Please rate the Archmage

[LuYangShih]

Totally broken, as others have said. I wouldn't allow it, and if you care about the extra work you may be forcing on your DM, you shouldn't take it, IMO. Your excuse is rather tepid, if I gave a class the abilities, of, say, a Candle Caster, but called it an Arch Mage, would you say every caster would want to take that because every caster wants to be an "Arch Mage"? A PrC like this, by any other name, is still just as broken.

 

[Surefoot]

I also rated it low because the spellpower together with all the other juicy stuff makes this prc, well... depends on whether players will pick 'spell power' or not.

Besides you don't have to take this PrC to become a true archmage. Being an 18th level wizard is enough to do that.

 

[Malin Genie]

Also rated it "bad." I agree that the loss of spellcasting levels in return for the kick-ar$3 powers would be a balanced tradeoff.

 

[MensurB]

What book can I find the Arch Mage in, because I will be playing a sorcerer of 25th level soon. Also, can I find it somewhere else or can someone post it. I dont want to buy the book just because of this Prc.

 

[Malin Genie]

What book can I find the Arch Mage in, because I will be playing a sorcerer of 25th level soon.

The Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting (WotC)

Also, can I find it somewhere else or can someone post it. I dont want to buy the book just because of this Prc.

Are you serious? You are publicly asking people where to illegally obtain copyrighted published material?

 

[Thresher]

I think its a bit busted to be honest and could do with a few slaps of the nerfbat or giving it a higher level requirement.
Back in my day an Archmage was a 9th level spell chucker and not some dirty newb who's barely crawled into their early teen levels. FR seems to be full of this type of crock though so Im not really that worried, dont play with that material, dont care.

Make it an epic PrC and I think it would sit a lot better with me.

 

[gariig]

I don't get why the Hierophant(the Cleric version of Archmage) got some nerfed. They are basically the same class, but the Hierophant has a little bit more laxed req's but loses spell casting. Do the deities of the Realms hate their clerics THAT much?? Quite honestly, I think they should have made both have the same spell progression(if full, none, or staggard). I think I might house rule one way or the other, just haven't decided yet as my campaign is JUST getting close to those levels. Maybe I will make the Heirophant full as the BBEG at the end of my campaign will be one..it will make her particularly nasty to get those levels of spell casting back.

Gariig

 

[Merlion]

Totally broken, as others have said. I wouldn't allow it, and if you care about the extra work you may be forcing on your DM, you shouldn't take it, IMO. Your excuse is rather tepid, if I gave a class the abilities, of, say, a Candle Caster, but called it an Arch Mage, would you say every caster would want to take that because every caster wants to be an "Arch Mage"? A PrC like this, by any other name, is still just as broken.

Well seeing as how there are feats that can be aquired at lower levels that duplicate most Arch Mage powers or slightly lesser versions of them, and that you can only ever take 5 of thease powers and have to sacrfice spellslots which as I said before especialy for a WIZARD(no mention of sorcerer) is a pretty decent price, I still dont see it as broken.
My points about the "name" (in other words what the prestige class is supposed to represent) were 1 responding to someone who said it was broken simply because any straight mage would want to take it, and to illustrate that yes of course there going to make a prestige class that represents advanced mastery of spellcasting manipluation pretty powerful.

 

[Berk]

I actually think the Heirophant PrC is better. No limit to how many times you can take spell power and each time you take it it adds +2. I think it only adds to spell DC's but still, hell +10 to DC's. Blast infidel is nasty also, combine that with oh say a Master of Shrouds from DotF and you got someone who can weaken an enemy so efficiently it's scary, as long as they take empower spell and heighten spell and the such. The loss of spell levels is a decent trade for Heirophant.

Now for Archmage, I gave it a in the middle of the road rating. It is broken but not so much that it can't be fixed with some simple thought and house ruling, mostly on the mastery of shaping part. Nerf that ability a bit and the class starts looking not so "powergamery"(tm). As for the spell power, well the trade off isn't that bad in the long run, but at first it hurts ya a bit. I mean really, how many wizards of like 13th or 14th level or whatever have an int high enough to actually get many bonus spells of 5th+ level.

 

[Mortaneus]

Well seeing as how there are feats that can be aquired at lower levels that duplicate most Arch Mage powers or slightly lesser versions of them, <snip>

Slightly lesser? Duplicate? Like what? Energy Substitution requires you to prepare the spells with that element, and even then, you only get one element when you buy it. Mastery of Elements? On the fly, to every element. That's more than a slight boost in power.

Spell Power vs. Spell Penetration and Spell focus? Not only can Spell Power get up to +6, but it also STACKS with spell focus and spell penetration.

Mastery of Shaping? At will, as much as you want, on the fly....that's quite a bit more powerful than any feat.

Sure, you sacrifice some spell slots. Whup-de-do. The level of effectiveness you get in return is astonishing. I've seen this thing in action, being used by a player who really knew what to do with it. It's ridiculous.