I was rereading the Pyromantic's arcane hierophant handbook and realized that I still don't have an answer to the most basic question: does the dual casting + AH abilities counterweigh the loss of 3-4 caster levels over a character's career?
In short, how does the AH compare w/ a pure wizard or a pure druid throughout the levels?
At level 20 the AH will be at 17/13 casting (if there is no theurging) and will be missing either a host of druid abilities or 3-4 wizard feats (compared to a druid or a wizard respectively). Seems like a fair trade.
At level 10 the AH will be at 7/6 casting and will be behind in druid abilities or will be missing 2 wizard feats. That's 1-2 spell levels behind and the trade doesn't look as lucrative.
Finally, before qualifying for AH, we are talking about a 4/3 multiclass character. Here, it seems that the AH build is taking a serious blow: all the disadvantages of multiclassing w/o any of the AH benefits.
So, here's my main reservation: even though the PrC looks good later on, the early levels seem kind of tough (and you don't usually get to lvl 20 overnight..). Is this true? In your experience, does the AH stand up to pure caster builds or does it fall far behind in the power curve for a very large portion of the character's career?
I expect there can be no objective answer so... fire away with personal opinions and experiences
Cheers,
Durandal 1707
In any AH build you should end up with significant divine and arcane casting. Don't forget that you should go straight from AH to Mystic theurge, so the only lost caster levels are ever in the beginning.
1 Wiz/3 Druid/10 AH/6 MT will have CL 17 for wiz and CL 19 for druid, easily worth it(Especially since you only lose a single druid caster level, so you're only 1 level behind the power curve). This build is fairly powerful - you give up druidic abilities and a caster level for plenty of arcane casting(Requires southern magician/alternative source spell/other early entry methods).
The generic build(3 Wiz/7 Druid/10 AH) without early entry is significantly weaker, and not all that great. You should never go back to druid or wizard after finishing AH - head straight into MT so you at least get 9th level spells in both classes by level 20.
If you go 3 Wiz/3 Druid/10 AH/4 MT you end up behind the curve at like level 10, with only access to 4th level spells but for both arcane and divine. You get more powerful as you start having access to significantly more spells. At level 16 you are only 3 caster levels behind the curve, and have 7th level arcane and divine while straight casters have 8th level of a single type. It always ends up behind the power curve, but gives away power for stamina/versitlity.
In this way, the build doesn't get dual 9th level casting since it caps off at 17/16. To me, this is not a huge setback... I'd settle even for the non-MT variation giving 17/13 casting.
My problem is what happens until level 10 or so. It's definitely not going to be an uber-optimized character, but is it going to be even a decent one? Or will it be hard to even survive, bordering on being useless to the rest of the party?
Any input appreciated
Cheers,
Durandal 1707
JaronK
JaronK is correct, you will be weaker than a straight caster that is on an equal footing as a player otherwise. (I.E. someone just as good as you are at picking out spells or optimizing their character, with the same book/item/ability options.) The fact of the matter is that spell power increases exponentially over each spell level, the difference in power, generally of 4ths over 3rds is an order of magnitude less than the difference of 5ths over 4ths. Mathematically, the two are never on 'equal' footing until close to (really, past) 20, and even then, it's debatable (at best). Since you'll have far fewer 9ths generally than a straight caster.
In Actual play?
Here the answer is less cut and dry. In actual play, it really depends on you and the campaign in question. See, the strongest thing you get out of Arcane Heirophant isn't 'RAW Power', it's versatility. And versatility is a tool one must know how to take advantage of, and must be allowed to take advantage of.
If your DM is the kind of DM that throws the same encounter types spread in the same way all the time, then versatility is pointless. You can just mem the same spells every day and whop up on mobs the same way every encounter. As long as you have 'enough' spells available every day for the way the encounters come, you'll always be golden. If this is the case, a single caster is still always better.
Likewise, if you as a player are the type that love taking a couple spells (or spell types) and focusing on them to the nigh exclusion of all others, well, again, a single caster is the class for you. No 'generalist' (and I mean that more broadly than what we refer to as 'generalist wizard') can match the raw power a more specialized spellcaster can throw around. And you should go with a single caster every time.
However, If your DM is the kind of DM to change up their game at every session. One who may throw traps at you in one encounter, and armies the next. One who changes the frequency of encounters on a gamely basis, often with the *intent* of draining the casters of all their spells. One who will intentionally trip up one-trick ponies with creatures immune. Then the availability of, and ecclectic options of a dual caster spells really start to shine. Under these DM's, it's often creative use of lower to mid-level spells that really is going to get you past each encounter, and through each day. While I still won't say that it's more 'powerful', than a straight caster, it is more 'versatile', and versatility is exponentially more important than the numbers in some cases.
Likewise, if you as a player are the type that loves pooring over a spell list and always having the 'right spell for the job', then you will get a lot of FUN out of playing a dual-caster, even if you are numerically 'inferior'. Since this is a game, and you're supposed to have fun, well, seems like a fair trade to me for a little power.
As an example...
My group is about to start a new campaign. It's a 'pirate campaign', set predominantly on the open seas (Sea of Fallen Stars). The DM is extremely chaotic in nature, and will literally throw whatever pops into his head at you on any given Sunday. Some of it will likely even be stuff he made up on the spot. Some of it is still going to have 'key spell' type things (like from 2nd ed). I'm going to *need* a lot of tricks up my sleeve, because if I ever use one more than once, the next encounter is going to be immune to that tactic somehow.
I've decided to play an Arcane Heirophant for the game. (Dru 3/Wiz 2/MT 2/AH 10/MT +3, not necessarily in that order, and yes, there are parts of it that are intentionally suboptimal and use 'debated' rules, but it's all been approved by the DM, so :p)
We're starting at level 9, and after everything, I'm only a Wiz 6/Druid 7 for caster level. That means that at best, I'm throwing around 2 4ths, compared to the 2 or 3 5ths a straight druid or wizard would be throwing at 9th. I will have more 1st-3rds though, and since a lot of what we'll be doing is ship to ship combat with a lot of grunts, I find this acceptable. I can't do everything a well-built wizard or druid can do, but I can do much of what a straight wizard or druid could do at my level. Combine this with the fact that I'm picking the 'best' spells from both lists, where many of the things I'll be facing and some of the people in my group won't know about, I should come out comparable to the other players.
Plus, I think casting wizard spells as a Eagle flying 100s of feat above the enemy ships will be amusing.
Having played with a would-be Arcane Hierophant in a Living Greyhawk game, he concluded a WizX/DruX isn't worth it.
Having played a straight Wizard, it would be difficult for me to lose even one level as a full caster since Incantatrix is so wonderful. Were it unavailable, I'd be more inclined to try an "early entry" Human Dru3/Conjurer1/MTX/Arcane HierophantX with Southern Magician.
One painful lesson I learned is that it isn't just that you'll get an ability, but perhaps equally important is the speed of acquisition. You probably won't play a character more than 3 levels (5 if you begin at level 1) before he dies permanently, the campaign ends, or he is persuaded to retire.
Here's an example build:
Bard 3 / Druid 4 / Arcane Hieromphant 3 / Sublime Chord 1 / AH +7 / Mystic Theurge 2
You'll get 9th level arcane and 8th level divine, and can burn lower level bard slots to get really nice druidic buffs out of it.
Another:
Beguiler 1 / Druid 3 / Mystic Theurge 4 / Arcane Hieromphant 10 / MT +2
You'll have to use the Heighten + Versatile Spellcaster trick to get into MT early, but it works, stupidly enough. This will also get you 9th level arcane and divine casting.
Or try this build:
Bard 4 / Druid 3 / Arcane Hieromphant 3 / Sublime Chord 1 / Fochlucan Lyricist 9
You can pull this off w/ a starting 15 Int as a human. With Versatile Spellcaster take early on, this is one of the least painful FL progressions available.
I don't think that the theurgic builds are that bad if you can use Versatile Spellcaster to give yourself a bump. The main thing about these builds are tons of low-level spells, hardly any high-level, and VS helps this significantly.
Speaking of which, has anyone seen a Warmage / Favored Soul MT build in play using Versatile / Heighten yet? I mean, we all know it can be done but I still think it'll be painfully slow.
Here's an example build:
Bard 3 / Druid 4 / Arcane Hieromphant 3 / Sublime Chord 1 / AH +7 / Mystic Theurge 2
The build doesn't work, as it does not fulfill the spellcasting requirement of Sublime Chord (3rd level arcane).
Bard 4 / Druid 3 / Arcane Hieromphant 3 / Sublime Chord 1 / AH +7 / Mystic Theurge 2
The old builds miss one really significant and great feat that came out later: Versatile Spellcaster
I guess that this feat allows you to use one class' spells to fuel the spells of another... but where is that feat from?
Cheers and thanks,
Durandal 1707
I guess that this feat allows you to use one class' spells to fuel the spells of another... but where is that feat from?
Cheers and thanks,
Durandal 1707
RotD, p. 101.
For questions like this, check the Consolidated Lists.
Hm, reading over Versatile Spellcaster again .... no idea whether it has been mentioned already somewhere, but wouldn't that mean that, if I am a wizard (ultimate wizard comes to mind) I can sac two spellslots to cast ANY spell I know one level higher? Meaning, I could basicly spontaneously cast any spell in my spellbook?
Yes. You have to have spontaneous casting to get the feat, though, which might mean different things to different DMs (does Alacritious Cogitation count, or Uncanny Forethought, or does one need a true spontaneous casting base class?). You mean Ultimate Magus in your example, but yes it greatly helps out a lot.
In theurgic builds it helps out w/ the main issues, but you gotta watch that spell slot usage. I did some analysis on the Ultimate Magus thread using it when I realized the potential w/ both Mystic Theurge, Fochlucan Lyricist, and Arcane Hieromphant builds in particular, making them actually not suck so much at lower level. The main problem w/ those builds is have like a billion 2nd level spells at like 7th level, which sucks, but this can get around that problem
The main trick is to get 8th level spells on a caster that knows all the spells on their spell list (Warmage, Beguiler, Dread Necromancer), then cast a 9th level spell by using Versatile Spellcaster and Heighten spell, thereby learning ALL the 9th level spells on that spell list despite not having any 9th level spell slots. Then you can burn 8th level slots for 9th level castings. You can do the same thing at the lowest levels, too, to keep up pretty decently w/ a Sorcerer of your level.
Alter self, Kelp Strand, Glitterdust, Web, Blinding Spittle, Ray of Stupidity, etc...All of which can be useful even at very high levels.
While Versatile spellcaster does have a lot of interesting and powerful uses, the question of whether to use Glitterdust and Web vs an extra Haste in a given day depends on too many factors to assume that the latter is always superior. (The spells in that sentence were just an example.)
But it IS used for my 53HD Colossal+ Gold Dragon Familiar Companion, Special Mount, Cohort build. See it here Build 4.
Why not use it for the tripple 9th level build? Its harder to get into which is not worth the effort considering the manifesting is what will always need a boost. Why use it in a super-duper mount build?
Because it is arcane and divine boosting, stacks with animal companion (giving 3 effects level boosts) and allows you to use your uber mount for juicy classes like fleshwarper mmmmmmmmmm.
Casting? Who uses this class for that? What a waste. This class is NOT used for my 9th level arcane, divine and manifesting character seen ....
I don't follow your reasoning. It's possible to get 9th level spells in two casting classes with AH, and if that's your goal, then it's definitely not a waste. If you use early entry tricks (white dragonspawn (with LA buyoff) dragonwrought kobold loredrake with greater draconic rite of passage) you cast as a 20th (!) level druid and 21st (!) level sorcerer, and that is not just by caster level but also by spell progression:
Druid 1-3
Mystic Theurge 1-4 (Greater Draconic Rite of Passage at level 6)
Arcane Hierophant 1-10
Mystic Theurge 5-7
Plus, you still progress you companion and wildshaping to a certain degree. Doesn't seem like a waste at all.
And no matter how awesome your triple-casting build is, the fact that AH is not used in it means little. In particular, it's no proof (or strong indication even) that it's a "waste" for multi-casting builds.
Because it [...] allows you to use your uber mount for juicy classes like fleshwarper mmmmmmmmmm.
Not really. The Companion Familiar from AH is - by RAW - not the same as a familiar, it just gains similar abilities. Fleshwarper benefits do not apply.
I can see a DM houseruling it as such, though.
Taking fleshwarper would normally have familiar a size larger. But now the familiar companion does since that is an ability that the familiar should have possessed. The trick is to make sure you do this after the level of arcane heirophant rather than before to your about to be dismissed and rather large familiar. This seems loosely in RAI territory, but since the RAW seems to go along with it, I see nothing wrong with a RAW build going for it.
If you want dual casting with a kick-arse (but not yet supermount) animal companion / familiar, some more WS and dual casting with a few per day goodies then yes Arcane heirophant is a good option. But what I was saying is that if you are really concerned with the casting, I would think juggling some theurging is a better idea as evidenced by my tripple 9 build.
Personally I think advancing WS, animal companion, and casting is a druid's best dream come true. The only question is weather you can stomach the loss on the wizard side. Perhaps you should use sanctum spell metamagic to make the wizard side only a 1 level dip which still allows you to max your divine side.
Page 108 "your animal companion (if any) gains many of the abilities that a familiar would normally possess." You could argue that the language makes that seem like a well-defined list. However the text does does not actually say that, it simple bothers listing the most common (and indeed automatic) benefits of a companion that now counts as a familiar which is exactly what the RAI indicates in everything including the name.
Taking fleshwarper would normally have familiar a size larger. But now the familiar companion does since that is an ability that the familiar should have possessed. The trick is to make sure you do this after the level of arcane heirophant rather than before to your about to be dismissed and rather large familiar. This seems loosely in RAI territory, but since the RAW seems to go along with it, I see nothing wrong with a RAW build going for it.
That your animal companion gains familiar abilities is understood (I've mentioned it), but still doesn't make it a familiar (RAW only).
And I don't agree that it's "exactly what RAI indicates", since it also doesn't explicitly allow familiar-only spells to affect the companion (and those were already published before AH, other than Fleshwarper).
Also, the phrase "X counts in every way as Y" is standard rules text, and its absence here seems to indicate that the similarities to actual familiars are in fact intended to be restricted to the progression of bonuses from the table.
YMMV. As I said, I can see DMs houseruling it.
Personally I think advancing WS, animal companion, and casting is a druid's best dream come true. The only question is weather you can stomach the loss on the wizard side. Perhaps you should use sanctum spell metamagic to make the wizard side only a 1 level dip which still allows you to max your divine side.
Sanctum spell works if you insist on wizard. For sorcerer on the arcane side, the build I showed above requires no actual sorcerer levels, and is still one level ahead of a regular (single class) sorcerer. Only works for kobolds, though, and packs some cheese (Loredrake, White Dragonspawn). But then again, Beholder Mage is serious cheese, too.
I would say the 'x counts in every way as y' is the standard because it ends up saying something like 'x gains all the benefits of being y' - just like the devoted tracker feat. In the Arcane Heirophant's case the first part is left out (because the name says it all) and only the second part is there, albeit phrased a little strangely.
I guess you are right that technically by raw the animal companion is not a familiar in name (instead its name is familiar companion) but the important part is that it gains the benefits that would usually affect a familiar (like fleshwarper).
I guess you are right that technically by raw the animal companion is not a familiar in name (instead its name is familiar companion) but the important part is that it gains the benefits that would usually affect a familiar (like fleshwarper).
Read it again, it's in the sentence you quoted earlier. It gain many of the benefits - which clearly are not all. The sentence alone has no rules implication, as it is too vague.
And the next sentence specifies what exactly is meant by it: the benefits listed for familiar progression (the table in the PHB). Nothing else is listed, so including anything else is DM fiat.
I agree about the cheese that loredrake is but beholder mage is just a PrC. True, it might not have normally been intended for PC's but a class is a class. This one just happens to be very good, which makes sense given how crazy hard to prereqs are to fill. Just like any class, the higher the prereqs the better the gain.
Loredrake is just a special benefit that was not intended for PCs also. Really, you can't call anything cheesy once you've used Beholder Mage.
so I can't tell how hard it is to grab in order to compare the cheesiness with the Beholdermage prestige class. I don't know how cheesy BH is considering how freaking hard it is to enter...Tytalus, I agree that the word 'many' is there to say that not every benefit of the familiar is invested in the animal companion. For instance, the familiar companion does not give +3hp of the dismissed toad familiar. However the familiar companion is still a familiar and as such gains the benefits if any that are latter applied to it as a familiar.
For instance, the familiar companion does not give +3hp of the dismissed toad familiar.
Since the companion is not the dismissed familiar: why would anyone even consider that to be a possibility?
However the familiar companion is still a familiar and as such gains the benefits if any that are latter applied to it as a familiar.
Again: despite the name the Companion Familiar is not a familiar, it's an animal companion that gets some of the bonuses that familiars usually get (specifically: those listed in the referred table) - that much is spelled out clearly in the RAW.
Whether it's RAI or whether DMs might rule differently is an entirely different issue.
I guess I can understand it both ways. A mean DM would be very strict on this, but when I DM im nice :D