Would this be too good? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Would this be too good? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
BartD
08-29-07, 04:37 AM I am considering letting a rogue/warlock get into the arcane trickster prestige class a little easier than usual. As in she will be able to start as a Rogue 1/Warlock 4/Scout 1 such that she has 2d6 precision damage (sneak attack and skirmish), deceive item from the warlock, and various skills. At 10th level (likely campaign end) her eldritch blast will be doing damage like 4d6 + 1d6 skirmish + 3d6 sneak. It should be noted that the party currently has no archer or blaster so she will not be stepping on anyone's toes.

As far as I can see, the 'proper' entry for AT is rogue 3/warlock 6 (lesser invocation is equivalent to level 3-4 spell), which seems a little late.

So... is it too good or not really that good at all?
Empiro
08-29-07, 09:27 AM I am considering letting a rogue/warlock get into the arcane trickster prestige class a little easier than usual. As in she will be able to start as a Rogue 1/Warlock 4/Scout 1 such that she has 2d6 precision damage (sneak attack and skirmish), deceive item from the warlock, and various skills. At 10th level (likely campaign end) her eldritch blast will be doing damage like 4d6 + 1d6 skirmish + 3d6 sneak. It should be noted that the party currently has no archer or blaster so she will not be stepping on anyone's toes.

As far as I can see, the 'proper' entry for AT is rogue 3/warlock 6 (lesser invocation is equivalent to level 3-4 spell), which seems a little late.

So... is it too good or not really that good at all?

Actually, the "proper" entry is that you cannot get into Arcane Trickster at all using a warlock. They cannot cast mage hand, and Spell-Like Abilities do not count as being able to cast a spell.

That said, I don't think there's anything inherently bad about what you're proposing, and technically, if Warlocks could meet the spellcasting requirement, I believe that it is legal to meet the requirement using both skirmish and sneak attack. However, even with houserulings, I'd still require that they have 5 levels of warlock, since that's the earliest anyone else can qualify.
Fallenangel359
08-29-07, 09:35 AM Warlocks can technically emulate a class ability for purposes of meeting requirements, with usemagicdevice which is a lil odd for this kind of requirement :P.

To be honest, what you are proposing is perfectly fine.
I'd just require that for you to enter the prestige class, you would need "hand of the mage" as an item, to qualify for the magehand requirement. It gives magehand at will, which means they can manipulate objects at a distance with a thought.
Fallenangel359
08-29-07, 09:36 AM Warlocks can technically emulate a class ability for purposes of meeting requirements, with usemagicdevice which is a lil odd for this kind of requirement :P.

To be honest, what you are proposing is perfectly fine.
I'd just require that for you to enter the prestige class, you would need "hand of the mage" as an item, to qualify for the magehand requirement. It gives you magehand as per the spell, at will.

Another fun item like that is atwill tensors floating disk for 500gp (magic item compendium)
Puca
08-29-07, 10:30 AM Warlocks can technically emulate a class ability for purposes of meeting requirements, with usemagicdevice which is a lil odd for this kind of requirement :P.Theres no way would I accept that a UMD check can be used to meet prereqs for entry into a PrC. No way.

Warlocks dont qualify for Arcane Trickster. They need an SLA to duplicate Mage Hand, but even then, they dont cast spells.

Now, I see absolutely no problem with letting them. But, while loopholes may exist, the class seems to at a minimum require entrants to give up 5 levels of rogue(ish) progression and 3 levels of caster progression.

I wouldnt rock that boat to let warlocks in. Especially as Im already allowing something special by permitting them to take the class in the first place.
Empiro
08-29-07, 10:55 AM You certainly cannot use UMD to meet a pre-req for being able to cast a certain level spell. The section in Complete Arcane even explicitly states that warlocks cannot ever meed a pre-req that requires one to cast a certain level of spells.
goawayugh
08-29-07, 02:24 PM Warlock cannot qualify for Arcane Trickster. Warlock don't cast spells. Sorry, but I'm very by the book, I wouldn't allow it at all.
StevenO
08-29-07, 03:35 PM Ignoring for the moment that Warlocks don't fill the Trickster's spell requirements it is clear to me the Arcane Trickster is designed for entry from an 8th level character. That is to say Rogue3/Wizard5 to meet the +2d6 sneak attack and 3rd level requirements. The 3.5 skill requirements are identical to the 3.0 requirements except it used to be MUCH harder to get the needed skill ranks as some were exclusive to certain classes.

Now I don't have much problem with adjusting the class so that a Warlock with lesser Invocations could meet the spellcasting requirement as a Sorcerer also needs to be 6th level. You would have to find/make some way to get around the Mage Hand requirement and should still need two other class levels to meet the SA requirement. Inspite of all that you should need to be at least an 8th level character to take the first level of Arcane Trickster.
Jaxgaret
08-29-07, 03:59 PM it is clear to me the Arcane Trickster is designed for entry from an 8th level character. That is to say Rogue3/Wizard5 to meet the +2d6 sneak attack and 3rd level requirements... you should need to be at least an 8th level character to take the first level of Arcane Trickster.

Rogue1/Spellthief1/Wizard5 disagrees with you.
Zizij
08-29-07, 08:59 PM Rogue1/Spellthief1/Wizard5 disagrees with you.

So does Rogue1/Wizard4/Unseen Seer1
StevenO
08-29-07, 11:16 PM Rogue1/Spellthief1/Wizard5 disagrees with you.

So does Rogue1/Wizard4/Unseen Seer1

Just because they are current possibilities doesn't mean they are what level the Arcane Trickster was designed for. Lets see.

Arcane Trickster: Tome and Blood (2001), reprinted 3.5 DMG (2003)
Spellthief: Complete Adventurer (2005)
Unseen Seer: Complete Mage (2006)

Somehow I doubt the Arcane Trickster was designed with either the Spellthief or Unseen Seer in mind. Sure the Spellthief made entry to AT a little simpler (provided you're favorite class is Wizard, halflings would take a big XP hit) but it had been possible to get the SA with only two levels before by using the Assassin. Going into AT with that Unseen Seer version may be possible but your skills are going to be unforgiving. Barring feats to reduce skill costs here is what your feats for a Rogue1/Wizard4/Unseen1 going into AT will look like assuming Rogue first level.

Hide: 4 + 8 (wizard pay double) = 12
Search: 4 + 8 (wizard pay double) =12
Spot: 4 + 8 (wizard pay double) = 12
Sense Motive: 4 +0 (your lucky day) =4
Spellcraft 4 (rogue double) + 2 = 6

Ok to make Unseen Seer at 6th level your wizard needs 6.5 skill points each level which mean Human Int 18 or other with INT 20. Maybe you have such insane stats but it is possible if you spend a feat to reduce cross class skill cost which would reduce the load to 4 skill points per level which still doesn't leave much room. Getting into Unseen Seer is hard enough the look at what you need for AT:

Decipher Script: 4 + 3 = 7 (Yey, a class skill for all!)
Disable Device: 4 + 6 (CC for Wiz or US) = 10
Escape Artist: 4 + 6 (again CC) = 10
Knowledge (Arcana): 4 (CC rogue) + 2 = 6

I hope this points out how virtually impossible it is to make Arcane Trickster at 6th level using Rog1/Wiz4/UnSr1. Spending all your starting rogue skill on prereq' skills still leaves you needing another 26 from your four levels of Wizard just to get into Unseen Seer and from there another 17 to make AT. I believe it is Able Learner could reduce the needed skill points down to 14 and 11 for a total of 25 which is still 11 points more than the Wizard and Seer's base skill points allow. That still means a +3 per level bonus which isn't impossible but it leaves such a character with few outside skills. Such a character has a horrible +2 BAB even after taking AT1.

In short the AT was designed for character level 9 and beyond with entry possible a level sooner if extreme sacrifices were made.
Jaxgaret
08-30-07, 12:24 AM In short the AT was designed for character level 9 and beyond with entry possible a level sooner if extreme sacrifices were made.

Rogue1/Spellthief1/Wizard5 disagrees with you :)

:heehee
StevenO
08-30-07, 12:50 AM Rogue1/Spellthief1/Wizard5 disagrees with you :)

:heehee
So are you saying the Arcane Trickster, published in 2001, was designed with the Spellthief, published 2005, in mind?

I can acknowledge that even in 2001 people would look at the Assassin as a way to get the second SA die although it didn't make the skill situation any easier. When 3.5 came out the Arcane Trickster made the transfer to the DMG basically unchanged although with the removal of restricted skills it became easier to get into. Perhaps your taking issue with the basic idea that a level 8 character was most likely to fill the prereqs so they could be an AT at level 9.

If you're taking issue with my comment on taking "an extreme sacrifice" to qualify earlier perhaps you like the 20% XP penalty a non-human/elf will take for unbalanced multiclassing. Dropping the spellthief means getting the second SA die some other way but a halfling rogue/wizard doesn't suffer from XP penaties because of favored class.

Perhaps you're just taking cheap shots in which case you should get reported to the moderators.
BartD
08-31-07, 06:59 AM I guess I should have said that I basically disagree with the need for such high costs for entering the prc. Most prcs are/should be available around level 6. Here's what I think I will use:

Arcane Trickster requirements:
Sneak attack or skirmish +2d6, disable device 5, move silently 5, knowledge (arcana) 5, ability to use mage hand, and
EITHER decipher script 5 and ability to cast at least one arcane spell of at least 2nd level
OR use magic device 5 and deceive item class ability.
Mage hand must be available to enter the prestige class and to use ranged legerdemain.

So a rogue3/wizard3 is in, while sorcerer or warlock needs another level. I have never used spellthief or unseen seer, don't know if I'd allow them.

Regarding publication dates: I am convinced that if the warlock had existed when the arcane trickster was published, the arcane trickster would have made allowance for warlocks. It just seems obvious to me.
Jaxgaret
08-31-07, 01:41 PM So are you saying the Arcane Trickster, published in 2001, was designed with the Spellthief, published 2005, in mind?

I can acknowledge that even in 2001 people would look at the Assassin as a way to get the second SA die although it didn't make the skill situation any easier. When 3.5 came out the Arcane Trickster made the transfer to the DMG basically unchanged although with the removal of restricted skills it became easier to get into. Perhaps your taking issue with the basic idea that a level 8 character was most likely to fill the prereqs so they could be an AT at level 9.

Are you a mindreader? Where are you getting this concrete information that when the AT was created, the people who designed it thought "Well, we work for WotC - whose business model is to release a splatbook chock full of new classes every month - and they're never ever ever going to release another base class with Sneak Attack (let alone 3+), so we'll design the AT with that in mind so there can never be ATs before level 9 without extreme sacrifices."

Perhaps you're just taking cheap shots in which case you should get reported to the moderators.

I'm sorry if you find my politely disagreeing with you so objectionable. Perhaps you should chill.
Empiro
08-31-07, 01:59 PM Are you a mindreader? Where are you getting this concrete information that when the AT was created, the people who designed it thought "Well, we work for WotC - whose business model is to release a splatbook chock full of new classes every month - and they're never ever ever going to release another base class with Sneak Attack (let alone 3+), so we'll design the AT with that in mind so there can never be ATs before level 9 without extreme sacrifices."

You can't say for certain, but you can certainly make a reasoned conjecture. 3.0 really didn't introduce new base classes (other than in Oriental Adventures). Also, there are plenty of cases where the designers didn't take into account future books. Take polymorph for instance, they've pretty much admitted that they hadn't considered the effects of new Monster Manuals ramping up the power of the spell.

To put it another way, the inverse statement (that they _did_ intend for the AT to be entered using two SA classes) would essentially mean that they purposefully designed the AT to be difficult to enter, anticipating that 4 years down the line, they'd introduce new SA granting classes such that you can enter into the class they way they intended.

Now, I personally don't have a problem with entering the AT through another means -- it's a bit weak otherwise. But to say that the original designers wanted people entering the PrC to use PrCs and base classes published years later is a stretch.
Jaxgaret
08-31-07, 02:02 PM Now, I personally don't have a problem with entering the AT through another means -- it's a bit weak otherwise. But to say that the original designers wanted people entering the PrC to use PrCs and base classes published years later is a stretch.

I agree that it is a weak PrC, which is one of my reasons for having no problem with PCs using dual-SA class dipping to enter or using Warlocks to enter. They're still gimping the character, so who cares, let them have a little fun with it.

I am not saying anything about the original designers' mindset - as I am not a mindreader, and do not claim to be.

Perhaps they just wrote a class and didn't really give **** all about what level people would be going into it. That would agree with most WotC design policy. Or they may have given great thought to it - but who knows? One just doesn't know, and I find it dubious to claim that one does.

* Note that most of this post (other than the first sentence) is not directed at you personally, Empiro, but to the thread in general.
StevenO
08-31-07, 03:02 PM I guess I should have said that I basically disagree with the need for such high costs for entering the prc. Most prcs are/should be available around level 6. Here's what I think I will use:
.snip.
Regarding publication dates: I am convinced that if the warlock had existed when the arcane trickster was published, the arcane trickster would have made allowance for warlocks. It just seems obvious to me.

For the first part, when was the last time you got hit by a zero level spell for 7d6+1d3? Granted 26 damage isn't a lot at higher levels it is better than many spells can do on their own that take much higher level spell slots. Much of the AT's power comes from stacking sneak attack damage on various touch and ray spells.

Most PrCs are designed to enable entry at level 6 but there are certainly enough that aren't. I maintain that the AT was designed as one of those PrCs that gets entered later although the move to 3.5 actually made it available earlier than it previously had been. As is repeatedly pointed out to me entering AT at character level 8 is easy to accomplish provided you're favored class is wizard. A class needing seven levels of prereqs is still around the PrC target as you can still finish the PrC before epic levels.

As for a Warlock getting into AT I agreed in my first post that it should be possible. I'd make Mage Hand a least invocation and let it fill that qualification and after that you'd basically be just like a sorcerer trying to get into the class.

Jaxgaret, the first time was "polite" disagreement to which I defended my statements. It is the second time, complete with mocking animation, that is uncalled for and could be considered an attack.
Jaxgaret
08-31-07, 03:20 PM Jaxgaret, the first time was "polite" disagreement to which I defended my statements. It is the second time, complete with mocking animation, that is uncalled for and could be considered an attack.

Dude, the :heehee sign was pointed at my post, not yours.

Hence why it is below my post, not above it.

I was laughing at my own joke, which hardly constitutes an attack on you.

Was the smiley mocking you too - the innocent smiley?!? :)

You seriously need to take a step back and chill out. I was being perfectly polite.

EDIT: I realize that this post may sound like sarcasm. It is not.
BartD
09-01-07, 04:47 PM So it seems the sentiment here is that taking Arcane Trickster levels is gimping the character, whether he's taking 5 wizard levels away from his rogue levels or 3 rogue levels away from his wizard levels. So what is the "golden" number of levels that should be "lost" in such a combination? 3 of each? 2?
Jaxgaret
09-03-07, 12:08 PM So it seems the sentiment here is that taking Arcane Trickster levels is gimping the character, whether he's taking 5 wizard levels away from his rogue levels or 3 rogue levels away from his wizard levels. So what is the "golden" number of levels that should be "lost" in such a combination? 3 of each? 2?

3 and 3 is the usual loss of progression, such as with the Mystic Theurge.

It's debatable whether that is even worth it. 3 and 2 might be the right balance.
StevenO
09-03-07, 01:42 PM If you don't look at the Arcane Trickster as a primary caster it isn't so bad even under "normal" use. Your rogue skills may suffer a little but if you value those spells that skill loss isn't too great. Going for AT may hurt your BAB compared to a rogue but given the number of ranged touch attacks you can gain from spells you may not even notice that.

The AT is not a blaster's class. I see the AT as a great support class that still maintains a nice combat trick with its sneak attack and spells. Instead of comparing the AT to a Rogue or Wizard you should probably be comparing it with the Bard. If you are looking at the AT for arcane spellcasting with a little extra versatility losing two levels to get the SA and combining that with five levels of wizard isn't so uncommon. There are enough PrCs that ask for 3rd level spells that Wiz 5 shouldn't be such a stretch.

If you are looking for a balance point on what "gets lost" in a multiclass PrC I say the sum is always at least six. Eldritch Knight costs 2 casting levels (includes EK1) while needing 5 wizard levels to get in. Of course it is hard comparing what a fighting class loses to other classes because everyone gets attack bonuses; want to enter the Abjurant Champion as soon as possible you'll need 4-5 levels of warrior with 2-1 level of caster but if you're willing to wait you can get in with only casting class levels.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
BartD 08-29-07, 04:37 AM	I am considering letting a rogue/warlock get into the arcane trickster prestige class a little easier than usual. As in she will be able to start as a Rogue 1/Warlock 4/Scout 1 such that she has 2d6 precision damage (sneak attack and skirmish), deceive item from the warlock, and various skills. At 10th level (likely campaign end) her eldritch blast will be doing damage like 4d6 + 1d6 skirmish + 3d6 sneak. It should be noted that the party currently has no archer or blaster so she will not be stepping on anyone's toes. As far as I can see, the 'proper' entry for AT is rogue 3/warlock 6 (lesser invocation is equivalent to level 3-4 spell), which seems a little late. So... is it too good or not really that good at all?
Empiro 08-29-07, 09:27 AM	I am considering letting a rogue/warlock get into the arcane trickster prestige class a little easier than usual. As in she will be able to start as a Rogue 1/Warlock 4/Scout 1 such that she has 2d6 precision damage (sneak attack and skirmish), deceive item from the warlock, and various skills. At 10th level (likely campaign end) her eldritch blast will be doing damage like 4d6 + 1d6 skirmish + 3d6 sneak. It should be noted that the party currently has no archer or blaster so she will not be stepping on anyone's toes. As far as I can see, the 'proper' entry for AT is rogue 3/warlock 6 (lesser invocation is equivalent to level 3-4 spell), which seems a little late. So... is it too good or not really that good at all? Actually, the "proper" entry is that you cannot get into Arcane Trickster at all using a warlock. They cannot cast mage hand, and Spell-Like Abilities do not count as being able to cast a spell. That said, I don't think there's anything inherently bad about what you're proposing, and technically, if Warlocks could meet the spellcasting requirement, I believe that it is legal to meet the requirement using both skirmish and sneak attack. However, even with houserulings, I'd still require that they have 5 levels of warlock, since that's the earliest anyone else can qualify.
Fallenangel359 08-29-07, 09:35 AM	Warlocks can technically emulate a class ability for purposes of meeting requirements, with usemagicdevice which is a lil odd for this kind of requirement :P. To be honest, what you are proposing is perfectly fine. I'd just require that for you to enter the prestige class, you would need "hand of the mage" as an item, to qualify for the magehand requirement. It gives magehand at will, which means they can manipulate objects at a distance with a thought.
Fallenangel359 08-29-07, 09:36 AM	Warlocks can technically emulate a class ability for purposes of meeting requirements, with usemagicdevice which is a lil odd for this kind of requirement :P. To be honest, what you are proposing is perfectly fine. I'd just require that for you to enter the prestige class, you would need "hand of the mage" as an item, to qualify for the magehand requirement. It gives you magehand as per the spell, at will. Another fun item like that is atwill tensors floating disk for 500gp (magic item compendium)
Puca 08-29-07, 10:30 AM	Warlocks can technically emulate a class ability for purposes of meeting requirements, with usemagicdevice which is a lil odd for this kind of requirement :P.Theres no way would I accept that a UMD check can be used to meet prereqs for entry into a PrC. No way. Warlocks dont qualify for Arcane Trickster. They need an SLA to duplicate Mage Hand, but even then, they dont cast spells. Now, I see absolutely no problem with letting them. But, while loopholes may exist, the class seems to at a minimum require entrants to give up 5 levels of rogue(ish) progression and 3 levels of caster progression. I wouldnt rock that boat to let warlocks in. Especially as Im already allowing something special by permitting them to take the class in the first place.
Empiro 08-29-07, 10:55 AM	You certainly cannot use UMD to meet a pre-req for being able to cast a certain level spell. The section in Complete Arcane even explicitly states that warlocks cannot ever meed a pre-req that requires one to cast a certain level of spells.
goawayugh 08-29-07, 02:24 PM	Warlock cannot qualify for Arcane Trickster. Warlock don't cast spells. Sorry, but I'm very by the book, I wouldn't allow it at all.
StevenO 08-29-07, 03:35 PM	Ignoring for the moment that Warlocks don't fill the Trickster's spell requirements it is clear to me the Arcane Trickster is designed for entry from an 8th level character. That is to say Rogue3/Wizard5 to meet the +2d6 sneak attack and 3rd level requirements. The 3.5 skill requirements are identical to the 3.0 requirements except it used to be MUCH harder to get the needed skill ranks as some were exclusive to certain classes. Now I don't have much problem with adjusting the class so that a Warlock with lesser Invocations could meet the spellcasting requirement as a Sorcerer also needs to be 6th level. You would have to find/make some way to get around the Mage Hand requirement and should still need two other class levels to meet the SA requirement. Inspite of all that you should need to be at least an 8th level character to take the first level of Arcane Trickster.
Jaxgaret 08-29-07, 03:59 PM	it is clear to me the Arcane Trickster is designed for entry from an 8th level character. That is to say Rogue3/Wizard5 to meet the +2d6 sneak attack and 3rd level requirements... you should need to be at least an 8th level character to take the first level of Arcane Trickster. Rogue1/Spellthief1/Wizard5 disagrees with you.
Zizij 08-29-07, 08:59 PM	Rogue1/Spellthief1/Wizard5 disagrees with you. So does Rogue1/Wizard4/Unseen Seer1
StevenO 08-29-07, 11:16 PM	Rogue1/Spellthief1/Wizard5 disagrees with you. So does Rogue1/Wizard4/Unseen Seer1 Just because they are current possibilities doesn't mean they are what level the Arcane Trickster was designed for. Lets see. Arcane Trickster: Tome and Blood (2001), reprinted 3.5 DMG (2003) Spellthief: Complete Adventurer (2005) Unseen Seer: Complete Mage (2006) Somehow I doubt the Arcane Trickster was designed with either the Spellthief or Unseen Seer in mind. Sure the Spellthief made entry to AT a little simpler (provided you're favorite class is Wizard, halflings would take a big XP hit) but it had been possible to get the SA with only two levels before by using the Assassin. Going into AT with that Unseen Seer version may be possible but your skills are going to be unforgiving. Barring feats to reduce skill costs here is what your feats for a Rogue1/Wizard4/Unseen1 going into AT will look like assuming Rogue first level. Hide: 4 + 8 (wizard pay double) = 12 Search: 4 + 8 (wizard pay double) =12 Spot: 4 + 8 (wizard pay double) = 12 Sense Motive: 4 +0 (your lucky day) =4 Spellcraft 4 (rogue double) + 2 = 6 Ok to make Unseen Seer at 6th level your wizard needs 6.5 skill points each level which mean Human Int 18 or other with INT 20. Maybe you have such insane stats but it is possible if you spend a feat to reduce cross class skill cost which would reduce the load to 4 skill points per level which still doesn't leave much room. Getting into Unseen Seer is hard enough the look at what you need for AT: Decipher Script: 4 + 3 = 7 (Yey, a class skill for all!) Disable Device: 4 + 6 (CC for Wiz or US) = 10 Escape Artist: 4 + 6 (again CC) = 10 Knowledge (Arcana): 4 (CC rogue) + 2 = 6 I hope this points out how virtually impossible it is to make Arcane Trickster at 6th level using Rog1/Wiz4/UnSr1. Spending all your starting rogue skill on prereq' skills still leaves you needing another 26 from your four levels of Wizard just to get into Unseen Seer and from there another 17 to make AT. I believe it is Able Learner could reduce the needed skill points down to 14 and 11 for a total of 25 which is still 11 points more than the Wizard and Seer's base skill points allow. That still means a +3 per level bonus which isn't impossible but it leaves such a character with few outside skills. Such a character has a horrible +2 BAB even after taking AT1. In short the AT was designed for character level 9 and beyond with entry possible a level sooner if extreme sacrifices were made.
Jaxgaret 08-30-07, 12:24 AM	In short the AT was designed for character level 9 and beyond with entry possible a level sooner if extreme sacrifices were made. Rogue1/Spellthief1/Wizard5 disagrees with you :) :heehee
StevenO 08-30-07, 12:50 AM	Rogue1/Spellthief1/Wizard5 disagrees with you :) :heehee So are you saying the Arcane Trickster, published in 2001, was designed with the Spellthief, published 2005, in mind? I can acknowledge that even in 2001 people would look at the Assassin as a way to get the second SA die although it didn't make the skill situation any easier. When 3.5 came out the Arcane Trickster made the transfer to the DMG basically unchanged although with the removal of restricted skills it became easier to get into. Perhaps your taking issue with the basic idea that a level 8 character was most likely to fill the prereqs so they could be an AT at level 9. If you're taking issue with my comment on taking "an extreme sacrifice" to qualify earlier perhaps you like the 20% XP penalty a non-human/elf will take for unbalanced multiclassing. Dropping the spellthief means getting the second SA die some other way but a halfling rogue/wizard doesn't suffer from XP penaties because of favored class. Perhaps you're just taking cheap shots in which case you should get reported to the moderators.
BartD 08-31-07, 06:59 AM	I guess I should have said that I basically disagree with the need for such high costs for entering the prc. Most prcs are/should be available around level 6. Here's what I think I will use: Arcane Trickster requirements: Sneak attack or skirmish +2d6, disable device 5, move silently 5, knowledge (arcana) 5, ability to use mage hand, and EITHER decipher script 5 and ability to cast at least one arcane spell of at least 2nd level OR use magic device 5 and deceive item class ability. Mage hand must be available to enter the prestige class and to use ranged legerdemain. So a rogue3/wizard3 is in, while sorcerer or warlock needs another level. I have never used spellthief or unseen seer, don't know if I'd allow them. Regarding publication dates: I am convinced that if the warlock had existed when the arcane trickster was published, the arcane trickster would have made allowance for warlocks. It just seems obvious to me.
Jaxgaret 08-31-07, 01:41 PM	So are you saying the Arcane Trickster, published in 2001, was designed with the Spellthief, published 2005, in mind? I can acknowledge that even in 2001 people would look at the Assassin as a way to get the second SA die although it didn't make the skill situation any easier. When 3.5 came out the Arcane Trickster made the transfer to the DMG basically unchanged although with the removal of restricted skills it became easier to get into. Perhaps your taking issue with the basic idea that a level 8 character was most likely to fill the prereqs so they could be an AT at level 9. Are you a mindreader? Where are you getting this concrete information that when the AT was created, the people who designed it thought "Well, we work for WotC - whose business model is to release a splatbook chock full of new classes every month - and they're never ever ever going to release another base class with Sneak Attack (let alone 3+), so we'll design the AT with that in mind so there can never be ATs before level 9 without extreme sacrifices." Perhaps you're just taking cheap shots in which case you should get reported to the moderators. I'm sorry if you find my politely disagreeing with you so objectionable. Perhaps you should chill.
Empiro 08-31-07, 01:59 PM	Are you a mindreader? Where are you getting this concrete information that when the AT was created, the people who designed it thought "Well, we work for WotC - whose business model is to release a splatbook chock full of new classes every month - and they're never ever ever going to release another base class with Sneak Attack (let alone 3+), so we'll design the AT with that in mind so there can never be ATs before level 9 without extreme sacrifices." You can't say for certain, but you can certainly make a reasoned conjecture. 3.0 really didn't introduce new base classes (other than in Oriental Adventures). Also, there are plenty of cases where the designers didn't take into account future books. Take polymorph for instance, they've pretty much admitted that they hadn't considered the effects of new Monster Manuals ramping up the power of the spell. To put it another way, the inverse statement (that they _did_ intend for the AT to be entered using two SA classes) would essentially mean that they purposefully designed the AT to be difficult to enter, anticipating that 4 years down the line, they'd introduce new SA granting classes such that you can enter into the class they way they intended. Now, I personally don't have a problem with entering the AT through another means -- it's a bit weak otherwise. But to say that the original designers wanted people entering the PrC to use PrCs and base classes published years later is a stretch.
Jaxgaret 08-31-07, 02:02 PM	Now, I personally don't have a problem with entering the AT through another means -- it's a bit weak otherwise. But to say that the original designers wanted people entering the PrC to use PrCs and base classes published years later is a stretch. I agree that it is a weak PrC, which is one of my reasons for having no problem with PCs using dual-SA class dipping to enter or using Warlocks to enter. They're still gimping the character, so who cares, let them have a little fun with it. I am not saying anything about the original designers' mindset - as I am not a mindreader, and do not claim to be. Perhaps they just wrote a class and didn't really give **** all about what level people would be going into it. That would agree with most WotC design policy. Or they may have given great thought to it - but who knows? One just doesn't know, and I find it dubious to claim that one does. * Note that most of this post (other than the first sentence) is not directed at you personally, Empiro, but to the thread in general.
StevenO 08-31-07, 03:02 PM	I guess I should have said that I basically disagree with the need for such high costs for entering the prc. Most prcs are/should be available around level 6. Here's what I think I will use: .snip. Regarding publication dates: I am convinced that if the warlock had existed when the arcane trickster was published, the arcane trickster would have made allowance for warlocks. It just seems obvious to me. For the first part, when was the last time you got hit by a zero level spell for 7d6+1d3? Granted 26 damage isn't a lot at higher levels it is better than many spells can do on their own that take much higher level spell slots. Much of the AT's power comes from stacking sneak attack damage on various touch and ray spells. Most PrCs are designed to enable entry at level 6 but there are certainly enough that aren't. I maintain that the AT was designed as one of those PrCs that gets entered later although the move to 3.5 actually made it available earlier than it previously had been. As is repeatedly pointed out to me entering AT at character level 8 is easy to accomplish provided you're favored class is wizard. A class needing seven levels of prereqs is still around the PrC target as you can still finish the PrC before epic levels. As for a Warlock getting into AT I agreed in my first post that it should be possible. I'd make Mage Hand a least invocation and let it fill that qualification and after that you'd basically be just like a sorcerer trying to get into the class. Jaxgaret, the first time was "polite" disagreement to which I defended my statements. It is the second time, complete with mocking animation, that is uncalled for and could be considered an attack.
Jaxgaret 08-31-07, 03:20 PM	Jaxgaret, the first time was "polite" disagreement to which I defended my statements. It is the second time, complete with mocking animation, that is uncalled for and could be considered an attack. Dude, the :heehee sign was pointed at my post, not yours. Hence why it is below my post, not above it. I was laughing at my own joke, which hardly constitutes an attack on you. Was the smiley mocking you too - the innocent smiley?!? :) You seriously need to take a step back and chill out. I was being perfectly polite. EDIT: I realize that this post may sound like sarcasm. It is not.
BartD 09-01-07, 04:47 PM	So it seems the sentiment here is that taking Arcane Trickster levels is gimping the character, whether he's taking 5 wizard levels away from his rogue levels or 3 rogue levels away from his wizard levels. So what is the "golden" number of levels that should be "lost" in such a combination? 3 of each? 2?
Jaxgaret 09-03-07, 12:08 PM	So it seems the sentiment here is that taking Arcane Trickster levels is gimping the character, whether he's taking 5 wizard levels away from his rogue levels or 3 rogue levels away from his wizard levels. So what is the "golden" number of levels that should be "lost" in such a combination? 3 of each? 2? 3 and 3 is the usual loss of progression, such as with the Mystic Theurge. It's debatable whether that is even worth it. 3 and 2 might be the right balance.
StevenO 09-03-07, 01:42 PM	If you don't look at the Arcane Trickster as a primary caster it isn't so bad even under "normal" use. Your rogue skills may suffer a little but if you value those spells that skill loss isn't too great. Going for AT may hurt your BAB compared to a rogue but given the number of ranged touch attacks you can gain from spells you may not even notice that. The AT is not a blaster's class. I see the AT as a great support class that still maintains a nice combat trick with its sneak attack and spells. Instead of comparing the AT to a Rogue or Wizard you should probably be comparing it with the Bard. If you are looking at the AT for arcane spellcasting with a little extra versatility losing two levels to get the SA and combining that with five levels of wizard isn't so uncommon. There are enough PrCs that ask for 3rd level spells that Wiz 5 shouldn't be such a stretch. If you are looking for a balance point on what "gets lost" in a multiclass PrC I say the sum is always at least six. Eldritch Knight costs 2 casting levels (includes EK1) while needing 5 wizard levels to get in. Of course it is hard comparing what a fighting class loses to other classes because everyone gets attack bonuses; want to enter the Abjurant Champion as soon as possible you'll need 4-5 levels of warrior with 2-1 level of caster but if you're willing to wait you can get in with only casting class levels.