The Druid going all core are the most versitile and powerfull classes in the game. The Fighter and the Sorcerer especially need some help. Clerics and Druids are full caster GISH classes for free, they don't need to PrC in bizzare ways to be effective. The AC is NEEDED for gish builds. I LOVE the one that tries to do just Fighter/Wizard AC LOL hahahhaha. No matter how you cut it this with ONLY the AC for a PrC and sticking with Fighter and Wizard for the other classes you are going to have one of the following: 1. Pathetic BaB or 2. Pathetic Spell level access. This build is a JOKE. The fact is the CORE classes are NOT balanced. Not by a long shot. The Cleric and the Druid are way over powered. The wizard gets his cheeze when they hit 17th level. With access to 9th level spells. The fighter and the sorcerer are under powered. compared to their respective classes. I'll listen to AC balance arguments when they fix the cleric/druid problems. The AC is for 2 types of builds: 1. The Fighter who dabbles in magic. They will have access to very low level of spells 3rd or so. [adam sandler]WHOOPIDY DOOO[/adam sander] 2. Gish builds. For a Gish they need the boost, and they still need the other craptastic PrC's to keep caster levels and BaB in effective levels. AC is NOT the end all be all of PrCs, and it is only a 5 level class. For a Straight wiz/sorc caster build the AC has one nifty ability, but please, there are a LOAD of better PrC's to enhance the spell slinging stuff. Good AC for my caster? Thanks, but I try to keep him AWAY from melee. Better hit points? See the last sentance. Have my caster level equal my BaB no thanks it is twice as good already, Take combat casting, no thanks skill focus concentration is better. Quicken abjuration spells, ok now you piqued my interest. But thats IT. Is this enough to give up archmage/incantrix/master specialist etc etc etc abilities, Doubt it. Have to burn other feats to get into other caster based PrC's and take combat casting sorry, not going to do it. There are many better choices for a caster to take for a PrC. AC only helps a fighter-minor spell user and a Gish. Neither one will come close to a full power caster build with Cleric/Druid. Now add in all the non-core stuff for clerics/druids and they are insanely powerfull. Sorry go sell your kool-aid some place else, not buying it here.
Cold Napalm 03-12-07, 10:08 PM	hell who cares about gishing with the abjurant champion. id sacrifice a feat for a martial weapon as a wizard or sorcerer and take it without a second thought. even if i wasnt playing an elf. then i can quicken mordekainens disjuction , quickened greater dispel is always a good thing too. And who said you can do that?!? The HIGHEST level abjuration that can be quickened is level 3 at AC 5. Of course things look broken when you don't follow the rules. Is a feat as a pure caster worth quicken dispel magic at level 15? I think not.
Empiro 03-13-07, 12:53 AM	2. Gish builds. For a Gish they need the boost, and they still need the other craptastic PrC's to keep caster levels and BaB in effective levels. AC is NOT the end all be all of PrCs, and it is only a 5 level class. I'll say again: there are many very powerful and viable gish builds already. Just look on the CO builds. And just because the PrC isn't the most powerful PrC out there (personally, I'd say that it's among the top 5), it doesn't mean that it's not too good anyways. Sure, the AC might "only" put you on par with a Druid or Cleric who uses every overpowered ability in the books to be uber, but the DM shouldn't be allowing those abuses just as they shouldn't be allowing the AC. Good AC for my caster? Thanks, but I try to keep him AWAY from melee. Better hit points? See the last sentance. Have my caster level equal my BaB no thanks it is twice as good already, Take combat casting, no thanks skill focus concentration is better. Quicken abjuration spells, ok now you piqued my interest. But thats IT. Unless you're playing under the nicest DM in the world, have you ever been surprised by enemies by as a wizard? Ever have all the enemies' concentrate their firepower on you because they know you're the most dangerous? No matter how hard you try, you're going to get hurt, either by physical attacks or by spells. +9 AC and 15 hitpoints would have meant the difference between life and death many times in my experience, even at high levels. Is this enough to give up archmage/incantrix/master specialist etc etc etc abilities, Doubt it. Have to burn other feats to get into other caster based PrC's and take combat casting sorry, not going to do it. This is the very definition of power creep. Comparing the AC to other overpowered PrCs does not help your case. (minus Archmage, which is decently balanced, and you'd be able to take it after AC anyways) If you're going to compare it, compare it to a straight wizard, which I'm sure everyone agrees that it's in no sense underpowered.
dragynson1 03-13-07, 07:46 AM	This is the very definition of power creep. Comparing the AC to other overpowered PrCs does not help your case. (minus Archmage, which is decently balanced, and you'd be able to take it after AC anyways) If you're going to compare it, compare it to a straight wizard, which I'm sure everyone agrees that it's in no sense underpowered. wizard/5, 5 level prc( or of a prc), Abjurant champion 5. arch mage 5. see anything wrong with that? thats 3 capstone abilities.
Fluid_Dragon 03-13-07, 01:27 PM	I'll say again: there are many very powerful and viable gish builds already. Just look on the CO builds. And just because the PrC isn't the most powerful PrC out there (personally, I'd say that it's among the top 5), it doesn't mean that it's not too good anyways. Sure, the AC might "only" put you on par with a Druid or Cleric who uses every overpowered ability in the books to be uber, but the DM shouldn't be allowing those abuses just as they shouldn't be allowing the AC. CORE ONLY Clerics and Druids are more powerfull than a tricket out Gish. Sorry but that is the way the designers made the game. With the cleric it was intentional, with the druid it was an accident. If the AC were a 10 level PrC I would agree that it is unbalanced. As a 5 level PrC it is not. It is a strong class, but it is not unbalanced. Its abilities are geared towards melee combat, something straight casters (other than clerics or druids) should avoid. AC is not the problem CORE clerics and druids ARE the problem. Until that is fixed then I won't buy any argument about Gish's or AC being over powered. The CORE cleric and druid. Clerics and Druids get insane once you add PrC's and splat books. Unless you're playing under the nicest DM in the world, have you ever been surprised by enemies by as a wizard? Ever have all the enemies' concentrate their firepower on you because they know you're the most dangerous? I have played with all kinds of DM's. I play a wizard VERY well. I have played in games where my wizard has taken damage only 2 times in a campaign that lasted from 1st to 14th, with out AC or Gish abilities, just straight wizard. With a 16 or higher INT the character SHOULD be able to find ways to survive combat. Invest in a hat of disguise, look like the fighter. Get some dogs, hire shield bearers, use disguise, DO NOT WEAR ROBES, etc. These are just some ideas. Take Improved Initiative, invest skill points in Spot and Listen, Utilize the familiar etc etc etc. No matter how hard you try, you're going to get hurt, either by physical attacks or by spells. +9 AC and 15 hitpoints would have meant the difference between life and death many times in my experience, even at high levels. At the levels where a straight wizard can even take AC, 10th at the EARLIEST... You will only have the +5 ac (don't add the shield spell bonus just what the AC adds to the armor class)and +15 hitpoints at 15th LEVEL. If you are relying on armor class and hitpoints at this level of play you are playing a 'tard for a wizard, please tell me his INT is 12 or below. A 15th level wizard is damn powerful and will have the intellegence and the resources to not NEED to rely on +5 extra points of ac or a few more hit points. At this level please tell me you can be more creative. There are a multitude of other PrC's that offer a caster so much more than some bonus ac and hitpoints. The ONLY thing I would be interested in is the quickened abjurations, but this caps out at 3rd level spells, hardly worth giving up for the other PrC abilities out there. Really it sounds like you need to re-evaluate how you play wizards. As an optimizer the AC is the LAST PrC I am going to take for a full arcane caster, but one of the first for a GISH. This is the very definition of power creep. Comparing the AC to other overpowered PrCs does not help your case. (minus Archmage, which is decently balanced, and you'd be able to take it after AC anyways) The problem is the way classes were designed in 3.0 has undergone a paradigm shift. This is evident in the new base classes available. You loose NOTHING by PrCing a sorcerer, and almost nothing by PrCing a wizard. ANY PrC is going to be better than none. This is not MY problem or a problem with the AC. The problem is with the base classes them selves. The Wizard, Fighter, and Sorcerer NEED to be rewritten. Clerics and Druids should be rebalanced. Even most old PrC's suck compared to new ones. Compare the Knight Phantom to the EK. Not even close. Add to this the rarity of feats. You are seeing most new PrC's require feats that don't suck now as compared to older PrC's. What your problem really is, is two-fold. 1. The core Base Classes are NOT balanced, not even close. This is the root of the problem. They will NOT rebalance them in 3rd edition because any major change will make MANY of the books out there obsolete and that would hurt the bottom line. All the alternate class abilities and the way new classes are designed leads me to believe that when 4e comes out there will be more balance between the base classes and the base classes will have abilities that make it WORTH staying in the base class. Look at the Duskblade, a fine class you would be stupid to PrC. I expect the base classes to follow this model in 4e. 2. The new PrCs are better on the whole than the old ones. The play style from early 3.0 to late 3.5 is different. The way 3.0 was designed and balanced is not really how things work in 3.5 and the splat books. PrC's then had horrible costs associated to get into them, new PrC's have costs that make sense, and have synergy with the abilities granted. If you're going to compare it, compare it to a straight wizard, which I'm sure everyone agrees that it's in no sense underpowered. Nearly any caster oriented PrC is going to be better for a caster based wizard build. By the time a straight wizard can take all 5 levels of AC the only meaningful ability they get is the quickened abjuration spells of 3 level or below. The other abilities enhance and promote a stupid way to play a wizard. Abilities that enhance the strengths of a wizard will help alot more. I would not take 5 levels of AC jsut so I can quicken 1 school of spells of 3rd level or below. Even if Incantrix is out of the question. I rely on my wits to play a wizard and do VERY well without an insane armor class, or massive hitpoints. I could built a better wizard without AC than with. The abilities it grants are NOT synergystic with the way a wizard should be played. The abilities of nearly ANY wizard based PrC would be better in every way than the AC. What you are trying to do with AC and a wizard build, is counter productive. If you wanted those abilites research an improved version of shield. Maybe a 7th level swift action spell that grants +9 shield bonus to ac. And a simple false life. You don't need the BaB as a wizard, as you have tons of touch attack options. AC is for fighters with a dabling of magic who will have access to 3rd level spells at most, hardly over powering. Or a Gish, and in this case it mearly increases the viability in regards to the CORE Cleric or Druid, who have all the desired gish abilities in the core. Duskblade is NOT a viable gish build, it is a fighter build, as it can only do damage. Gish do more. ETA: Core wizards are under powered. High level spells are NOT under powered, so no I don't agree see above
teshen 03-13-07, 01:45 PM	I'll say again: there are many very powerful and viable gish builds already. Just look on the CO builds. And just because the PrC isn't the most powerful PrC out there (personally, I'd say that it's among the top 5), it doesn't mean that it's not too good anyways. And comparing things to the builds on the CO boards aren't the most realistic comparisons either. Some are purely theoretical builds... Some require lots of books that most people won't have the money or time to access... Some require the use of loopholes that many dms won't let you exploit once they see it. That said, yeah, you can dance around managing skill and feat requirements like an accountant manages taxes and make an effective gish. Yes, the abjurant champion makes it easier... and what on earth is wrong with that? Not every one has strong minmax-fu on their side... and even if they do, your dm is probably aware of it at this point. Abjurant champion is a good, not super, prc at what it does. It's power curve is fine for a late entry 5 level prc. I say late entry because... how long do your games last? most of the games I've played lately peter out before level 15 were most of the spell and magical item abuses kick in without regard to prc nonsense... (A rogue with a mean use magic device and the means to steal what he needs is a horrible, horrible thing....) Sure, the AC might "only" put you on par with a Druid or Cleric who uses every overpowered ability in the books to be uber, but the DM shouldn't be allowing those abuses just as they shouldn't be allowing the AC. Druid has a polymorph effect at relatively low levels. This does not require any help to be nasty... just a Monsters Manual and some ranks in either knowledge (arcane) or (nature) to justify the naughty forms your druid takes. Add to this most of his spells are tailored to amplifying animal forms... no cheesy abuses needed, my friend. None At All. Clerics... best armor, average base attack, decent weapons, strong buff spells, healing spells. Again... no cheesy abuses needed, my friend. None At All. Those only make it worse. Unless you're playing under the nicest DM in the world, have you ever been surprised by enemies by as a wizard? Ever have all the enemies' concentrate their firepower on you because they know you're the most dangerous? And a wizard played dumb deserves death. Survival of the fittest. If you are an adventurer that uses magic, you will plan for ways to overcome challenges yet unfaced. You can research hundreds of spells to keep your fat out of the fire, and then scribe them for latter use. Use some of that gold to... call me crazy here... survive. That's a wizard. That's somebody who avoids melee because he can... and that's one concept for a magic using adventurer. If you've gone a full caster route, you'll not go into melee, and with lots of spells that can still protect you on the chance that you are surprised... you'll make it through. Now gishes have chosen a different route... and it is much more dangerous. Less base attack, hit points, and fighting tricks (feats or features) of the actual fighting classes like fighter, barbarian, and even ranger and less spellcasting effectiveness than a sorcerer or wizard... your spells have to take the place of the feats or features you lost when you went arcane. That's why PrC for this multiclass combination are necessary. They're weak. No matter how hard you try, you're going to get hurt, either by physical attacks or by spells. +9 AC and 15 hitpoints would have meant the difference between life and death many times in my experience, even at high levels. Then cast two defensive spells instead of one... or by bracers of armor +8 when you can... and cast one of a couple of necromancy spells that give you hit points... it's roughly the same thing. This is the very definition of power creep. Comparing the AC to other overpowered PrCs does not help your case. (minus Archmage, which is decently balanced, and you'd be able to take it after AC anyways) If you're going to compare it, compare it to a straight wizard, which I'm sure everyone agrees that it's in no sense underpowered. Wizard IS underpowered. Bad saves. Bad hit points. Bad base attack. A little bullseye of an experience drain (familiar). A feat every 5 levels... leaving four dead levels at a time it sucks to be a wizard. It only sucks less than a sorcerer. It's the higher level SPELLS that are OVERPOWERED. That's why arcanists are wretched at lowerer levels, cool at mid levels, and overpowered at high levels... because the power of spells increase exponentially. Gishes are left behind in spells... what do you think this means? Besides, you are comparing a PrC to wizard... apples and oranges. Compare the multiclass fighter/wizard PrC to a comparable (read here about the same level) wizard PrC build... if you just compare a PrC to wizard... you're comparing a class to a series of spells, which is what wizard is... wizard/5, 5 level prc( or of a prc), Abjurant champion 5. arch mage 5. see anything wrong with that? thats 3 capstone abilities. Abjurant champion's 'capstone' of using your base attack as your caster level does absolutely nothing for a straight arcanist. It is only useful to gishes who, having less caster levels than a straight arcanist (and less base attack that a fighing type) use their base attack in place of caster level... which just means their spells work almost as good as an arcanists... but they still miss most of the power because they have less, if any, of the higher level spell slots. If you've minmaxed things, you still get little if any advantage out of this capstone. Archmage doesn't have a capstone... it straight up trades staying power in spells for a chosen ability. It's an even trade. If you're dead set on changing it... just increase the prerequisites to favor the fighter side...
Fluid_Dragon 03-13-07, 01:54 PM	If some neutral party wants to moderate a challange I will build a wizard 15 to dual against your 'uber' wizard10/ac5. Standard magic, best of 3 fights. Core or splat books, I don't care. I could even do it with a core sorcerer and they suck ETA: (I'll let you choose the class and splat books I can use.). Maybe one of the Core Arena Moderators will run it (you can pick the board/loacation of the fight). Looser buys the Mod and the winner a WotC book on Amazon.com Ready to put your money where your mouth is? I say best of 3 fights to minimize the impact of initiative and randomness. So Empiro what do you say? Ready for a challange? If you want to get your nose REALLY bloody, let me use a caster based PrC.... but even without one I'll beat you. That should settle the argument right then and there.
teshen 03-13-07, 02:16 PM	Right now... my money's on Fluid_Dragon. :heehee
dragynson1 03-13-07, 06:01 PM	im sorru did i miss a line in the swift action cast abjuration ? where does it say 3rd level or less? i thought it was spell level of 1/2 caster level. did i read that wrong? and a +5 bonus to ac is never bad, and extending all your abjurations too. neither is 3 bab, or 15 extra hitpoints. for the cost of one feat to a normal human wizard or for free to an elf. how is that a bad trade. You effectively get to cast 14th level spellslots at 18th level. even if its only abjurations if i could start every fight with a quickened greater dispell i would be happ. IM not saying it is the uberest of pwnage, i am just saying that it is very light cost for a straight wizard.
Fluid_Dragon 03-13-07, 06:59 PM	im sorru did i miss a line in the swift action cast abjuration ? where does it say 3rd level or less? i thought it was spell level of 1/2 caster level. did i read that wrong? and a +5 bonus to ac is never bad, and extending all your abjurations too. neither is 3 bab, or 15 extra hitpoints. for the cost of one feat to a normal human wizard or for free to an elf. how is that a bad trade. You effectively get to cast 14th level spellslots at 18th level. even if its only abjurations if i could start every fight with a quickened greater dispell i would be happ. IM not saying it is the uberest of pwnage, i am just saying that it is very light cost for a straight wizard. It is 1/2 your CLASS (abjurant champion) level rounded up. So at 5th level you can quicken 3rd level or less spells. Not a game breaking option. Extending the abjuration spells is not really that big of a deal. Most spells are not hours long and would be like "Lets run to the next room and hope we have to fight so I don't have to cast my abjuration spells again..." Nice once and awhile but again hardly something to pine after. Give me an Archmage any day.... A Wizard does not need BaB. Even with the +3 BaB you end 20th with +13, not enough for another attack. A wizard should rely on touch spells if they are suicidal or ranged touch spells if their intellegence is above a 12. +3 BaB to a wizard is nearly useless. You CANNOT quicken any abjuration spells above 3rd level. Please read the class abilities again. You could quicken DISPELL MAGIC but not GREATER DISPELL MAGIC. As a straight caster wizard (not giving up any caster levels) or sorcerer for that matter AC is a nearly worthless class, any caster based PrC that doesn't give up caster levels is better. Sure you only need +5 bab (which you will have at 10th level) and 1 sub-standard feat. Yes Combat Casting is substandard, just wander over to the CO boards for an explanation. And YAY elves get in for one one less feat than another race. Big deal your archer has +5 more ac... are you going to bop me on the head with your staff now? Or how about your dagger... Shaking in my boots... Some people seem to think ACis a GREAT wizard boost, Only if you play your wizard like a suicidal tard eager to meet his maker... This class SUCKS for a straight caster. SUCKS SUCKS SUCKS. Don't believe me have the guts to take me up on my challege. I will wipe the floor with any wizard AC build you want to throw at me, with a wizard only or sorcerer only build. If you are going to PrC your wizard/sorcerer and you are not giving up any caster levels ANY other PrC will be better. Look on the CO boards and try to find a decent pure wizard/ac build. You won't find one. AC is for fighters with a level of wiz/sorc and for Gish builds. Don't believe me put your money where your mouth is and take me up on my challange. You stand to gain pride and prove your point AND a free source book -OR- more likely you will get schooled in how to play a wizard and have to pony up the cost of 2 books one for the DM to run the dual and one for me. AC is good for a Gish. Not so good that it is in every build - that should tell you something - but good for many of the builds. Or you could trick out a gish build with AC and Fight my Druid, hey I will be nice and stick to core. Please wear a catsup flavored robe... You taste much better this way. This is a no contest fight. I would feel bad taking your money. To directly refute your point that it is a PrC with a light cost for a wizard. Sure it is a 'light cost' 2 feats for a non-elf / 1 for an elf and +5 BaB. Yup light cost. But what could you GAIN by getting into another PrC? THAT is the question you need to ask your self. If you need +5 to your shield spell and a few more hitpoints you REALLY need to reevaluate how you play a wizard. SERIOUSLY. The ONLY good ability this class would grant a wizard is the quickened Abjuration spells of 3rd level or lower, but to get it you need to take ALL 5 LEVELS of the class. No thanks, I'll take Archmage, or nearly ANY other full caster progression PrC. ETA: I made my challage to prove that anyone who needs or even thinks that the abilities that the AC grants are worth the 1-2 feats they cost are sorely mistaken. If you need the boost in HP/ac/BaB you really need a lesson in how to play an effective wizard, which is WHY I will win. The AC strengthens something the wizard SUCKS at and for only 5 levels you still SUCK at it. If you don't believe my put your money where your mouth is.....
teshen 03-13-07, 07:45 PM	im sorru did i miss a line in the swift action cast abjuration ? where does it say 3rd level or less? i thought it was spell level of 1/2 caster level. did i read that wrong? Yes. You read it incorrectly... but that's ok. Now I hope you realize that the ability is cool, but not overpowering. Quickening spells up to third level from one school of magic is nice... and just nice. and a +5 bonus to ac is never bad, and extending all your abjurations too. neither is 3 bab, or 15 extra hitpoints. for the cost of one feat to a normal human wizard or for free to an elf. how is that a bad trade. You effectively get to cast 14th level spellslots at 18th level. even if its only abjurations if i could start every fight with a quickened greater dispell i would be happy. An extra 15 hit points isn't a bad deal. Neither is the extra 3 base attack. Most abjuration spells will last the duration of a fight anyway, so the free extend spell is a flavor ability really... The bonus to AC (and I mean armor class... does anyone else find this abbreviation funny?) is meant because it replaces armor. You can have magic armor... or you can spend spells to do the same thing. Using resources every day to emulate real armor is... kind of cool, but not 'teh uber'. What I would say about applying Abjurant Champion to a full caster is that there are other PrCs that will do more for casting. No one is saying there are not benefits to the Abjurant Champion; it is just that the benefits don't work well for a focused/full caster. If, as a full caster, I take a PrC that improves my abilities in melee when it will never be enough at this point to make me a front line fighter... it's more or less a waste of resources. It's fine for roleplay, but D&D rewards specialization more than it rewards versatility. I should, to be more effective at my role as a spellcaster, add more to my spell casting with prc features that focus on improving some aspect of spell casting. That would make a stronger character. Empiro's problem, and probably the OP's problem as well, is that you are getting something for nothing... You aren't. The features are weaker than they appear for a full caster. Those same features are nice, but not overpowering, on fighter/arcanist types of characters. Others disagree and believes the class is too powerful for fighter/arcanist types of characters. I don't believe they are getting the difference of paper strength verses playing strength. And Fluid_Dragon... please... tone it down a bit. I should as well. I agree with you. Let's not alienate others. They either accept your hurled gauntlet or they don't... and it will take time either way. :)
Fluid_Dragon 03-13-07, 08:45 PM	Teshen phrased some of my points better. I also don't mean to alienate anybody. Not my intention. I personally get frustrated with knee-jerk reactions. Especially when it comes to my favorite type of character, the Fighter/Mage. I normally play wizards, and currently am playing a sorcerer and sub-optimized gish. If I sound harsh it is not meant to be harsh. I just want to illustrate the point and then prove it. As arguing back and forth does not seem to sway any opinions. The truth as they say is in the pudding. The AC is a fine class for what it is designed for. Strong (not overly so) for Fighters with a dash of the arcane and some Gish builds. It is not strong at all, in fact a poor choice for a straight caster, namely because there IS a cost and that is lost oportunity with a more suitable PrC for a straight caster, or even at the worste case for a straight wizard. The wizard bonus feats and familliar progression are worth more IMHO.
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-13-07, 11:22 PM	Smack-talk is a well-accepted tradition whenever a challenge is issued. Just try not to step too far over the line.
HomebrewedMonster 03-14-07, 12:43 AM	Blah blah blah, Duskblade.
Cold Napalm 03-14-07, 01:36 AM	Okay empiro, WTF is the point of comparing CO board with NON CO board played druids and clerics?!? I'm sorry but either compare in CO or out, period. Stop comparing things that just favors your bias. In CO play, the gish (even the AC based ones) are way WAY out striped by clerics and druids. Out of CO play...well the same holds true. The gish IS UNDERPOWERED COMPARED TO AN EQUALLY PLAYED DRUID OR CLERIC!!!! I can't believe that people have trouble with this. And then saying that the champion PrC is better then a straigh wizard...well I'm not so sure...using up 1 maybe 2 feats and losing a feat means thats up to 3 meta feats that I'm out. Thats a lot of power I'm giving up for a lot of things I'm not gonna use. But what about other wizard prestige classes? I mean even the lore master would be a better choice then the champion for a straight caster by a long shot here and I don't see any calls that that the loremaster is overpowered.
Fluid_Dragon 03-14-07, 08:26 AM	Blah blah blah, Duskblade. The Duskblade is a very well designed, fun, cool class. But it is NOT a Gish. It is a fighter who uses magic to cause damage. They lack any battlefield control spells, and utility spells, even many buff spells. In short nearly all of their spells involve movement or damage. Fun if you like that sort of thing, but I need more flavor in the choice of my spells. That said it is probably the best designed class of all the base clases, and satisfies one aspect of SOME gish builds. I'm even dipping a level into it in one of my current builds I'm playing. Too bad the armored casting will only work with Duskblade spells :weep:
teshen 03-14-07, 01:49 PM	The Duskblade is a very well designed, fun, cool class. But it is NOT a Gish. That said it is probably the best designed class of all the base clases, and satisfies one aspect of SOME gish builds. Well, if a 'gish' is a combination of magical/psionic power and melee prowress... then duskblade does the job from level one. You are right that duskblade lacks versatility... but it is still pretty easy to consider a duskblade as a low rent gish. The class has a better sense of itself/stronger theme than... say a fighter. It is a fighter who uses magic to cause damage. They lack any battlefield control spells, and utility spells, even many buff spells. In short nearly all of their spells involve movement or damage. Fun if you like that sort of thing, but I need more flavor in the choice of my spells. And although I have little experience with duskblades, I had a player use a nomad in a game... he was an awesome tactition. Never underestimate the ability to improve and change your movement options.
Fluid_Dragon 03-14-07, 04:32 PM	Don't know what a nomad is. Duskblades are fine characters, they lack many options as far as spells go and cap out at 5th level spells. Sure are better/cooler than a fighter, and rock as long as there are not too many encounters a day. But about all their spells do is damage things and open up some movement options. If you like that kind of character they are fine, and very well done as a class. You definitely don't want to PrC them - which is a sign of good design. If they had an extra learning here and there I would be all over it. All in all I will do gymnastics with the classes to build a decent gish with spells that I like, and spells of a higher level than 5. Wizards took my favorite concept and turned it into a class I would not want to play with the spell list they choose. Really if I just wanted to do lots of damage I would just build a martial character (with some ;) fighter levels). Duskblade is like asking for chocolate icecream and being handed strawberry forzen yogurt. Sure they are similar.... but at the same time not even close. Now you wanted stawberry icecream or better yet starwberry forzen yogurt you will be tickeled pink.... I guess nobody want to take me up on my challange with a Wiz10/AC5 vs a Wiz 15. Does that mean We win and the AC is officially not "overpowered" :D :D :D
Fluid_Dragon 03-14-07, 04:34 PM	--snip-- But what about other wizard prestige classes? I mean even the lore master would be a better choice then the champion for a straight caster by a long shot here and I don't see any calls that that the loremaster is overpowered. That is the point. On paper the AC LOOKS like you get alot of great things and some of the other classes are not as Flashy. IN reality though what you get is useless for you if you are just a wizard. And great point with the CO board insights, well said.
Archangel62 03-14-07, 06:21 PM	Gishes do not need to be complained about anymore because there is something that will always be better, the Duskblade. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :confused: ...wait, you were serious:looloo:
dragynson1 03-15-07, 01:56 AM	fluid and teshem you make some good points , and i did misread the swift casting thing. anyway. straight sorcerer 15 verses sor10/AC5? ill see what i can do for you. lets keep it to core only spells and feats and magic items. i doubt i will be able to build it before saturday/sunday. just too much crap going on right now.
Raede 03-15-07, 03:10 AM	In my experience, the hallmark of balance is found when one asks the question "Should I take a level of X or Y?" If a class is so good that the player doesn't bother to even ask that question, it's too good. Abjurant Champion is a staple in Fighter/Mage builds these days because it really is just that good. Precisely. That is always a good indication of balance for anything, in any game. There is no reason not to take the abjurant champion for a martial arcanist. Take away all the class abilities and its still better than EK, and those are some freaking sweet abilities. When you start at 'better than everything else' and then add to that... Unfortunately, as always happens with WotC products (and most others) is that of power creep. Complete mage, scoundrel, and PHB2 have all so far increased the power of characters without significant cost. Soon enough, AC will be balanced with the other prestige classes that come out for other classes in future supplements. Instead of offering new options with the same power, these books always offer new options and ideas some of which are equal, some weaker, and many stronger. I am so tired of power creep. Essentially my other problem with AC is thus: with a good build, you're looking at a character that has nigh-unhittable AC, nearly full arcane spellcasting, really good fort and will saves, decent HP, good BAB - in short, the nearly unkillable character who can do nearly anything except skills and healing. That's too broad for a single character. The AC's fighter and caster friend are both going to be outmatched in that party. For more on caster/AC comparison, see http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=11690323#post11690323 But, if you're using everything in all WotC products in your game, allow AC. Sure it's strong, but soon enough it will be equal to other power-creeped PrCs, and you can just ignore anything that came out before PHB2 because it's weak (some exceptions).
Fluid_Dragon 03-15-07, 08:16 AM	Precisely. That is always a good indication of balance for anything, in any game. There is no reason not to take the abjurant champion for a martial arcanist. Take away all the class abilities and its still better than EK, and those are some freaking sweet abilities. When you start at 'better than everything else' and then add to that... Unfortunately, as always happens with WotC products (and most others) is that of power creep. Complete mage, scoundrel, and PHB2 have all so far increased the power of characters without significant cost. Soon enough, AC will be balanced with the other prestige classes that come out for other classes in future supplements. Instead of offering new options with the same power, these books always offer new options and ideas some of which are equal, some weaker, and many stronger. I am so tired of power creep. Essentially my other problem with AC is thus: with a good build, you're looking at a character that has nigh-unhittable AC, nearly full arcane spellcasting, really good fort and will saves, decent HP, good BAB - in short, the nearly unkillable character who can do nearly anything except skills and healing. That's too broad for a single character. The AC's fighter and caster friend are both going to be outmatched in that party. For more on caster/AC comparison, see http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=11690323#post11690323 But, if you're using everything in all WotC products in your game, allow AC. Sure it's strong, but soon enough it will be equal to other power-creeped PrCs, and you can just ignore anything that came out before PHB2 because it's weak (some exceptions). Or you can just play a CORE druid, and have Skills AND Healing. Or if you want to keep the 'power level' down you can be a Core Cleric and just miss out on the skills. You said we had some good points, but ignore them. The EK is under powered and is a filler class. A Gish in general is underpowered. The EK should be compered with the Knight Phantom as it is a more direct comparison. And what should a Martial Arcanist give up? Some of his non existant class abilities? Some of the few feats the character will get? Wizards changed the way classes are designed with the release of the new base classes. PrC's were ALSO designed differently then compared to now. D&D 3.0 to early 3.5: Base classes are generic, vanilla and offer virtually NO REASON NOT to go into a PrC. The only balancing cost of PrC's are substandard feat choices. D&D Late 3.5 New Base classes are offered. These classes are much better designed and offer a viable 1-20 progression with no need to PrC and in some cases you significantly weaken the class by multi classing or taking a PrC. PrC's in general are not requireing useless feats to get into. What many people fail to realize is that the AC is only 5 levels long. This alone is a major balancing factor of the class. You get to have your cake and eat it too for 1/4 of your advancement. After that you have to choose which PrC to take and choose to focus more on melee or casting. Not to mention that many games have a house rule of 1 PrC per character, many of the CO boards builds will not be allowed becuase of this. If you are only allowed 1 PrC you will NOT be taking AC as a Gish. You will probably take EK. Nearly every single Gish build takes at least 1 level of EK and by your arguments this makes the class unbalaced. Which it is not. Lack of choices is why you see EK in nearly all gish builds. Everybody also seems to want to side step the Cleric/Druid Issue. They ignore it and go right into their arguments comparing a 5 level PrC to 10 level ones, or to the wiz/sorc/fighter. Your arguments are hollow when you ignore the disparity in the core rules. A tricked out AC gish build will get beated by a core druid/cleric build. In regards the challange sor 15 vs sor10/ac5 will just be an excersize in who picks the best spells. If it is limited to core spells we will have most of the same ones. The sorc/ac will have a higher armor class and a few more hit points. These 2 will really be more similar than they will be dis-similar. The challange was for a wiz10/ac5 vs either a wiz15 or sorc15. Wiz 15 is going to be the stronger class: More feats, higher level access to spells, more choice in spells, and preparing knowing that they are dualing another wizard. I offered the option of the chalanger having me fight with one hand behind my back by taking a sorcerer instead. I would prefer one of the outspoken proponents of the "unbalanced" nature of the AC to take me up onthe challange. Not someone who missread the abilites and largely changed their tune. The argument being that a Wiz/AC was vastly superior to a straight wizard. Their premise is false because if they have this belief then they are most likely playing their wizards like a GISH and will get their buts handed to then if they do this versus a wizard who plays like a wizard. I would prefer the wiz10/ac5 vs wiz15 but can do it with a sorc15, though really it should be apples to apples. ETA: PHBII does the most for the worste class in the game - the FIGHTER it is NEEDED to give them the boost they need..... Not power creep but fixing somethign that needed it. Badly. Now all they have to do is castrate clerics and druids down to the same power level as the rest of the game... These "power creep" arguments make me pee my pants laughing.... when the power creep is in the 2 divine full casters in the core rules. Any power creep inthe game is as a whole spread out around all the classes, and NPC's so it cancels out. Take your best AC gish build against my core druid any day of the week and twice on sunday. I don't see the same people calling for a nerf on the cleric or druid....
Archangel62 03-15-07, 08:53 AM	The actual point is that you can argue the cleric and druid being examples of theoretical gishes, a mixture of casting and martial power. The EK is one style of Gish and there are many others. Mechanical power is one aspect but there is also something to be said for simple tactical designs too. Some people prefer EK, some would rather do AC, I know one person who almost went nuts trying to figure out how to do Phantom Knight and AC in a Gish Build without totally castrating their caster levels.
HomebrewedMonster 03-15-07, 10:50 AM	They lack any battlefield control spells....all of their spells involve movement ... I'm pretty sure that's battlefield control. From my knowledge being able to hop around and regroup your party is pretty amazing actually for tactics. To each their own. *cough* Duskblade *cough*
IbanezNinja 03-15-07, 12:18 PM	This is a silly thread. The most tricked out gish will not reach the usefulness and strength of the cleric or druid so what is the big deal?
Fluid_Dragon 03-15-07, 02:58 PM	I'm pretty sure that's battlefield control. From my knowledge being able to hop around and regroup your party is pretty amazing actually for tactics. To each their own. *cough* Duskblade *cough* How about Grease, any of the image spells, Evards Black Tentecles, Cloud Kill, Solid Fog, Any of the Wall spells etc. These are just off the top of my head. How about spells of a level higher than 5? I'm sure there are lots of them that are nice. Duskblade vs Gish with 9th level spells um, you do the math.... Being able to teleport is tactical movement. Sure its great, I use it often. Tactical movement is NOT controling the battlefield, it is controling your placement and possibly that of your party members. I'm talking about CONTROLING the battlefield. I like the duskblade they are a fun playable class from level 1 on and a text book example of good class design. But their spell list has little in comon with what I would be interested in having as a Gish and is limited in the max level. The Duskblade as a couple tricks up their sleeves, and they can do some impressive damage. I would get bored with them quickly though. Most of their spells are simply meant to damage their opponents. I just want more from a spell list. This is also the same reason I don't like Warmage's as much either. They are rather one dimensional. Don't choke on your Duskblade...
Fluid_Dragon 03-15-07, 02:59 PM	This is a silly thread. The most tricked out gish will not reach the usefulness and strength of the cleric or druid so what is the big deal? EXACTLY!!!!!
dragynson1 03-15-07, 05:51 PM	I did misread the swift abjuration, the class is still powerful, but not near what i was thinking. quickened 9th level spells? and i never said the class was the BEST of the BEST with a 10th sor or wiz. i just said it was very good for very light entry requirements even to a straight wiz/sor. You jumped all over me. and offered up all these deals to name the conditions anyway i wanted. I dont see a reason to duel you with one hand tied behind your back, not when you can have two tied there. PS i knwo why skill focus concentration is better than combat casting, ive known since 3.5 came out in 2003. I also know that skill focus concentration isnt used as a prereq for many PRCS while combat casting is.
teshen 03-15-07, 06:02 PM	In my experience, the hallmark of balance is found when one asks the question "Should I take a level of X or Y?" If a class is so good that the player doesn't bother to even ask that question, it's too good. Abjurant Champion is a staple in Fighter/Mage builds these days because it really is just that good. Precisely. That is always a good indication of balance for anything, in any game. There is no reason not to take the abjurant champion for a martial arcanist. Take away all the class abilities and its still better than EK, and those are some freaking sweet abilities. When you start at 'better than everything else' and then add to that... The actual point is that you can argue the cleric and druid being examples of theoretical gishes, a mixture of casting and martial power. The EK is one style of Gish and there are many others. Mechanical power is one aspect but there is also something to be said for simple tactical designs too. Some people prefer EK, some would rather do AC. . . And so if your point is everybody would take the Abjurant Champion because it is too good not to... then either the people who play with Archangel62 are 'stupid' or they realize that Abjurant Champion is good for some things... but not as good as you make it out to be. If you want to talk about power disparities (power creep), compare things that are similar enough that the differences become obvious... compare eldritch knight with phantom knight. (I'm doing this from memory, so if there are inaccuracies, please correct me.) Both grant 9/10 casting, a full base attack over 10 levels, similiar saves (good fort, bad reflex and will), similiar skill points (int + 2, I think...), comparable skill sets... The difference is in a d6 verses a d8 hit die and a first level feat verses four limited use class abilites... So Phantom Knight is clearly stronger... except the requirements are a little more stringent. Does this balance the classes? I would consistantly take Phantom Knight over Eldritch Knight... if my character could. That won't always be the case. By comparing a five level prc to a ten level prc, you are talking about drastically different goals. Apples to oranges. Abjurant champion is made for... 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. . . 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. And Stormbrand makes a good point.
teshen 03-15-07, 06:02 PM	Essentially my other problem with AC is thus: with a good build, you're looking at a character that has nigh-unhittable AC, nearly full arcane spellcasting, really good fort and will saves, decent HP, good BAB - in short, the nearly unkillable character who can do nearly anything except skills and healing. That's too broad for a single character. The AC's fighter and caster friend are both going to be outmatched in that party. For more on caster/AC comparison, see http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=11690323#post11690323 emphasis mine I remember your comparison, now. You didn't break it down into this verses that... so at times I have to think about what you're actually saying... Greater dispel magic can take care of most of your 'nigh-unhittable AC'. Your saves will actually be weaker from jumping around from class to class with different strong saves. And still... a reflex save spell could 'fix' the build you're talking about. That and you'll never stop a full caster's spells... There's also little from stoping an Abjurant Champion from taking those PrCs that you mentioned... because it is so short you can get something else in. Think it's better than eldritch knight? Well then, you can do it and eldritch knight. And my money is still on the straight caster. You may beat a fighter if you use your spells smarter than a fighter picks his new and improved feats and prcs out of the myriad of WotC products put out... but a five level prc whose abilities scale based on those 5 prc levels will never be 'teh uber', period. Especially when it is based on shoring up weaknesses in multiclassing. A Character Optimization board gish can do naughty things... and most pcs aren't that good. If your DM calls out a high powered game... then everybody will be minmaxed... not just the gish. ...and a minmaxed C.oD.zilla... *shudders* But spells are exponentially stronger as levels increase. With a minmaxed gish, you might have 1 level 9 spell. I'll counter or dispell it as a straight caster and hit you with 3 more 9th level spells... the ones that destroy armies or mimics any other kind of spell 8th level or lower or destroys all your enchantments and magical weapons, armor, and wonderous items... as a vanilla wizard. With the right PrCs I can amp my caster level (wildmage), apply an insane amount of metamagic to spells (incantrix), turn illusions into reality (shadowcraft mage), throw prismatic wall effects all day long (initiate of the sevenfold veil), screw with your saves (fatespinner), alter many spell perimeters (archmage), and that's without losing a single spell level. That's why a gish is fun... but ulimately behind the curve in power even with Abjurant Champion.
starfire311 03-15-07, 06:44 PM	yes I fixed it, I changed the abjurant armor ability to apply to any spell that they cast that gives an armor bonus or shield bonus and that spell becomes abjuration in addition to any other schools it may have had.
Fluid_Dragon 03-15-07, 06:58 PM	I did misread the swift abjuration, the class is still powerful, but not near what i was thinking. quickened 9th level spells? and i never said the class was the BEST of the BEST with a 10th sor or wiz. i just said it was very good for very light entry requirements even to a straight wiz/sor. You jumped all over me. and offered up all these deals to name the conditions anyway i wanted. I dont see a reason to duel you with one hand tied behind your back, not when you can have two tied there. PS i knwo why skill focus concentration is better than combat casting, ive known since 3.5 came out in 2003. I also know that skill focus concentration isnt used as a prereq for many PRCS while combat casting is. You are not the one that stated that a wiz10/ac5 was superior to a wizard 15, and you missunderstood the quickened spells. I was refering more to Empiro than anything else. Because on a straight caster the bonuses that AC gets are contrary to the way a wizard should be played, at least to get the most out of a wizard. The tactics that you would have to employ, to even bother to utilize the advantages of an AC, would put a wizard at a severe disadvantage. A well played straight wizard played up with the classes strengths vs a wizard played to the classes weaknesses will beat the poorly played wizard. The point was that the w10/ac5 was vastly better which it is not. I offered to even let him have me be a sorcerer as they are weaker, with less spells, less feats and no class abilites. I really don't have much of an interest in a sorcerer vs sorcerer battle. Especially core only spells. There are only so many effective PHB spells for a sorcerer (which I would use a generic adventureing build as opposed to building it just for the combat). This contest would be just a matter of who picked the better spells or mostly the same spells, and the builds would be VERY similar just due to the core limitations. I did enough core arena a couple years ago, and that is pretty much how it works with 2 sorcerers. If a sorcerer 15 beat the crap out of a wiz10/ac5, who IS superior, by use of proper tactics for an arcane caster it would prove the point quite well. A sorc 15 would be the underdog in that fight, which is what the combat was about. Teshen has summed up my other points quite well.
Cold Napalm 03-16-07, 02:45 AM	You know what's power creep? The planar shepherd and druid spells. EVERYTHING else is a matter of balancing archetypes against the druid. The argument against AC being power creep only makes sense IF you actually believe wizards when they say all classes, and by extension, all multi classing options, are balanced (like all schools of magic are balanced and conjuration not broken in power beyond belief but that is another matter entirely). This of course we know to be bogus and various feats and PrC are a way to fix the problems of their rather horrible IMHO multiclassing system.
Archangel62 03-16-07, 07:05 AM	One other big thing with Gish designs does come down to how the class is designed and who wants what from it. I know some guys who plot out their characters down to the magic items they wield at each level to make sure that their character does exactly what they want it to. Gishes are also cool, but they do take a lot of work because you need to view them differently from regular casters and fighters (duskblades are one aspect of how people might play them but a lesser aspect). After all, some designs are primarily self buff and boost where they have a ton of boosting spells and use them to augment themselves, similar to the self-buffing cleric. Others focus more on directing the flow of the battlefield with wall spells and altering how the battles will function. A self buffing one might be just as happy being a Spellsword to wear heavier armor and shields, while a controller based one will likely go AC to get the extra bonuses to help them out. In some ways gishes can even be argued weaker than a standard caster or martial character. Consider needing to split feats up between metamagic and combat, to acquire the needed prestige classes, and to have to juggle gear to make sure that the best equipment for their concept is chosen. Until they make a way to insert metamagic rods into weaponry the character will be juggling gear a fair amount. Also, comparing the AC to the EK and previous prestige classes is somewhat disingenuous. The designers have even admitted that as the game progresses they get a clearer idea of what will work and what will not, what is balanced and what isn't. The hexblade is a class that can do with some punching up, they designer even offered an idea on the forums, but at the time they were nervous because it was the first martial class that also gained arcane spells and other abilities, they weren't sure how to do it and feared breaking it, so they erred on the side of caution. However, as the game progressed new books came out and they got a better handle on making classes. Some examples would be the Warlock, the Binder, the Duskblade, Factotum, Artificer, Scout, and possibly the favored soul all good classes in their own right and classes that generally you didn't want to prestige out of because either a) the class didn't have any prestige support or didn't have any GOOD prestige support or b) you might have gained a few useful things but you also lost some useful things too so it became a question of what you wanted and you were indecisive, and that indecision can show balance. Compare feats, classes, and prestige classes, the later stuff tends to be better, not out of power creep but out of an understanding as to what can be done in the game without it breaking apart. The ToB is a good example of a well designed system, it provides martial classes with new combat options and abilities as well as offering a way to make their stuff gained by all.
HomebrewedMonster 03-16-07, 01:38 PM	Don't choke on your Duskblade... I can't choke on a 220 pound, 6' 4'', mithril full plate and buckler sporting human that swings a battle axe. I can't open my mouth that big unless I used a spell higher than 5th level.
AllisterH 03-16-07, 03:31 PM	Er, maybe I'm missing something here, but how isn't a wiz 10/AC 5 NOT stronger than a wiz 15? The only thing the wiz 15 has as an advatage is 3 feats by my count. 3 feats = Advantages of the EK champion from just BAB (making your touch spells better) to being plain tougher? Sure, if there are other prestige classes, many of them are better than AC but that still doesn't make the AC balanced with respect tot he wizard. Of course, the real problem being the wizard class itself (and I'm not sure the argument that they don't match up to Codzilla is a good one since, CODzilla IS overpowered).
Fluid_Dragon 03-16-07, 04:21 PM	Er, maybe I'm missing something here, but how isn't a wiz 10/AC 5 NOT stronger than a wiz 15? The only thing the wiz 15 has as an advatage is 3 feats by my count. 3 feats = Advantages of the EK champion from just BAB (making your touch spells better) to being plain tougher? Sure, if there are other prestige classes, many of them are better than AC but that still doesn't make the AC balanced with respect tot he wizard. Of course, the real problem being the wizard class itself (and I'm not sure the argument that they don't match up to Codzilla is a good one since, CODzilla IS overpowered). A wiz10/ac5 is a bit better than a straight wizard. The whole point is that the bonuses you get for a stright caster are very minor. If you as a wizard are going to rely on the extra +5 to your shield spell and some quickened abjuration spells of 3rd level or lower, if this is the crux of your power, then you REALLY need to re-evaluate how you play a wizard. The bonuses you get as an AC are counter productive to playing a wizard well. This would mean that you would be playing with at best Gish type strategies without the ability to back it up and because your actions in combat are limited each round to play the Gish role with a pathetic BaB and HP you will get your but handed to you by a wizard who runs the character the way a wizard should be run. Further ANY other PrC that is made for straight casters is going to give you benefits that mesh with a straight caster much better and will be more effective than the AC for a straight caster. The argument about clerics and druids is VERY valid. Both are FULL spell casters Both have good hit die Both have decent saves Both have decent BaB Both can use armor and shields Druids have the most powerfull class ability in the game. The Gish has to work to get a decent caster level, high level spells, BaB, AC etc. The core divine classes get everything that the gish tries to do for free. (Without giving anything up which the AC detractors on this thread are so upset about, getting free cheeze, which the AC gets for only 5 levels unlike the cleric/druid who gets everything for a full 20 levels) These are CORE classes I am not even talking about optimizing them just playing them well. They can do nearly everything in the game as good or in some cases better then the class that should specialize in it, with no drawbacks. No cost. For a Gish you have tough choices to make. BaB or Spell level, melee or magic. Even the most tricked out gish will pale behind a straight wizard/sorc much less the cleric/druid. The reasons why are in the posts by Teshen and myself and revolve around access to higher level spells. WotC and most people who like to harp on "balance" issues ignore or pretend that there is not a problem with the core cleric/druid. They gloss over this constantly and try to say in so many ways that the argument is not valid. Either state explicitly that the core classes are NOT balanced agaisnt each other and that is just the way it is (like wizards in previous editions, slow to start gods at the high end). or FIX it. A good start is to drop ALL full casters to d4, 1 good save, poor BaB and no armor, and limit druids to 3 shapes for wild shape that they pick, one for land sea and air. or something similar. Fact is the base classes are NOT balanced, and they won't be officially fixed in 3.x as it would disrupt the product line too much. But I'm sick of people taking a knee jerk reaction to a small part of the game and claiming it is not balanced while either not bothering to READ the abilities correctly or understand how to min/max well so that they can see if it actually IS unbalanced.
Fluid_Dragon 03-16-07, 04:27 PM	I can't choke on a 220 pound, 6' 4'', mithril full plate and buckler sporting human that swings a battle axe. I can't open my mouth that big unless I used a spell higher than 5th level. You kept saying cough** duskblade** cough. 5th level spells pale in comparison to spells of a higher level. Not my rules but the way the game is. If all you want to do is move around a bit and bash things be my guest have fun. A gish can do this AND a few more things. A few of the right PrC's and I can have the same stats and equipment and 9th level spells. I will give up some BaB to you granted, but nothing time stop can't fix. A well put together gish will have more options and higher level spells. The only real advantage with a duskbalde is lower level play. They are viable from level 1 on. Most gish builds don't start working well until at least 6th level or even higher.
teshen 03-16-07, 08:06 PM	Er, maybe I'm missing something here, but how isn't a wiz 10/AC 5 NOT stronger than a wiz 15? The only thing the wiz 15 has as an advatage is 3 feats by my count. And to beat a point to death... You're saying wizard 10/PrC 5 is better than wizard 15. Just about no one will argue this point... because wizard pretty much gets spells (good stuff), familiar advancement (sucktastic), and a feat every now and then (meh). If prcs advance spells and give some sort of casting alteration feature, it's no contest. Take Any casting prc. Wizard 10/ Abjurant Champion 5 is weaker than Druid 15 or Cleric 15. In most cases it's weaker than Wizard 5/Casting PrC 5/Casting PrC 5 or Wizard 5/Prcs=10... because PrCs can let you do more. It's as simple as that. I'll repeat what many others have said, and have said so for good reason... Abjurant Champion is a poor choice because it shores up an arcane caster's weakness rather than playing to a strength. If you still think Abjurant Champion is overpowered, if arguments about relative spell strength don't do it for you, if you don't buy the arguments about paper strength verses playable strength, if you still don't think playing to a strength rather than your weakness is a good idea in D&D... Get some friends to help you playtest it. Have one that's good at fighter types build a good fighter type. Have one that's good at playing casters make a strong caster. Then you take the gish roll. Multiclass some fighting type class and some arcane class and then take the prcs you qualify for. Play the characters against various appropriate challenges at levels 5, 10, 15, and 20. Consider how the characters perform against said challenges. This is akin to Fluid_Dragon's idea... and it will give you a better idea about character depth than just a one snapshot PvP battle. I'll bet on the fighter at low (5) levels. At mid to higher levels (10+) the wizard will pull ahead. At 20 the wizard will dominate the field. I'd even say the fighter keeps up with the gish in the middle levels in cases where a player optimizes him... (I think of Tempest's charger build :bow: ... but that character is just stupid Awesome. If you haven't seen it, look in his signature... I mean it. Be amazed.) Include a decently played cleric or a druid and just about everything I've said doesn't matter.
HomebrewedMonster 03-17-07, 01:29 AM	You kept saying cough** duskblade** cough. 5th level spells pale in comparison to spells of a higher level. Not my rules but the way the game is. If all you want to do is move around a bit and bash things be my guest have fun. A gish can do this AND a few more things. A few of the right PrC's and I can have the same stats and equipment and 9th level spells. I will give up some BaB to you granted, but nothing time stop can't fix. A well put together gish will have more options and higher level spells. The only real advantage with a duskbalde is lower level play. They are viable from level 1 on. Most gish builds don't start working well until at least 6th level or even higher. You can also out-last any gish in combat with more hit points, better BAB, heavy armor and shield, also channel and swift casting abilities. To each their own, you are wrong....in my eyes.
Archangel62 03-17-07, 03:03 AM	You can also out-last any gish in combat with more hit points, better BAB, heavy armor and shield, also channel and swift casting abilities. To each their own, you are wrong....in my eyes. Except the problem is that the Duskblade is rather limited in action. The duskblade actually ends up being weaker than most gishes unless your plan was raw damage. I can trap a duskblade with wall spells, not to mention the defensive spells I can drop, and of course, who can forget my larger array of spells and the fact that I also have more buffs and more options than the duskblade does. The duskblade is an interesting class, and a nice one, but it isn't as powerful as a pure gish, it is different, but that's all it is, different.
Marcotic 03-17-07, 03:46 AM	Over all, I think that the idea of a gish is just for fun. Say I want to be that guy that uses smart combos of magic (arcane magic;) ) and mundane. Will you be ably to tank? not likely as well as a fighter, less so a buffed up cleric. Will you be able to do the magic as well as a equal leveled wizard? heck no. But will you be usefull in any situation, Yes indeedy. Will you get to buff every thing up and own somthing? For a brief time, probly. Will you have fun. Oh yes you will. (if thats your peraugative) this post isn't really about the AbC (ok tried to change the acronym-failed) and for that i appologize. But I will say that AbC is good for a battle sorceror, even if the concept is underpowered, it makes it playable.
teshen 03-17-07, 07:22 AM	Over all, I think that the idea of a gish is just for fun. Say I want to be that guy that uses smart combos of magic (arcane magic;) ) and mundane. Will you be ably to tank? not likely as well as a fighter, less so a buffed up cleric. Will you be able to do the magic as well as a equal leveled wizard? heck no. But will you be usefull in any situation, Yes indeedy. Thank you, Marcotic. This is exactly the point that others have made before. You (usually) trade power for versatility in some multiclass combinations. You do it, not for power, but for the roleplay, fun, and options such a concept represents. Sometimes its just fun to be able to wade into battle with the other guys... but you have to be smart to do it. This PrC helps make up the difference so you can concentrate on that concept for a bit longer and stay competitive with other groups. WotC has been trying to patch the weaknesses in multiclassing with different PrCs and combo feats that make such things more useful... and the success varies. ;)
Fluid_Dragon 03-17-07, 10:07 AM	You can also out-last any gish in combat with more hit points, better BAB, heavy armor and shield, also channel and swift casting abilities. To each their own, you are wrong....in my eyes. *Some gish builds have heavy armor. *Some have 18 BaB *Some channel ANY spell through their weapon, not just touch spells. *Quicken spell is available to a gish, and there are quite a few swift action spells out there. A duskblade will probably have higher hit points. But really 5 level or lower spells vs 6th level and higher spells. Please. It is not an even a contest. Higher level spells are exponentially more powerful than lower level ones. And a Gish has the whole wiz/sorc list to choose from, not a very narrow limited list. Disintigrate is aboutthe most versitile best spell that the DB has and they can only use it a few times aday. The Duskbalde is a well designed class that is a fighter that uses magic to cause damage instead of feats. They can apply some serious hurt for a limited time. And they have some nifty movement abilites. With many encounters a day they will eventually run out of spells and be less effective than the fighter. They have a very narrow scope of usable spells. And everything they can do can be duplicated by certain Gish builds, but nearly all the gish builds out there will have more flexibility, and higher level spells. If you want to just zip around the battelfield and blast a few things with your sword have fun. I'd get bored with that pretty quick. THe DB is one SMALL aspect of gish builds and even the more Tank like builds have loads more flexibility than a DB and higher level spells to boot. Even if AC is not an option. And what on earth does a Duskblade have to do with Abjurant Champions anyway? The PrC revolves around the shield spell which the DB doesn't have access to. AC is not a very good PrC for a DB as you would be giving up decent DB abilities for class abilities that you couldn't even use or that you already get. So other than trying to pimp the DB as the end all be all of Gish builds, which it isn't, how does it even apply to the topic of conversation?
HomebrewedMonster 03-17-07, 11:29 AM	*Some gish builds have heavy armor. *Some have 18 BaB *Some channel ANY spell through their weapon, not just touch spells. *Quicken spell is available to a gish, and there are quite a few swift action spells out there. But they cannot do all of them. A duskblade will probably have higher hit points. But really 5 level or lower spells vs 6th level and higher spells. Please. It is not an even a contest. Higher level spells are exponentially more powerful than lower level ones. And a Gish has the whole wiz/sorc list to choose from, not a very narrow limited list. Disintigrate is aboutthe most versitile best spell that the DB has and they can only use it a few times aday. That's why the duskblade gets 9 castings a day per spell level. The Duskbalde is a well designed class that is a fighter that uses magic to cause damage instead of feats. They can apply some serious hurt for a limited time. And they have some nifty movement abilites. With many encounters a day they will eventually run out of spells and be less effective than the fighter. They have a very narrow scope of usable spells. And everything they can do can be duplicated by certain Gish builds, but nearly all the gish builds out there will have more flexibility, and higher level spells. "Most", without using the battle sorcerer variant (which is stupid and over-powered, another argument) a lot of these high BAB gish builds go out the window. I can see most duskblades spell allowance lasting longer than most gish. A duskblade can use his feats for combat as most gish have to waste them on crappy preq feats like combat casting. The only real disadvantage to the duskblade on spells is that they have not yet made a web enhancement for the Spell Compendium. If you want to just zip around the battelfield and blast a few things with your sword have fun. I'd get bored with that pretty quick. THe DB is one SMALL aspect of gish builds and even the more Tank like builds have loads more flexibility than a DB and higher level spells to boot. Even if AC is not an option. That's why there are feats, and now skill tricks. And what on earth does a Duskblade have to do with Abjurant Champions anyway? The PrC revolves around the shield spell which the DB doesn't have access to. AC is not a very good PrC for a DB as you would be giving up decent DB abilities for class abilities that you couldn't even use or that you already get. So other than trying to pimp the DB as the end all be all of Gish builds, which it isn't, how does it even apply to the topic of conversation? I am suggestioning how you balance the class, don't play it.
AllisterH 03-17-07, 12:07 PM	I'm not sure the focus on "matching" the druid/cleric is a good judge in my opinion. Take a look at the new base classes that WOTC has come out with in the last few years. None of them are even close to the power of the druid/cleric. Hell, anyone remember that thread where they did "rank" the base classes and the single-classed wizard STILL ranks right after the Druid/Cleric on the power scale. (The only base class released after the CORE anyone agrees to be stronger is the ARTIFICER and maybe, just maybe the psion.) As another poster pointed out, WOTC has "learned" about class design and these new base classes like the warlock and the sword sage pretty much are all designed well in that you WANT to remain single-class. So why focus on matching how a 10/5 wiz/AC matched up with a druid 15 but not with the standard of the new base classes like the warlock, the dread necromancer and the crusader?
Fluid_Dragon 03-17-07, 12:18 PM	But they cannot do all of them. That's why the duskblade gets 9 castings a day per spell level. Have fun. I prefer higher level access and the freedom to choose my own spells. I like Gish that is versitle. If I just want to bash things I'll play a fighter type. "Most", without using the battle sorcerer variant (which is stupid and over-powered, another argument) a lot of these high BAB gish builds go out the window. The battle sorcerer has an EXTREMELY limited number of known spells. Not over powered but extremely limited in scope. Not my cup of tea but some people like it. Sorc should be a d6 med BaB class anyway, but that is another topic too. But if you are just going for the High BaB and a decent spell level access and decent armor you can do it with a Gish, AND choose your own spells. But I doubt you will listen to any arguments against a DB as it seems like your pet class. Hey I like the class and it should be used as a model for all class design especially the base core classes. I would just get bored with it as it pretty much just bashes things. YMMV. I like to have versitility with a gish, which is the whole reason I play them. If I want a fighter type, I'll just build one that excells at that. I can see most duskblades spell allowance lasting longer than most gish. A duskblade can use his feats for combat as most gish have to waste them on crappy preq feats like combat casting. A Gish will have access to higher level fight stoppers, they don't need as many spells per day as a DB does. The DB needs this access and is generally doing 2 spells per round and mostly they are going to be for adding damage or movement. I prefer a different style of play. The only real disadvantage to the duskblade on spells is that they have not yet made a web enhancement for the Spell Compendium. 1. I doubt they will and I doubt you will be getting wraithstrike (talk about broken). The DB's balance lies in its limited access to spells. Note that unlike all the other focused spontaneous classes they do not get all of their spells known and they do not get the class ability to pick up a few spells here and there outside of thier class list. (frankly I think they should get both) 2. Even if they did put in some SC spells, you are going to have the same type of spells as you have now. More ways to damage something and maybe more ways to move. A buff or two if you are lucky. But basically the same type of spells as you are currently getting so no net change, just more of hte same. 3. There are some WAY over powered and WAY under powered spells in the SC. They haven't bothered to fix thoose yet so I wouldn't hold my breath on them adding to the DB list. Hey if they had more varitey of spells or even the ability to pick up a hand full of spells that the player chooses I'd be all over it. It is alot easier to build. If you take the DB and just allow them the wiz/sorc list and keep everything else the same I would change my toon a little. But as it stands I have no interest in their spell list. That's why there are feats, and now skill tricks. DB biggest advantage is they don't have to spend crappy feats for PrC's and they can focus them on what ever combat style or other things that they want. That is a nice bonus. Some of the Gish prereq feats really suck some are not that bad. Combat Casting is not as good as skill focus concentration but it is not useless. Some builds only have to waste 1 or 2 feats. There are so many builds though that it is a gross generalization. The ones that waste the most feats also generally have FULL CASTER spell access. They trade some BaB, HP, and Feats for the full casting abilites of a wiz/sorc. Which for that concept is a decent trade, and a Full Caster of any class is going to trump a non full caster balanced gish or duskblade alike. Tricks are hardly used in every or even most games. I like them they are cool. But very dm/campagin specific. And a Gish can do them too. And some Gish can be very skilled. I'm playing one now. I am suggestioning how you balance the class, don't play it. The duskblade is balanced. The Abjuratant Champion is balanced. (even useless in games that only allow one PrC). The Cleric is unbalanced The Druid is WAY unbalanced The Wizard is Balanced The Sorcerer is a tad weak The fighter is weak, needs the PHB2 and something to do outside of combat. Most of the other classes are fine. I see the same type of knee jerk reaction to the Book of 9 swords as I do to the AC. Mostly comes from people who havn't played it or only stated something on paper. Or don't understand why the class was made the way it was made.
AllisterH 03-17-07, 12:31 PM	The duskblade is balanced. The Abjuratant Champion is balanced. (even useless in games that only allow one PrC). The Cleric is unbalanced The Druid is WAY unbalanced The Wizard is Balanced The Sorcerer is a tad weak The fighter is weak, needs the PHB2 and something to do outside of combat. Most of the other classes are fine. . Hmm...I think I see where you're coming from. for me, the Sorceror is Balanced and the WIZARD is overpowered with the cleric being WAY overpowered while the druid just needs to be shot. For me, I think a sorceror should be the midpoint in the "Balance Line" The martial adepts match up pretty well with that as do many of the new base classes like the warmage and beguiler.
Fluid_Dragon 03-17-07, 12:40 PM	I'm not sure the focus on "matching" the druid/cleric is a good judge in my opinion. Didn't say or even try to match the cleirc or druid. But that both of those classes do for free what the gish tries to do at a very heavy cost. There is not a gish build out there that will have the same armor HP BAB and a full caster level. The C/D will always be better than the gish. You won't match them. You have to spend resources to do what they do for free. They still have the resources and every suppliment book out there makes them even stronger. Take a look at the new base classes that WOTC has come out with in the last few years. None of them are even close to the power of the druid/cleric. See above. The cleric and druid need to be reigned in. Late 3.5 class design is superior to early 3.x design. But the same people that bellyache about B9S or the AC are not calling for bans of Clerics or Druids, which are unbalanced in a much greater degree than anything else out there. Hell, anyone remember that thread where they did "rank" the base classes and the single-classed wizard STILL ranks right after the Druid/Cleric on the power scale. [/qote] This is directly atributed to the Magic System and high level spells. Not class design. This is also way a gish will be ranked below the 4 full casting classes. A straight wizard is going to unbalance a game more than any gish. [quote](The only base class released after the CORE anyone agrees to be stronger is the ARTIFICER and maybe, just maybe the psion.) Not familliar with the artificer and don't like psionics and never played them in any game so I can't comment on their general power levels. As another poster pointed out, WOTC has "learned" about class design and these new base classes like the warlock and the sword sage pretty much are all designed well in that you WANT to remain single-class.[quote] This is a VERY good thing and can't wait till they redo the core classes. [quote]So why focus on matching how a 10/5 wiz/AC matched up with a druid 15 The matchup was Wiz10/AC15 vs WIZARD 15. The point being that AC does not synergize with a straight wizard well at all and if you rely on that type of strategy you will get beat by a standard wizard who plays like one. The Druid 15 will mop the floor with either the wizard or the wiz/ac. but not with the standard of the new base classes like the warlock, the dread necromancer and the crusader? Warlocks are fine. Boreing but fine. Not familliar with the other two. But I woud be willing to bet that any of them are not going to equal the power of a cleric/druid. The fact remains that the AC is only a 5 level calss. It has narrow range of applications and if your game limits you to one PrC then you will probably go with EK. It does not synergise well with a staright caster and is not applicable to all Gish builds. You get to have your cake and eat it too for a short time and looks better on paper than in actual play. People that don't like it generally are the type of people that claim the Warblade is overpowered because they compare it to a fighter which is an underpowered class. Of course it is better. But it will not dominate the game. I have yet to see a gish dominate a game, infact I see them get pasted more than not. Most builds are not viable till later levels and most don't play them well. I have seen clerics/druids/wizards diminate the games but NONE of the other classes and never anyone that multiclasses.
Cold Napalm 03-17-07, 01:29 PM	Er, maybe I'm missing something here, but how isn't a wiz 10/AC 5 NOT stronger than a wiz 15? The only thing the wiz 15 has as an advatage is 3 feats by my count. 3 feats = Advantages of the EK champion from just BAB (making your touch spells better) to being plain tougher? Umm you realize that meta magic feats is who the CO people do the roll 300 dice of damage right? 3 meta magic is a big deal. considering that at level 15 you have 5 feats, 1 for human. That means that the wiz 10/AC 5 has a total of 5 free feats as a human or elf and 4 as anything else. The wizard 15 has a total of 9 free feats as a human. That means I can afford to take things like transdimensional spell and kill you from the ethreal plane if I wanted to. As the AC build, that comes at a rather hefty price 20% of your available resources.
HomebrewedMonster 03-17-07, 07:57 PM	Lots of blah blah blah...I think I'm right. You're opinion is wrong. This is my opinion.
Fluid_Dragon 03-17-07, 10:05 PM	You're opinion is wrong. This is my opinion. Neener neener neener, are you going to take your toys home and not come over and play anymore? It is a fact that in D&D spells are exponentialy more powerfull the higher the spell level. It is a fact that the duskblade is limited to 5th level spells It is a fact that many Gish builds have access to 9th level spells. It is a fact that the Duskblade is limited to a very narrow spell list and cannot add to that list. It is a fact that unless the Gish build is based on one of the new base classes with set spell lists; that a wiz/sorc gish can choose any wiz/sorc spells they want to learn. It is a fact that the duskblade's claim to fame is mostly in increasing their damage output and covering one small aspect of the Gish concept. This is the way the class was designed. It is a fact that the average gish build will be more versitile than the duskblade. The best thing about the duskblade is that you can use your feats the way you want, and they are viable from 1-20. For people who like their spell list and don't want to deviate it is a great class. It is a fact that the cleric and the druid get everything a gish tries to do, for free, and are the 2 most powerfull classes. It is a fact that any full caster, be that Druid to Sorcerer, is going to be more powerfull than any non full caster class in the game. This is due to the exponential increase in power of high level spells. No gish and no duskblade is going to come close. The closest is going to be a full caster gish, but they will give up feats/bab/hp to do it and the resulting class will still be trumped by a caster based PrC on a full caster. It is a fact that the duskblade does not fullill the desires of many gish players for reasons already stated. These are the facts. Sorry if you don't like them, they are not opinions but facts you don't seem to want to acknowledge. They are a function of the game design and not my opinion. In some cases like the cleric it was intentional. You can debate the opinion that the AC is balanced or not. Most of the debate has ended and the arguments that are still against it are weak. -Some of the arguments were based on a miss-reading of the rules. -Some of the arguments are based in play style -Some of the arguments are based on the belief that under no circumstances should a character ever get to have his cake and eat it two. (But they usually allow clerics and druids without batting an eye and they are the poster child for getting your cake and eating it too.....for 20 levels unlike 5 with AC, does this shoe fit?!?!). -Some of the arguments are based on a poor understanding of how to build/play a decent gish. -Some of the arguments are based in the false assumption that a gish is going to break the campaign. Usually this results from differing play styles between players/dm and the gish player. If you optimize ANY D&D class they are going to be much more powerfull than a non optimized version of the same class. Many people don't know how or don't like optimizing, and most gish players are good at it and like it. This is more of an issue of play style. An optimized gish in a non-optimized party probably WILL be better, even if the party conatins a druid. This is a function of the rules set and the inclusion of "Timmy" feats and some poor design choices early inthe 3.x system, and the nature of the spell system. But this is mostly a play style issue. It is challanging to design a EFFECTIVE gish. For a non-optimizer the duskblade is perfect for that. But claiming the AC is overpowered because the DM/rest of the group either are not good at optimizing or don't like it and the gish player is good at it and does optimize, does NOT mean that the class is unbalanced. It means that in THAT unoptimized group ANY character the optimizer comes up with will dominate. And that player is not fitting in with the group. In my group I am mostly a player and the best versed in the rules. I help the dm get more bang for their buck with NPCs and help the other players optimize. I'm playing a sorcerer in one game and in the other a gish with 2 clerics in the party. Clerics that I helped optimize. The players were chosen carefully and we 'interview' new players to make sure the play style is compatible. A player who is looking for 95% role playing, who loves bards:eek: and does not optimize their character at all or even --gasp-- looks down on it will not be invited to play. We would **** them off and they would **** us off. Both parties are better playing in compatible groups. My very first initial impression of the AC was that it was too good. ... silence for the shocking revelation..... But after I read the class a few times, thought about how it would be used and did some builds and played around with it I changed my mind. My initial reaction was a knee jerk because it gives d10/full BaB/full casting for 2 feats. Plus some abilites. I was also skeptical because I thought it was poorly written/edited becasue of the conjuration/mage armor. Untill I read the designers notes on it. Most of the major arguments about why it is overpowered have been disproved. Me thinks that people who still feel this way after reading my unrefined comments or Teshens well phrased comments are people who are more into the Role Playing aspect, who's games are going to be mostly non-combat and or do not like min/maxing-optimizing or are not very good at it. Which has nothing to do with the class itself and more to do with play style than anything else. The fact is that as vanilla and a weak as the EK is it is used in nearly every single Gish build. It is one of the only almost full caster/full BaB classes in the game. It is used not because it is THAT GOOD, but because it is the only choice. Also MANY games limit PrC's to 1 per character and that eliminates the AC from nearly every build. The only viable one would be F14/W1/AC5 or something similar. HARDLY... as most would say SO GOOD that every single gish build uses the AC. Lots do, Lots don't. Many can't spare the feats. Many want heavier armor, or other things out of a build. This alone is enough to prove it is not overpowered. But you WILL see the EK in almost every single gish build. There is also quite a bit of differance between early 3.x class/PrC design and later 3.5 design. This is mostly because certain things were learned about the game play and what was fun and what was not and they are making changes to make the game more fun. Some people however hate change and rail against it just to fight change (this is a fact of human nature). If you want to make the AC unbalanced make it a 10 level build. Over 10 levels d10-full BaB/casting will be too much. But for 5 levels you will need other PrC's to finish the character. In that case you will have to make tough choices between caster/spell level, BaB, and feats. (If you don't believe this you have not tried to build a gish) Take the time to build and test a few builds out. If you limit the builds to 1 PrC you will see that an EK gish kicks the AC gish. So all in all the AC is a fine class for what it was designed for. It will not kill your campaign and all yor players will not be clammoring for it. It is usefull in a narrow range of builds. If you have optimizers playing with those who don't like it, it is an issue of play style not class. Gish players tend to be optimizers so it slats the debate a bit, but the AC is not the real issue the real issue is probably a player who does not fit in with the group dymanic.
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-18-07, 12:39 AM	You also misspelled 'your'.
Cold Napalm 03-18-07, 02:40 AM	One of the reasons that gish players tend to be optimizers is because you HAVE to be. You can't play a fighter wizard and 1 PrC and come up with something even remotely viable in real play. I mean going fighter 2/wizard 8/spellsword 10 in even remotely non optimized groups results in rather useless characters. I either have to spend 4 rounds before I'm even remotely fit to go fight or I can cast spells that will be at 70% effectiveness of the casters. Yeah.... The most basic one is a fighter 1/wizard 9/ek10 but that isn't a gish so much as a wizard that gave up 2 9th level spells so he can swing a sword that he's never gonna swing. To be a REAL gish requires optimizing or you just don't have anything good enough. Also for the sake of balanced argument we should be using published adventurer as a baseline. Can a given build be played as intended in one of these and not die? Can you play a fighter 1/wizard 9/EK 10 as a gish (i.e. enter melee) and not get turned into red pulp? I think not. Or a fighter 2/wizard 8/spellsword 10? Once again nope. This is a rather CLEAR sign that these two prestige classes FAILED at what they were aiming for (which is to make the fighter mage multi-class viable). Toss those two together and you START to have something viable. Toss in the AC and you finally have something viable in a published adventure.
AllisterH 03-18-07, 06:58 AM	. To be a REAL gish requires optimizing or you just don't have anything good enough. Also for the sake of balanced argument we should be using published adventurer as a baseline. Can a given build be played as intended in one of these and not die? Can you play a fighter 1/wizard 9/EK 10 as a gish (i.e. enter melee) and not get turned into red pulp? I think not. Or a fighter 2/wizard 8/spellsword 10? Once again nope. This is a rather CLEAR sign that these two prestige classes FAILED at what they were aiming for (which is to make the fighter mage multi-class viable). Toss those two together and you START to have something viable. Toss in the AC and you finally have something viable in a published adventure. This is a HORRENDOUS base to judge the "effectiveness of the gish". Quite frankly, only the druid (and the cleric to a smaller extent) are the only classes able to actually solo as a 4 person party by themselves any adventure at any level (the druid, thanks to wildshape has great infiltration methods and the spells + Natrual spell are just plain killer). A 4 person melee-only party that does any adventure over level 8 IMO will face increasing difficulties so by level 13, no adventure published is doable by that group. A 4 person 10/10 fighter/wizard has a better chance of completing a high level adventure (anything rated level 13+) than say a 4 person ranger party.
Red_Rabbit 03-18-07, 12:06 PM	Not true I've solo'd adventures with as a Wizard a dozen times when it required a party you just need to remember your by yourself when you pick spells. Which the main problem I see people do is pick group spells even when they are soloing because it worked so well in the past. The Rabbit
Cold Napalm 03-18-07, 03:44 PM	This is a HORRENDOUS base to judge the "effectiveness of the gish". Quite frankly, only the druid (and the cleric to a smaller extent) are the only classes able to actually solo as a 4 person party by themselves any adventure at any level (the druid, thanks to wildshape has great infiltration methods and the spells + Natrual spell are just plain killer). A 4 person melee-only party that does any adventure over level 8 IMO will face increasing difficulties so by level 13, no adventure published is doable by that group. A 4 person 10/10 fighter/wizard has a better chance of completing a high level adventure (anything rated level 13+) than say a 4 person ranger party. If you think a fighter 10/ wizard 10 has even a remote chance in a 13+ game, your just wrong. I have played this and it's worse then a fighter 20. You have to split your feats, your eq, stats and you have poor HP compared to a straight fighter. When a straight fighter build is twice as better, you know you have reach something horrendeously wrong. This is a problem with the MC system and AC is a good fix for it. As for using published adventurers, I don't mean solo, I mean can the build carry their weight in one. The last one I played, the rogue stopped pulling his weight at level 3 and the duskblade at level 5. The cleric and druid was good all through the game. The fighter was surprisingly useful (with enlarge) mainly due to grappling, tripping and disarming off and on through out the game. My gish was nigh useless until level 8 and and using just the spellsword with the one PrC rule, I was useless by level 13. Hey 5 useful levels...thats 2 more then the rogue i guess...but then again I had to sit through 8 levels of hell to get to this point so I didn't feel it was that much better. The rogue changed to a wizard at level 5 and the wizard was able to pull his weight from then on. So no, those EK and spellsword only based gishes CAN'T hold their own in a published adventurer. I have had pretty good sucess mixing those two but the AC addition makes it so I'm actually viable sooner and will be viable longer (as in at least to level 17 when others get 9th level spells and I don't).
HomebrewedMonster 03-19-07, 12:43 AM	Neener neener neener, are you going to take your toys home and not come over and play anymore? It is a fact that in D&D spells are exponentialy more powerfull the higher the spell level. It is a fact that the duskblade is limited to 5th level spells It is a fact that many Gish builds have access to 9th level spells. It is a fact that the Duskblade is limited to a very narrow spell list and cannot add to that list. It is a fact that unless the Gish build is based on one of the new base classes with set spell lists; that a wiz/sorc gish can choose any wiz/sorc spells they want to learn. It is a fact that the duskblade's claim to fame is mostly in increasing their damage output and covering one small aspect of the Gish concept. This is the way the class was designed. It is a fact that the average gish build will be more versitile than the duskblade. The best thing about the duskblade is that you can use your feats the way you want, and they are viable from 1-20. For people who like their spell list and don't want to deviate it is a great class. It is a fact that the cleric and the druid get everything a gish tries to do, for free, and are the 2 most powerfull classes. It is a fact that any full caster, be that Druid to Sorcerer, is going to be more powerfull than any non full caster class in the game. This is due to the exponential increase in power of high level spells. No gish and no duskblade is going to come close. The closest is going to be a full caster gish, but they will give up feats/bab/hp to do it and the resulting class will still be trumped by a caster based PrC on a full caster. It is a fact that the duskblade does not fullill the desires of many gish players for reasons already stated. These are the facts. Sorry if you don't like them, they are not opinions but facts you don't seem to want to acknowledge. They are a function of the game design and not my opinion. In some cases like the cleric it was intentional. You can debate the opinion that the AC is balanced or not. Most of the debate has ended and the arguments that are still against it are weak. -Some of the arguments were based on a miss-reading of the rules. -Some of the arguments are based in play style -Some of the arguments are based on the belief that under no circumstances should a character ever get to have his cake and eat it two. (But they usually allow clerics and druids without batting an eye and they are the poster child for getting your cake and eating it too.....for 20 levels unlike 5 with AC, does this shoe fit?!?!). -Some of the arguments are based on a poor understanding of how to build/play a decent gish. -Some of the arguments are based in the false assumption that a gish is going to break the campaign. Usually this results from differing play styles between players/dm and the gish player. If you optimize ANY D&D class they are going to be much more powerfull than a non optimized version of the same class. Many people don't know how or don't like optimizing, and most gish players are good at it and like it. This is more of an issue of play style. An optimized gish in a non-optimized party probably WILL be better, even if the party conatins a druid. This is a function of the rules set and the inclusion of "Timmy" feats and some poor design choices early inthe 3.x system, and the nature of the spell system. But this is mostly a play style issue. It is challanging to design a EFFECTIVE gish. For a non-optimizer the duskblade is perfect for that. But claiming the AC is overpowered because the DM/rest of the group either are not good at optimizing or don't like it and the gish player is good at it and does optimize, does NOT mean that the class is unbalanced. It means that in THAT unoptimized group ANY character the optimizer comes up with will dominate. And that player is not fitting in with the group. In my group I am mostly a player and the best versed in the rules. I help the dm get more bang for their buck with NPCs and help the other players optimize. I'm playing a sorcerer in one game and in the other a gish with 2 clerics in the party. Clerics that I helped optimize. The players were chosen carefully and we 'interview' new players to make sure the play style is compatible. A player who is looking for 95% role playing, who loves bards:eek: and does not optimize their character at all or even --gasp-- looks down on it will not be invited to play. We would **** them off and they would **** us off. Both parties are better playing in compatible groups. My very first initial impression of the AC was that it was too good. ... silence for the shocking revelation..... But after I read the class a few times, thought about how it would be used and did some builds and played around with it I changed my mind. My initial reaction was a knee jerk because it gives d10/full BaB/full casting for 2 feats. Plus some abilites. I was also skeptical because I thought it was poorly written/edited becasue of the conjuration/mage armor. Untill I read the designers notes on it. Most of the major arguments about why it is overpowered have been disproved. Me thinks that people who still feel this way after reading my unrefined comments or Teshens well phrased comments are people who are more into the Role Playing aspect, who's games are going to be mostly non-combat and or do not like min/maxing-optimizing or are not very good at it. Which has nothing to do with the class itself and more to do with play style than anything else. The fact is that as vanilla and a weak as the EK is it is used in nearly every single Gish build. It is one of the only almost full caster/full BaB classes in the game. It is used not because it is THAT GOOD, but because it is the only choice. Also MANY games limit PrC's to 1 per character and that eliminates the AC from nearly every build. The only viable one would be F14/W1/AC5 or something similar. HARDLY... as most would say SO GOOD that every single gish build uses the AC. Lots do, Lots don't. Many can't spare the feats. Many want heavier armor, or other things out of a build. This alone is enough to prove it is not overpowered. But you WILL see the EK in almost every single gish build. There is also quite a bit of differance between early 3.x class/PrC design and later 3.5 design. This is mostly because certain things were learned about the game play and what was fun and what was not and they are making changes to make the game more fun. Some people however hate change and rail against it just to fight change (this is a fact of human nature). If you want to make the AC unbalanced make it a 10 level build. Over 10 levels d10-full BaB/casting will be too much. But for 5 levels you will need other PrC's to finish the character. In that case you will have to make tough choices between caster/spell level, BaB, and feats. (If you don't believe this you have not tried to build a gish) Take the time to build and test a few builds out. If you limit the builds to 1 PrC you will see that an EK gish kicks the AC gish. So all in all the AC is a fine class for what it was designed for. It will not kill your campaign and all yor players will not be clammoring for it. It is usefull in a narrow range of builds. If you have optimizers playing with those who don't like it, it is an issue of play style not class. Gish players tend to be optimizers so it slats the debate a bit, but the AC is not the real issue the real issue is probably a player who does not fit in with the group dymanic. You spend too much energy on the internet, eat some fruit and write a book.
wildstarsreach 03-19-07, 02:31 AM	Have you ever considered the possibility that it is in fact the opposite which is true; that the Abjurant Champion is well-balanced, and that previous gish classes (Spellsword, Bladesinger, and of course the useless Rage Mage) are underpowered? You're right. It just depends on perspective. I'm of the opinion that it is too much though. Full BA, Full spell progression and additional benefits that affect a small list of useful and almost always taken spells. PrC's as a general rull should not dole out full spellcasting progression and full base attack. This is too good carrot to give in a PrC. PrC's should offer unique advatages but not give a character something that is equal to what someone would get from 2 base classes.
Fluid_Dragon 03-19-07, 08:18 AM	You're right. It just depends on perspective. I'm of the opinion that it is too much though. Full BA, Full spell progression and additional benefits that affect a small list of useful and almost always taken spells. PrC's as a general rull should not dole out full spellcasting progression and full base attack. This is too good carrot to give in a PrC. PrC's should offer unique advatages but not give a character something that is equal to what someone would get from 2 base classes. This is exactly why it is a 5 level class not 10 level. You cannot rely on this class for the majority of the build. Most other PrC's for this type of character are 10 level ones, have either limited spell casting or limited BaB. The +5 BaB requirement of the PrC makes it a late edition to many builds, and cannot be taken early in a build unless you load up on fighter levels, thereby automatically limiting your spell casting. Whereas the EK requires a spell level to get in the AC requires BaB. ALso many of us actually PLAY the gish up in levels and don't just make a 20th level character. This makes a differance as well. Try to make a few gish builds and try them at different levels. The reason that most builds use multiple PrC's is because most of the PrC's are pretty bad and don't do what the character is trying for. So builds spend all their feats on largely useless entry requirements and dip into several PrC's Do you know what happens.......... They for the most part get full BaB and Casting, or close to it. The AC just makes doing it a bit easier. But its not like it isn't done already, that is the point and the challange of a gish build. So the AC is doing what gish builds do already, just without taking 5 different PrC's to do it. It is like banning rifles to stop crime and finding out the criminals always used handguns. Makes you feel good but doesn't do anything. As a DM I would rather have a character use 1 PrC then 5 or 6. Try some gish builds even with and without the AC. You will find that it really doesn't change things much. Makes a few builds easier but is not the end all be all gish class. If the Knight Phantom was not an ebberon class and was more general then it might take the spotlight. And don't forget the first 7 levels you will have very low BaB and be at 1-3 levels behind a wiz/cleric/druid in spells. Have low BaB/HP etc. Playing these levels is a PITA.
Fluid_Dragon 03-19-07, 08:20 AM	You spend too much energy on the internet, eat some fruit and write a book. Glad to see you concede.
teshen 03-19-07, 08:05 PM	I'm not sure the focus on "matching" the druid/cleric is a good judge in my opinion. Take a look at the new base classes that WOTC has come out with in the last few years. None of them are even close to the power of the druid/cleric.True enough. Most of the thrust has been PrCs, spells, and feats... Hell, anyone remember that thread where they did "rank" the base classes and the single-classed wizard STILL ranks right after the Druid/Cleric on the power scale. (The only base class released after the CORE anyone agrees to be stronger is the ARTIFICER and maybe, just maybe the psion.)Read the sticky Myth at the top of the psionics forum. Maybe then you will realize that it is a well built system. Artificer is kind of hard to judge in power... if you have the time and money, you can outclass just about anything... especially since you can emulate everybody's spells. As another poster pointed out, WOTC has "learned" about class design and these new base classes like the warlock and the sword sage pretty much are all designed well in that you WANT to remain single-class.True enough. And I would like to see sorcerer redesigned around that model, and druid and cleric redesigned around that power level... but I'm not holding my breath. So why focus on matching how a 10/5 wiz/AC matched up with a druid 15 but not with the standard of the new base classes like the warlock, the dread necromancer and the crusader? I actually think a well thought out warlock or dread necromancer could hang with a wizard 10/abjurant champion 5 in a party and feel good about their contributions.
HomebrewedMonster 03-20-07, 12:00 AM	Glad to see you concede. :rolleyes:
Archangel62 03-20-07, 02:22 AM	:rolleyes: When you resort to ad hominem it tends to be a sign that you've run out of logic or ability to argue the situation in a rational fashion and thus have devolved into insult. Just because a person wants to make sure they get their point accross is no reason to insult them.
HomebrewedMonster 03-20-07, 01:44 PM	When you resort to ad hominem it tends to be a sign that you've run out of logic or ability to argue the situation in a rational fashion and thus have devolved into insult. Just because a person wants to make sure they get their point accross is no reason to insult them. I cannot change his play style and it is not the same as mine. We will disagree for another 10 pages and both of us will just keep saying the same things with larger words and more thought out paragraphs. At a point we will both have written an essay on "Duskblade vs Gish, which the greater?". Many will join the argument and rally to one side or the other depending on their play style. The thread will continue until people stop posting. One of the posters that joined the conversation near the end of the thread's life feels as though he did not have his words heard and starts a similar thread and the action is repeated. So I stop the argument by no longer acknowledging what he says because I do not argue with what he says no matter how "right" he believes himself. I did not think it rude to respond such a way to someone that is arrogant in their posts.
Fluid_Dragon 03-20-07, 02:31 PM	I cannot change his play style and it is not the same as mine. We will disagree for another 10 pages and both of us will just keep saying the same things with larger words and more thought out paragraphs. At a point we will both have written an essay on "Duskblade vs Gish, which the greater?". Many will join the argument and rally to one side or the other depending on their play style. The thread will continue until people stop posting. One of the posters that joined the conversation near the end of the thread's life feels as though he did not have his words heard and starts a similar thread and the action is repeated. So I stop the argument by no longer acknowledging what he says because I do not argue with what he says no matter how "right" he believes himself. I did not think it rude to respond such a way to someone that is arrogant in their posts. Sorry but you went from debating class features to insults. You had contended that the DB is all that is needed for a Gish. I pointed out all the reasons why it does not fill the need for many players. There was also debate on its power level and which was better. Then you accused me of arguing an opinion and I mearly pointed out which parts of the debate were based on fact and which were based on opinion. Nearly the whole debate about the duskblade was fact based. Hey I like sorcerers better than wizards, and wizards are by far better. Most of the debate about the AC and its balance is opinion. (And this is the first time you brought up a differance in play style) If you disagree bring some facts or a relavent opionion to the table. If you DM a game you can even say "Hey, I don't like the AC so it is not allowed. I realize that some may think they are balanced and I disagree, dispite the arguments." Stuff like that is fine. I don't like clerics. In my games I drop their hit die to d6, drop their BaB to what a wizards is and they only get light armor. There is no arcane spell casting failure either, as I think it's kind of stupid. Especially when a cleric is casting the same spell as a wizard in full plate with no problems. These rules are arbitrary and exist in my game because I said so. Nothing wrong with it. Y'all can do the same thing with the Duskblade or the AC or what ever. But the debate was on the balanced or unbalanced nature of the AC and the post started with the premise that it was unbalanced. I personally would love side bars in the sourcebooks where the designer talks about the design of the classes and what they are trying to accomplish. But that is not the case. I agree that on the surface the AC looks too good. But when you get into the issue more it is not nearly as good as it first appears. I think another big part of the debate is how people play. Gish builders tend to be optimizers, frankly you have to if you are building a multi class charater. Not every group likes optimizers. If you have a group with 1 optimizer and everyone else does not then the optimizer will have a more powerfull charater. Doesn't really matter what they play, if they happen to like Gish's then the group will think that the Gish is unbalanced. When in point of fact the other characters are NOT optimized and the optimizers character IS. And this leads to a discrepency in relative power. Over on enworld some dude was complaining that the EK was unbalanced! Let alone any other gish build. And this was a simple fighter/wizard/ek! But apparently the Gish was dominating the game. I susspect the above senerio is what the real issue was. To be on topic a build with the AC will not unbalance a game. They will not be at the powerlevel of a cleric or druid, even if the cleric/druid only uses core. They will not be as powerfull as a straight caster. Depending on several factors they will probably rank 5th after the sorcerer. Mostly because they will have several options in most situations and have some access to high level spells. Regardless if they use the AC or not. So will the AC break a game - No Will an optimizer break a game when no-one else optimizes? - Yes; which I think is the real issue. Is the AC the end all be all of Gish-dom? - Hardly. It is not even in 1/2 of the builds. Is the duskblade the ultimate Gish - No many players don't like the spell list or the concept of the class. Or the limited spell level. If you have an optimizer in your group and he is playing a gish, be thankfull he is not playing a Druid, Cleric, Wizard, Sorcerer. If he is playing a wizard/AC then you don't really have an optimizer. And homebrew dude if you think the DB is the ultimate Gish build then issue a challange and try to prove it. If you have to resort to insults, stop and think what that does to the validity of your arguments.
Tytalus 03-21-07, 02:50 PM	[Lots of "facts" and statements in pretty colours] Note that a good number of your "facts" are merely opinions. Some of them widely accepted, but opinions nonetheless. Without clearly defining terms like "flexible" or "powerful" you can't claim a character is more or less of that and present it to be a fact. Without actually knowing all possible gish builds / gish players etc., you can't say anything about "most" of them and claim it to be a fact. Also - and no offense intended - posts are much easier to read if you don't overdo it with the formatting options. If you want to stress something, stick to one option (e.g., bold text). Note that formatting does not add to an arguments validity or weight. Finally, it doesn't make sense to judge class balance using 1-on-1 duels, as D&D is (largely) a cooperative game. I.e., a test would compare usefulness in a party of adventurers, which is - of course - hard to measure. Duels also have the inherent problem that they are largely influenced by player skill and luck, rendering them useless for obtaining objective insights. If you want to compare a Wiz10/AC5 (note that this is a very poor gish build) and a Wiz15, stick to how the two actually differ. I.e., the AC build has/gets in comparison: +3 BAB +15 HP Same net saves, but higher WILL, lower FORT & REF Several extra class abilities, including Swift/Extended Abjuration No familiar advancement 1-2 fewer regular feats, 1 fewer wizard bonus feat More class skills Whether that's a fair trade or not is up to the individual player to decide. I personally prefer Wiz15, but then again Wiz10/AC5 is a poor build.
Fluid_Dragon 03-21-07, 03:40 PM	Note that a good number of your "facts" are merely opinions. Some of them widely accepted, but opinions nonetheless. Without clearly defining terms like "flexible" or "powerful" you can't claim a character is more or less of that and present it to be a fact. Without actually knowing all possible gish builds / gish players etc., you can't say anything about "most" of them and claim it to be a fact. Also - and no offense intended - posts are much easier to read if you don't overdo it with the formatting options. If you want to stress something, stick to one option (e.g., bold text). Note that formatting does not add to an arguments validity or weight. Finally, it doesn't make sense to judge class balance using 1-on-1 duels, as D&D is (largely) a cooperative game. I.e., a test would compare usefulness in a party of adventurers, which is - of course - hard to measure. Duels also have the inherent problem that they are largely influenced by player skill and luck, rendering them useless for obtaining objective insights. If you want to compare a Wiz10/AC5 (note that this is a very poor gish build) and a Wiz15, stick to how the two actually differ. I.e., the AC build has/gets in comparison: +3 BAB +15 HP Same net saves, but higher WILL, lower FORT & REF Several extra class abilities, including Swift/Extended Abjuration No familiar advancement 1-2 fewer regular feats, 1 fewer wizard bonus feat More class skills Whether that's a fair trade or not is up to the individual player to decide. I personally prefer Wiz15, but then again Wiz10/AC5 is a poor build. The facts I listed as facts are in fact, facts. A 9th level spell is more powerfull than a 5th level spell. A character that has the ability to chose their own spell list is more flexible and versitile than a character who cannot. If you are not sure about the deffinition of a word there is always dictionary.com. You can also look at typical Gish spell lists on the CO board. The vast majority that I have looked at include much more than a few movement spells and damaging spells. You are really reaching here. The duskblade has some movement tricks and lots of spells to hurt bad guys. That is it. Oh, and they are limited to 5th level spells. Most gish builds have +15 or better BaB and 7th level or higher spells pulled from the entire wizard/sorcerer list. If the duskblade was the end all be all of gishdom there would be alot more focus on it. Some people like it. I have stated that I like the class and think it is a text book example of good class design. But if you look at the type and the number of gish builds the DB is only capable of filling a VERY small number of those. I can and will format my posts any damn way I feel like it. On a long post it is easier to refer back to something that is formatted rather than a big jumble. I happen to be an organized person. You are also missing the whole point of a wiz10/AC5 vs a wiz 15. BOTH. I Repeat BOTH of them are CASTER builds and NOT gish builds. What many people fail to read, is that one of the posters was complaining about how good AC is for a straight caster. NOT A GISH. The challange was to show that the AC is NOT a good class for a caster and that any other PrC or even a straight wizard is equal to or better than a wizard/AC. The whole point was the Wiz/AC was significantly better which it is not. Would a party be better served by a Wiz/AC or a Wiz15 (or any other caster based PrC)? In a party you will have a tank so your armor and HP are not really going to help much. You will have a skill monkey - no effect here - and you will have a healer who is all round more effective at fighting and casting than you are at fighting and casting. You are not going to see straight casters rushing out to take the AC because it is a poor choice for them. Sure some might for some builds. Which is evidence that it is not overpowered. If it was THAT good you would see it in a larger number of builds, which you don't. The challange was also set for 3 fights, not 1. This should minimize some of the randomness of initiative, good and bad rolls and is a reasonable number to run. But would be alot of work to do, hense the book for the guy who ran it. Like I said before. The AC is not over powered. It is certainly good. It is not going to make a Gish or a Wiz/Sorc anywhere near the power level of a cleric/druid, and it will not make them more powerfull than a Wiz/Sorc. It is not game breaking and it is not so good that people are rushing to it in droves. THis is an opinion based upon lots of documentable evidence. If you are a DM you are fully in your rights to modify it to fit your game or ban it. But banning it without really looking at how that class works, can be used and how it was designed/balanced is a knee jerk reaction. When I DM I don't allow certain classes/PrC's for a number of reasons. Some of them have to do with flavor as opposed to balance. I change rules as I see fit. That is rule zero. All this debate serves to do is to illustrate that though the AC looks too good on paper in actual use it is really not that bad. It is more balanced than it looks and how it is balanced is not immediately apparent from the class descrition, it is subtle. Not to mention the poor editing that makes people wonder what they were thinking. ie Mage Armor not being an abjuration spell. Will banning it ruin your game - nope Will allowing it ruin your game - nope Do what you will, but make an informed decision. And I am done discussing the duskblade. It was a good attempt but it leaves much to be desired for a Gish. If that is what you want to play more power to you. But to state it is better than a well built gish is like saying that the bard is the most powerfull class in the game.
AllisterH 03-21-07, 10:02 PM	If you want to compare a Wiz10/AC5 (note that this is a very poor gish build) and a Wiz15, stick to how the two actually differ. I.e., the AC build has/gets in comparison: +3 BAB +15 HP Same net saves, but higher WILL, lower FORT & REF Several extra class abilities, including Swift/Extended Abjuration No familiar advancement 1-2 fewer regular feats, 1 fewer wizard bonus feat More class skills Whether that's a fair trade or not is up to the individual player to decide. I personally prefer Wiz15, but then again Wiz10/AC5 is a poor build. This is what I've been trying to say. Basically put, you lose 2-3 feats and you get a LOT of nice advantages (if you do sorceror, you can potentially only be down 1 feat). Does this make the resulting character "broken" a la the Druid/Planar Shepherd? Hell no. Does it make the character stronger than the straight 15th level wizard. Um, hell yeah. Is the wizard at 15th level ALREADY one of the strongest class in the game? Only the druid/cleric beats it at sheer power, thus the AC makes it overpowered. For example, the increase in the BAB makes all your touch attack spells that much more potent plus you get access to a better class skill list making it easier to enter ANOTHER prestige class plus the fact that thanks to the class abilities, your AC anyway is going to be significantly better than your straight level friend. My opinion: Is it broken straight out of the box a la the Planar Shepherd? Nope. Is it a no-brainer choice if the only options are either being 15th level wizard, or taking the prestige class? Mathematically, there is such little disadvantage in taking the class that it is a given. The only thing that prevents the AC from showing up in general wizard builds is that there are OTHER overpowered PrC available like the Incantrix and the Initate of the Veil which you can enter earlier. Just because there are even more powerful PrC available doesn't make the AC itself "fair". Sure, it might not be the 10 million dollar grand prize of the PrC world but it still is a 1 million dollars grand prize.
enygmatic_me 03-21-07, 10:27 PM	While there are such PrC's as the Planar Shepard, the Ultimate Magus, and the Arcane Heirophant out there it is hard to see how the very limited abilities that they Abjurant Champion bestows are overpowered. Planar Shepard allows the Druid to turn into an outsider. Ultimate Magus gives the character high leveled prepared and spontaneous arcane spells. Arcane Heirophant not only gives you Druid and Wizard spell progression it fixes the only weakness an animal companion really has by making it an intelligent magical beast (augmented animal) that a character can still bestow beneficial spells upon as if it was a normal animal. When looking at these three PrC the ability to quicken 1st-3rd level abjuration spells and gains some AC boosts seem to pale. I really can't see me caring when an Abjurant Champion quickens his shield spell while my Monkey Familiar Companion is using skill tricks to cause them to be flat-footed.
Tytalus 03-22-07, 02:38 AM	The facts I listed as facts are in fact, facts. No, most of them aren't. A 9th level spell is more powerfull than a 5th level spell. That's not what you claimed. You claimed: "D&D spells are exponentialy more powerfull the higher the spell level". That they are more powerful is probably generally accepted (still no fact in the strictest sense of the word, though), but the problematic part is "exponentially" - that's a subjective term in this context and makes the statement not a fact. Other "facts": "many Gish builds have access to 9th level spells" - many? What does that mean? More than half? Do you know all gish builds? No. This is a guesstimate at best, not a fact. "the duskblade's claim to fame is mostly in increasing their damage output and covering one small aspect of the Gish concept." This is your impression of the DB, nothing more. There are plenty of other features that could be the DB's "claim to fame", including the ability to quick-cast, to easily overcome SR, to cast in armor, etc. "the average gish build will be more versitile than the duskblade" - this "fact" is just so subjective that it needs no comment. "the duskblade does not fullill the desires of many gish players" - laughable, and certainly not a fact. etc. A character that has the ability to chose their own spell list is more flexible and versitile than a character who cannot. If you are not sure about the deffinition of a word there is always dictionary.com. You actually might want to look that up yourself, as their definition is in no way restricted to spell selection. Versatility is a very broad term. A character who can fast-cast spells, for example, has more options in combat and is therefore versatile. A character that has more movement options is more versatile. If you had said "A character that has the ability to chose their own spell list is more flexible and versatile in terms of selecting spells than a character who cannot", nobody would argue. If the duskblade was the end all be all of gishdom there would be alot more focus on it. That's an assumption. I can and will format my posts any damn way I feel like it. On a long post it is easier to refer back to something that is formatted rather than a big jumble. I happen to be an organized person. I am just pointing out that it is annoying to read. And I question that organization requires over 10 (!) different text formats in a single post. You are also missing the whole point of a wiz10/AC5 vs a wiz 15. BOTH. I Repeat BOTH of them are CASTER builds and NOT gish builds. I am quite aware of that. In fact, I point out twice in my post that Wiz10/AC5 is a poor gish build. If it was THAT good you would see it in a larger number of builds, which you don't. I don't think that's a good point. First, CM is fairly new. Second, how many builds you see or don't see is not an objective point. Third, even on the CO boards you also don't "see" many (new) pure wizard builds. Also note that I'm not claiming the AC to be "that" good. The challange was also set for 3 fights, not 1. My point was that a 1-on-1 fight (or any number of such fights) is pointless as it does not reflect how well a character does in a party. Which, in turn, is the only thing that matters in normal D&D. It is not game breaking and it is not so good that people are rushing to it in droves. THis is an opinion based upon lots of documentable evidence. What evidence? If it's documented, why don't you show us?
Fluid_Dragon 03-22-07, 09:42 AM	No, most of them aren't. That's not what you claimed. You claimed: "D&D spells are exponentialy more powerfull the higher the spell level". That they are more powerful is probably generally accepted (still no fact in the strictest sense of the word, though), but the problematic part is "exponentially" - that's a subjective term in this context and makes the statement not a fact. Other "facts": "many Gish builds have access to 9th level spells" - many? What does that mean? More than half? Do you know all gish builds? No. This is a guesstimate at best, not a fact. "the duskblade's claim to fame is mostly in increasing their damage output and covering one small aspect of the Gish concept." This is your impression of the DB, nothing more. There are plenty of other features that could be the DB's "claim to fame", including the ability to quick-cast, to easily overcome SR, to cast in armor, etc. "the average gish build will be more versitile than the duskblade" - this "fact" is just so subjective that it needs no comment. "the duskblade does not fullill the desires of many gish players" - laughable, and certainly not a fact. etc. You actually might want to look that up yourself, as their definition is in no way restricted to spell selection. Versatility is a very broad term. A character who can fast-cast spells, for example, has more options in combat and is therefore versatile. A character that has more movement options is more versatile. If you had said "A character that has the ability to chose their own spell list is more flexible and versatile in terms of selecting spells than a character who cannot", nobody would argue. That's an assumption. I am just pointing out that it is annoying to read. And I question that organization requires over 10 (!) different text formats in a single post. I am quite aware of that. In fact, I point out twice in my post that Wiz10/AC5 is a poor gish build. I don't think that's a good point. First, CM is fairly new. Second, how many builds you see or don't see is not an objective point. Third, even on the CO boards you also don't "see" many (new) pure wizard builds. Also note that I'm not claiming the AC to be "that" good. My point was that a 1-on-1 fight (or any number of such fights) is pointless as it does not reflect how well a character does in a party. Which, in turn, is the only thing that matters in normal D&D. What evidence? If it's documented, why don't you show us? You don't really play much D&D do you? The DB is very limited in spell casting options GISH are not. Take a look at the Gish Builds you will see that generally they have +15 BaB and cast at 17th level. Some cast at higher levels some have higher BaB. Do you really want me to copy paste several of the multipage gish build threads on here? Take a little field trip over to the CO boards and take a look at the builds. What you will find is most have at least a +15 BaB and Most have spell access of at least 7th level. I'm sorry you don't like genaric words like MOST. How do you like that formatting :D I hope it annoys you as much as your "arguments" are annoying me. Words like ALWAYS, and NEVER are not accurate, as you can show 1 build to disprove it. If you take your head out of the DB's posterior regions for just a bit you and homebrew might have time to check out some gish builds. If you take a look at the spell list/books of the gish builds you will see that they can do eveything that the duskblade can do and a whole lot more. The facts I listed are facts, you are trying to pull them apart. And it just doesn't fly. The MAIN thing that the DB has going for it is that it is a base class that if viable from level 1. Better than most gish at low levels untill the gish can get into some PrC's. Playing a gish below level 7 is a real PITA. But it is a trade off. You lose the versitility of choosing your own spell list. Since you seem to be riding the short bus what I mean is that you canot take spells like Silent Image that let you do many different things. You cannot create a wall of force. You cannot cast a prismatic sphere, force cage, gate, meteor swarm, shadow conjuration, summon monster 1-9, shadow evocation, evards black tentacles, etc etc etc etc. You give this up for new and exciting ways to smash/zap/blast or otherwise cause damage to an oponent. Heck you can't even charm person to get a nice discount on that mug of ale. That and more is what is meant by versitility. Higher level spells are more powerfull than lower levels spells. EXPONENTIALY included or excluded from the sentance does not change this FACT one IOTA. A DB has 5th level and lower spells. A Gish can have 9th Level. 9th level spells are so many times more powerfull than 5th level spells. If you have a problem with the term exponentialy you should start spamming all the times it is used when talking about game balance wizards and 9th level spells. Duskblades cannot cast 6th 7th, 8th, 9th level spells. It is right in their spell table. Really it is. Sorry dude this is a fact. Higher level spells are exponentialy more powerfull than low level ones. A gish can use quicken spell, they can cast in heavy armor... In short a gish can do everything that a duskblade can do. You can build a gish to be a better duskblade than the duskblade. There are plenty of Gish Tank Builds. Hell if the DB jsut had access to the W/S spell list they would be fantastic. But their options are not much better than a fighters. They are better than a fighter in the short run and run out of steam in the long run. Against a gish their best class abilities are full BaB, over 20 levels the DB will be higher, and they are viable at lower levels where gish builds are tough. And if you don't think that Gish players want a little more wander over to the CO boards and ask them their opinions.
Fluid_Dragon 03-22-07, 10:11 AM	This is what I've been trying to say. Basically put, you lose 2-3 feats and you get a LOT of nice advantages (if you do sorceror, you can potentially only be down 1 feat). Does this make the resulting character "broken" a la the Druid/Planar Shepherd? Hell no. Does it make the character stronger than the straight 15th level wizard. Um, hell yeah. Is the wizard at 15th level ALREADY one of the strongest class in the game? Only the druid/cleric beats it at sheer power, thus the AC makes it overpowered. For example, the increase in the BAB makes all your touch attack spells that much more potent plus you get access to a better class skill list making it easier to enter ANOTHER prestige class plus the fact that thanks to the class abilities, your AC anyway is going to be significantly better than your straight level friend. My opinion: Is it broken straight out of the box a la the Planar Shepherd? Nope. Is it a no-brainer choice if the only options are either being 15th level wizard, or taking the prestige class? Mathematically, there is such little disadvantage in taking the class that it is a given. The only thing that prevents the AC from showing up in general wizard builds is that there are OTHER overpowered PrC available like the Incantrix and the Initate of the Veil which you can enter earlier. Just because there are even more powerful PrC available doesn't make the AC itself "fair". Sure, it might not be the 10 million dollar grand prize of the PrC world but it still is a 1 million dollars grand prize. Dude, how many people do you think are dying to play a Wiz10/AC5? Come on. Who is even going to bother to stay in wizards for 10 levels? What you have to look at are the PrC's that enchance your spell casting options. The base cleric/wizard/sorcerer classes all suck, in that there are NO class abilities. Hey wizards get their feats and WOW familiar progression. Hey if I want a familiar I will take an alternate class ability to get rid of it then take the feat then I get the full progression.. Anyway ANY wizard PrC is going to be better than NONE. The thing with the AC is it is now in competition with other Wizard PrC's. Leaving Incantrix out of the mix there are a bunch that are way better for a full caster. That is the competition. If I am going to suffer with low hit points, low BaB, preparing my spells each day spending a large % of my loot on my spell book and sitting on my butt writing scrolls and making magic items then I am going to do things that help me do all my wizardly things better. 15 hit points? By the time I reach 10 level I am not going to be as concerned about them as I was at 1st. Heck I know False Life just so I had it when I need it. Do I need 15 hit points all the time. Sure its nice but what do I loose from other PrC's to get it? +3 BaB. Wow my TOUCH attacks are even better. Oh wait they are touch attacks and I already have a 20 dex and i miss on a 1. (Dex being the 2nd highest stat on most wizards, and by 15th I am sure they have some enchancements if not there is always cats grace). Rays are touch attacks. +3 on any roll is nice but how much are you REALLY gaining here. What do you give up? What other things could you do instead? Extended Abjuration spells. Hey its nice. I'm not going to poke it in the eye. But really what do I give up from other classes to get this. Quicken Abjration spells. Hey this is NICE. I LIKE IT.... The only ability that would make my wizard 10 even think of taking the PrC. 1 ability out of 5 levels that is decent and usable to me. Mostly going to be used for Dispell Magic, but at 15th level Dispell Magic starts to loose steam. That is why there is a GREATER Dispell Magic. Still it is a nice ability but not worth dropping 5 levels on to get. It is certainly nice but again what capstone abilities from other PrC's do I loose in order to gain it? Is it really worth it. Abjuration Spells of 3rd and under.... +5 Shield Bonus to your AC. Again this is certainly NICE. But at 15th level when I can get it. Do you think it just might be possible that I really don't need it? It is a shield bonus. Can't use it flat-footed, can't use it against touch attacks etc. If I am a smart wizard who has lasted to 15th level. (I'm nearly a god compared to when I was 1st). Am I REALLY going to rely on some AC (armor class) to save my skin? Hey it is certainly usefull, but what am I giving up???? For my money I would rather choose a PrC that fit the type of wizard I was making and would enhance my ability to do what I am already good at. I have buddies. That tall guy over there is really great at smashing things, he can do it all day and he is really good at it. That elf over there with the bow, oh yeah he is also our cleric. He is our rock star. That short guy, yeah he can get in anywhere and don't ever let him sneak up on you. Should I try to do what they all do? WHen they can do it better? Or should I just do what I do, but better?..... I really really don't understand the fascination with full casters and the AC. I really don't. There are so many PrC's out there that enchance a wizards casting that it pales in comparison. The only build I think it would be decent for is a ray specialist. But again are there builds that would work better for the ray specialist? I don't know I have no real interest in such a character. I hardly ever play a "blaster" sure my casters blast when they have to. IF the AC is the best PrC for a Ray Specialist then it seems fine to me. For a staright caster the AC would be next to last on my list of PrC's it would not even be ON the list if I were playing a game where you could only take 1 PrC. For a Gish it would be on SOME of my builds, but not all. It depends on what type of build and what I am trying to do.
Tytalus 03-22-07, 01:54 PM	You don't really play much D&D do you? That's of no consequence to the question whether your "facts" actually are facts or not. The DB is very limited in spell casting options GISH are not. Take a look at the Gish Builds you will see that generally they have +15 BaB and cast at 17th level. Some cast at higher levels some have higher BaB. I don't think anyone will argue that DBs have limited spell selection options. In your "fact", however, you talked about general 'versatility', which is not limited to spell selection. Do you really want me to copy paste several of the multipage gish build threads on here? What would that accomplish? Besides, I'm well aware of the CO gish build threads. Take a little field trip over to the CO boards and take a look at the builds. What you will find is most have at least a +15 BaB and Most have spell access of at least 7th level. Again, that's not what you claimed in your "fact", which said "many Gish builds have access to 9th level spells". You will realize that there's quite a difference between 7th and 9th level spells. And again, the problem is that you represent as a "fact" something that is vague. How many are many? Half or more? Do you know all possible gish builds? Words like ALWAYS, and NEVER are not accurate, as you can show 1 build to disprove it. If you don't know the entire set you are talking about (here: gish builds), neither "most", "many", "always", or "never" are accurate enough to make statements that can be called "facts". On the other hand "some" would work. If you take your head out of the DB's posterior regions for just a bit you and homebrew might have time to check out some gish builds. Ad hominem fallacy. Insults don't add more wight to your arguments. If you take a look at the spell list/books of the gish builds you will see that they can do eveything that the duskblade can do and a whole lot more. Laughable. Everything? Can gishes fast-cast (without Quicken Spell)? Can gishes cast spells without failure chance in armor at level 1? Can all gishes channel spells through their melee attacks? Etc., etc. Gish builds can do a lot of things, and there is quite a variety of gish builds that focus on different aspects. Still, none I saw can do 'everything' a DB can do all at once. The facts I listed are facts, you are trying to pull them apart. And it just doesn't fly. No, they aren't. Higher level spells are more powerfull than lower levels spells. EXPONENTIALY included or excluded from the sentance does not change this FACT one IOTA. Not entirely. Without 'exponentially' it's a true statement. If you add it in, it's a (subjective) opinion, not a fact. If you have a problem with the term exponentialy you should start spamming all the times it is used when talking about game balance wizards and 9th level spells. I don't see how that relates to the discussion at hand. Duskblades cannot cast 6th 7th, 8th, 9th level spells. It is right in their spell table. Really it is. Sorry dude this is a fact. Nobody is arguing otherwise. Higher level spells are exponentialy more powerfull than low level ones. That's an opinion.
teshen 03-22-07, 03:36 PM	I don't think anyone will argue that DBs have limited spell selection options. . . In your "fact", however, you talked about general 'versatility', which is not limited to spell selection. . . Again, that's not what you claimed in your "fact", which said "many Gish builds have access to 9th level spells". You will realize that there's quite a difference between 7th and 9th level spells. . . Can gishes fast-cast (without Quicken Spell)? Can gishes cast spells without failure chance in armor at level 1? Can all gishes channel spells through their melee attacks? Etc., etc. . . . Gish builds can do a lot of things, and there is quite a variety of gish builds that focus on different aspects. Still, none I saw can do 'everything' a DB can do all at once. True enough. But it is easy enough to argue that with access to more spells to choose from and higher level spells, you can do things that a duskblade cannot. Of the gish builds I've seen, they find ways to accomplish what they want... of course that is pretty much true of any optimiser. So a gish didn't prc to get channel spell. He can achieve a similiar (although usually lesser effect) by buying some sort of item to do it. Worried about arcane spell failure? Well, there is a lot of equipment that can significantly mitigate if not remove the chance of arcane spell failure... and I suppose that, like a fighter, a gish can be just as dependent on equipment. You make decent enough points on the duskblade, and it is a gish from level one. It just doesn't grant the spell power that some others are looking for. From what little I know of it, it does seem like a good class design. And ultimately... duskblade doesn't address the original poster's problem with abjurant champion, even though another poster thinks of it as a fine substitute for fighter/mage multiclasses... which it relatively could be since it doesn't experience the usual multiclass problems of a fighter/mage multiclass. However, it doesn't seem to get as much of a benefit out of Prestige Classing because the class has enough things to lose that it becomes a real trade... and because of the spell progression, a duskblade just gets less out of any +1 caster level bonus than other casting classes. Without 'exponentially' it's a true statement. If you add it in, it's a (subjective) opinion, not a fact. Would the term 'significantly' satisfy your need for accuracy? Since damage caps increase each spell level, as do save difficulties (slightly from one spell level to the next), as well as caster level (which has an effect on just about everything) the improvement can be important... especially when you think about how a caster is going to be adding to his casting stat and picking up items that increase the stat as well... not to mention the power of feats gained at certain levels that can alter the power or scope of spells.
Fluid_Dragon 03-22-07, 03:43 PM	snip Dude you are REALLY reaching. There are a vast number of gish builds. Without listing them all, all that can be offered is a generality. A gish will generally have +15 or better BaB and Cast at 17th level give or take. Each build is different but those are the general goals. Some are Tanks which would be the most like a DB. They will generally have a higher BaB and a lower Caster Level than other gish. But most of these can at least cast at least 7th level spells which are more powerfull than 5th level spells. Have almost the same BaB. BUT have the ability to chose their spells. Depending on the classes they choose they could channel any spell through their sword, not just a touch spell. And or quicken some etc. All depends on what you are trying to do. And there are how many Tank Gish builds?!?! Quite a few. Some racial some General. This is the DB most direct competition. And again the only thing the DB really gets is ease of play at lower levels, and more feats to play with. I have NEVER said the class sucks. But it is limited to mostly bashing things. Most gish can do that AND sling some good spells. DB is a fighter of another flavor. I don't play fighters because they are boring. "Hey I get to hit it again with my sword" vs "Hey I get to hit it with my sword but with shocking grasp" oh how exciting. The poster was trying to pimp out the DB as THE gish and that it would solve all the problems if you just drank his cool-aid. Sorry dude, you are trying to pick apart my post and grasping at straws. You know exactly what I was saying in the post you are just trying to twist it to make your arguments sound better. THere is no GISH class there are gish builds, and there are ALOT of them. No one build can be argued because there are so many of them. Duskblades are simply fighters who use some magic to cause damage instead of feats. As a bonus they have a few nifty movement options. More fun than a standard fighter, but fill the same niche. SOME gish builds do the same thing. Not all and not MOST. To define most since the meaning seems to escape you means more than 50.SOMETHING %. And at this point if you try to nit pick with "exponential" or try to get me to qualify each and every gish build vs a DB or the meaning of "most", I'll resort to insults because you are just being silly. Sorry to rain on your DB parade. I never said they suck and I like the class. But I don't for one second think that they fill the role that most (50.something%) gish try to do, and that my friend is due to their non(versitile) list (this means that most of their spells do pretty much the same thing when a gish can choose some of the spells to do that but also choose spells for other things) A gish has a few class abilities, their abilities are tied to their spells. If quick cast is all that, there are a bunch of great swift and immediate action spells, and there is always quicken. etc. Can you exactly duplicate a DB with a gish build? Nope, but why would you want to? If you want a DB play one. If you want a character who can fight decently and cast almost as good as a full caster with a variety (this means lots of differant types) of spells. If you are looking for raw power you are barking up the wrong tree with a gish or the DB. If you want a gishy character with ultimate power you want high level spells. Or you just play a cleric/druid. A DB gives up versitility (the ability to do things other than smash make flat) for armor and some associated class abilities. A gish fights pretty well and casts pretty well with a decent variety (spells that have lots of neat and different effects). A DB makes a better front line fighter but a very poor caster. A Gish makes a decent 2nd line fighter and a decent 2nd line caster. You can go back to your kool-aid now. I hope it is tasty.
teshen 03-22-07, 04:33 PM	A gish will generally have +15 or better BaB and Cast at 17th level give or take. Each build is different but those are the general goals.I would amend that +16 base attack is probably the goal for the extra attack since a true gish is a magical melee-ist, but I could be wrong... I have NEVER said the class sucks. But it is limited to mostly bashing things. Most gish can do that AND sling some good spells. DB is a fighter of another flavor. I don't play fighters because they are boring. "Hey I get to hit it again with my sword" vs "Hey I get to hit it with my sword but with shocking grasp" oh how exciting. . . Duskblades are simply fighters who use some magic to cause damage instead of feats. As a bonus they have a few nifty movement options. More fun than a standard fighter, but fill the same niche. SOME gish builds do the same thing. Not all and not MOST. . . Sorry to rain on your DB parade. I never said they suck and I like the class. But I don't for one second think that they fill the role that most (50.something%) gish try to do, and that my friend is due to their non(versitile) list (this means that most of their spells do pretty much the same thing when a gish can choose some of the spells to do that but also choose spells for other things)I'll still stand behind the idea that a duskblade is a low rent gish... but you are right that it is easy to obtain greater power with fighter-type x/arcanist x/prc tap dance x + x + x. I think I should point out again that a duskblade doesn't suffer a lot of the problems that other gishs have early in their careers (thanks to some of the holes in the multiclassing system). However, around mid levels and from then on, a well built duskblade doesn't have the power that a well built gish has. A gish has a few class abilities, their abilities are tied to their spells. If quick cast is all that, there are a bunch of great swift and immediate action spells, and there is always quicken. etc.And there are a few swift/immediate action spells now that could be pretty cool in a fight (but, I'm pretty sure they're not on the duskblade's spell list, though). Yes. Duskblade is pretty cool. No. Duskblade cannot emulate what the gish builds I've personally seen do. Abjurant Champion is not 'teh uber.' It's fine. Believe me or not, detractors of the AC. I can agree to disagree when I have to... :)
Doodle 03-22-07, 04:35 PM	This is what I've been trying to say. Basically put, you lose 2-3 feats and you get a LOT of nice advantages And the point everyone else has been making is that those advantages are practically useless to a wizard (i.e. not a gish)! Who cares about BAB as a wizard? Who cares about higher will saves? Especially when that comes at the cost of lower fort? Who cares about higher AC? By level 15 you either shouldn't be in melee, or should be unhittable already! Swift cast abjuration spells is debatable - I'd rather quicken something else. The only advantage for a wizard are the 15 hitpoints - so ask yourself, is 15 hitpoints worth losing 2 - 3 feats??? (note that you can get those hitpoints from 1 feat - improved toughness) I don't think so. Me.
Tytalus 03-22-07, 04:45 PM	True enough. But it is easy enough to argue that with access to more spells to choose from and higher level spells, you can do things that a duskblade cannot. Agreed. You make decent enough points on the duskblade, and it is a gish from level one. It just doesn't grant the spell power that some others are looking for. From what little I know of it, it does seem like a good class design. Yes. I remember when the DB first came out and the people at the CO boards were a little disappointed since it's very well balanced and hard to break. Would the term 'significantly' satisfy your need for accuracy? Absolutely.
Tytalus 03-22-07, 05:00 PM	There are a vast number of gish builds. Without listing them all, all that can be offered is a generality. My point exactly. The word "fact" just doesn't apply the way you used it. A gish will generally have +15 or better BaB and Cast at 17th level give or take. Each build is different but those are the general goals. Those are pretty lofty goals. Sure, some builds get one of the two, but both is not easy to have. I have NEVER said the class sucks. I don't think anyone implied that. I don't play fighters because they are boring. "Hey I get to hit it again with my sword" vs "Hey I get to hit it with my sword but with shocking grasp" oh how exciting. You might want to check out the Tome of Battle. Lots of nice options for fighter-types. Sorry dude, you are trying to pick apart my post and grasping at straws. You know exactly what I was saying in the post you are just trying to twist it to make your arguments sound better. I'm afraid you are wrong. I merely pointed out that the 'facts' you used in one particular post are, in fact, not facts. Opinions, observations, etc. perhaps. You seem also to be thinking that I am advocating the DB as being stronger than gishes, which I am not. To define most since the meaning seems to escape you means more than 50.SOMETHING %. We all know what 'most' means. However, without knowing the entire set you are talking about, 'most' can not be used in a factual statement (you can, however, qualify your statement by saying "most builds I've seen..."). Sorry to rain on your DB parade. Again, I am not advocating DBs at all. Can you exactly duplicate a DB with a gish build? Nope, but why would you want to? Remember that it was you who said gish builds "can do eveything that the duskblade can do and a whole lot more". Apparently that wasn't correct.
Fluid_Dragon 03-22-07, 05:58 PM	My point exactly. The word "fact" just doesn't apply the way you used it. Your reaching. And trying to argue semantics. Most, Majority, The Bulk etc. Those are pretty lofty goals. Sure, some builds get one of the two, but both is not easy to have. It is not hard at ALL. Many build depend on house rules (some only allow 1 PrC). Ftr1/Wiz5/EK10/Wiz4 Cast As 18th +15 BaB. Using 1 PrC. You loose 5 BaB and you loose 2 caster levels. This is a very basic build. You could add another Ftr level to get +16 BaB and Cast at 17th to get the extra attack. Very easy basic build. Not sexy but it will do. Note you can't do this with the AC it only has 5 levels you will have to give up significant casting progression or BaB. If you can use multiple PrC's you could go Ftr1/Wiz5/EK9/AC5. Though you would probably want to go into AC as soon as your BaB hit +5, then finish with EK. This will get you +18 BaB Cast as 18th level wizard. Again a simple build. Still loose 2 caster levels and a feat. And don't get any nifty wizard PrC's and you have fewer feats than a fighter. Again nothing too sexy a few nifty AC abilites etc. But your HP are going to be on the low end and you will not have the power of a full caster (more feats for casting and caster PrC abilities) You might want to check out the Tome of Battle. Lots of nice options for fighter-types. Going to have a player run a warblade in an upcoming game I am running. Personally fighters bore me after awhile. I have read lots of knee jerk reactions about how this is unbalanced as well. From what I have read, it is fine though. I'm afraid you are wrong. I merely pointed out that the 'facts' you used in one particular post are, in fact, not facts. Opinions, observations, etc. perhaps. You are grasping at straws. Trying to argue sematics over most. etc. Sorry don't buy it. You seem also to be thinking that I am advocating the DB as being stronger than gishes, which I am not. Fine maybe I got confused with you and someone else We all know what 'most' means. However, without knowing the entire set you are talking about, 'most' can not be used in a factual statement (you can, however, qualify your statement by saying "most builds I've seen..."). It most certainly can. MOST is not definitive and is speaking about the majority of builds. I am not about to go count gish builds. There are scores of them. I have read all the gish threads on the CO board that are easilly accessable. MOST is a fair generalization for the vast majority of the builds. A few of the builds have higher caster levels and a few have higher BaB. But the goals for most gish is At least +15 BaB and 9th level spells. The vast majority meet this criteria. Remember that it was you who said gish builds "can do eveything that the duskblade can do and a whole lot more". Apparently that wasn't correct. Doing everything and DUPLICATING a base class are not the same thing. You have have a Gish who has a very high BaB (impossible to have a +20) Fight in heavy armor without AFC, cast spells as a free/swift action (swift/immediate action spells and quicken spells). Channel spells (Spell sword but not limited to touch spells). A Gish can fill the same role in the party and have more versitility to boot. You would use one of the tank builds and depending how you go you might not have access to 8th or 9th level spells. 7th would be doable. You could do everything the DB could do. Not in the exact same way as some of the class abilities are not found in any spell/feat/PrC exactly the way they are in the DB. Plus you would be able to choose a wide variety of spells, more than "smash make flat" and "move over here" How about Wall of X or Limited Wish, or Shadow Evocation, Dominate Monster etc.
Fluid_Dragon 03-22-07, 06:07 PM	Yes. I remember when the DB first came out and the people at the CO boards were a little disappointed since it's very well balanced and hard to break. They don't like it not because "it is very well balanced and hard to break" They don't like it because it is a fighter class. It just uses spells instead of feats to hurt things. When people build a Gish they generally want to fight decently and cast spells decently. Sure DB can cast spells, but they are so limited in effect that they might as well just be class abilites or bonus feats. The things people want to do with a Gish they can't do with a DB because of the very limited spell list. Frankly if one of my players wanted to play one I would allow the wiz/sorc list, but no-one is interested. There are also no PrC's at least that I am aware of anyway, that would really add anything to them. All you have to play with are feats. It is also silly to multiclass them because their abilites are evenly spread out. You end up giving up more than you gain. And there is not much to work with from a Multi-class perspective. Though a DB2 is a good lead in a build with both the AC and the Spell sword. But the options with DB's are very limited.
Tytalus 03-26-07, 02:32 AM	Your reaching. Not at all. There's no question as to what a fact is. If there's any uncertainty at all, it's not a fact. See my previous posts as to why your "facts" are lacking. It most certainly can. MOST is not definitive and is speaking about the majority of builds. Again: "most gish builds I've seen..." = fact. "Most gish builds..." = opinion (at best). Doing everything and DUPLICATING a base class are not the same thing. So obviously a gish can't do everything a DB can to (at once). I guess you meant to say that gish makes a good replacement for a DB, or something to that effect. They don't like it not because "it is very well balanced and hard to break" They don't like it because it is a fighter class. It just uses spells instead of feats to hurt things. No, that's not the case. Maybe you haven't been around on the boards when the PHB2 came out, but the main response from the CO board at that time was that DB is very well balanced and very hard to break.
Nezkrul 03-26-07, 10:10 AM	everything that needed to be said has been said. only a flame war will insue. let the thread go away and start your own on a different subject please. tytalus, just looking at your posts all i see is trolling; you are contributing almost nothing to the thread except semantics and nitpicking and just being an annoying troll. trolling is not allowed on these forums. please stop. and so I don't look like a hypocrate: I've played an abjurant champion in a gish build, along side someone who went straight duskblade in the same party (both of us were 17th level). The duskblade thought about rerolling a gish build for the versatility in that he can pick his spells from a much larger and in his opinion better spell list. The AC just makes playing a gish more balanced to the party's straight druid. fluid- we get your points, please don't beat em into our heads harder :D semantics aside most of what you have said is true.
Tytalus 03-26-07, 02:34 PM	trolling is not allowed on these forums. Neither is insulting others (calling them trolls). If you believe a post to be trolling, the best thing to do is to simply report it. The AC just makes playing a gish more balanced to the party's straight druid. The real question, however, is whether balance should be measured against the strongest core class available.
AllisterH 03-26-07, 02:57 PM	Everyone seems to come down to spell-power. Which of course tells me that the problem IS the spell system. I'm not sure though how "fair" it is that a character has access to 9th level spells at say level 18 yet also has a BAB of 16. Fluid Dragon mentioned people want to be able to cast spells decently AND fight decently but access to 9th level spells and a BAB of only 2 lower than the equivalent fighter is way more than "decent" IMHO. I mean, there ARE already pre built gish classes (bard, ranger, duskblade and paladin) in the PHB and pretty much all of them are nowhere as strong as the "classic" gish. So if WOTC's idea of a pre-built gish class is only up to 6th level of spellcasting or some other significant drawback, why is it considered fair that a prestige class can obliterate a base class?
Cold Napalm 03-26-07, 08:11 PM	The real question, however, is whether balance should be measured against the strongest core class available. No it's not. Until I see wholesale banning of druids in games, it's a perfectly legitimate benchmark to compare to. It's not like the incantrix that is banned in many groups because it's "over powered"...no it's allowed in just about any game you play...despite the fact that it is in fact mechanically stronger then the "broken" incantrix and just about any other PrC people call broken.
Cold Napalm 03-26-07, 08:21 PM	Everyone seems to come down to spell-power. Which of course tells me that the problem IS the spell system. I'm not sure though how "fair" it is that a character has access to 9th level spells at say level 18 yet also has a BAB of 16. Fluid Dragon mentioned people want to be able to cast spells decently AND fight decently but access to 9th level spells and a BAB of only 2 lower than the equivalent fighter is way more than "decent" IMHO. I mean, there ARE already pre built gish classes (bard, ranger, duskblade and paladin) in the PHB and pretty much all of them are nowhere as strong as the "classic" gish. So if WOTC's idea of a pre-built gish class is only up to 6th level of spellcasting or some other significant drawback, why is it considered fair that a prestige class can obliterate a base class? Umm I hope your not actually calling bards gishes...there are people that will have to hunt you down for this you know...not that I'm one of them or anyting... :incog: Ranger and paladin also don't quite work...1) they use divine spells and 2) they're spell progression is too slow with nothing gotten till after level 4 at best. The duskblade does work...if your a damage centric gish player...but then again if I wanna do damage, I'd be a fighter. If you haven't noticed yet from reading the classes and prestige classes boards, wizards SUCK at balancing thing. Saying see they made this class so that must mean that gishes should be balanced to that class is rather dumb. The only reason that many archetypes are playable is just through shear number of options out there now. Go law of averages.
teshen 03-27-07, 12:25 PM	Everyone seems to come down to spell-power. Which of course tells me that the problem IS the spell system. Yes. Individually, spells are fine. But nothing takes place in a vaccuum. Certain combinations of spells can result in creative outcomes... and some high level spells are poorly balanced against what they do... But spells have to be powerful for classes that get f:censored:k else but spells, such as the sorcerer and, to a lesser extent, the wizard. They get bad everything except for spells. And the spell system is weak at lower levels, good at mid levels, and strong to too strong at high levels... and wizard gets rated on the high end of the power curve... I'm not sure though how "fair" it is that a character has access to 9th level spells at say level 18 yet also has a BAB of 16. Fluid Dragon mentioned people want to be able to cast spells decently AND fight decently but access to 9th level spells and a BAB of only 2 lower than the equivalent fighter is way more than "decent" IMHO. cough*cleric*cough ...but I've beat that glue factory comment enough. Not to say the fighter is strong by any means... but you are forgetting what a fighter is. He's not just his base attack. He's a good fortitude save verses save or die spells. He's good hit points. He's good weapons and armor. He's lots of feats. (If his feats scaled, I think most of the problems with the fighter would be fixed... and there are a few fighter 'fixes' on these boards that take that route.) If this level 18 gish with 16 base attack was out of his high end spells thanks to regular encounters, he'd likely fair worse than a comparable fighter (and this includes prcs for the fighter... because we're talking about gishes with prcs) of equal level. A fighter can do something all day long... a gish can do it only as long as he has spells... I mean, there ARE already pre built gish classes (bard, ranger, duskblade and paladin) in the PHB and pretty much all of them are nowhere as strong as the "classic" gish. Umm I hope your not actually calling bards gishes...there are people that will have to hunt you down for this you know...not that I'm one of them or anyting... :incog: Ranger and paladin also don't quite work...1) they use divine spells and 2) they're spell progression is too slow with nothing gotten till after level 4 at best. Bards try to do everything and as a result do next to nothing well, and his spell selection doesn't lend itself to melee or supporting melee well. Don't get me wrong. I've seen some impressive builds using bards, but after the inclusion of multiclassing and one or two prcs, he's not really a bard (i.e. doesn't suck). And there is rarely an encounter that a bard cannot contribute... something, but it's not something that usually makes a huge difference in a 'standard' party (one that has all the bases covered). Spellcasting for rangers and paladins is themed to support their roles as wilderness warrior/scout and holy warrior rather than making them true gishes. Since they are fighter + druid and fighter + cleric respectively (and even then, they lean strongly toward the fighter end) they don't get spells fast enough to help them out if they exist in a party with a cleric or a druid, who do eveything they can and better. The cleric and the druid can even compensate for their 'weaknesses' in melee and do just about everything these combo classes do. So, I have to agree with Cold Naplam. Until the recent introduction of the Duskblade, there has not been a base class gish (...unless we include AD&D/second edition's system of multiclassing... which worked, but was a pain in the experience). So if WOTC's idea of a pre-built gish class is only up to 6th level of spellcasting or some other significant drawback, why is it considered fair that a prestige class can obliterate a base class? Then why is any full casting prc better than the base class? Then why is any fighter better off finding a prc that gives feat equivalents and something else? And why are cleric and druid without PrCs allowed to be better than most PrC-ed characters? Because no system is perfect. Because PrCs serve a number of functions, such as adding flavor to a game, adding options to characters, and patching holes in weak multiclass combinations to name a few. And since PrCs are meant to be 'universal', in that prerequisites are meant to favor some classes but not preclude any, anybody can try to get in... and because of this, mileage will vary...