Which PrCl would you never want in your game? (part 1 - DMG)

[ARandomGod]

Well, apparently I didn't miss anything, as everything else was just people arguing about the MT.
OOoh it's overpowered.
No, it' underpowered.
No it's not.
Yes it is.
No it's not.
You're just contradicting me.
No I'm not.
There, you just did it again.
No I didn't.

Heheh. Well. One thing I noticed is that the MT character forgot to take a cohort himself. It's pretty well known that the leadership feat is overpowered. Of course, the MT is running horribly low on feats due to his inherent two in one nature... but still.

Generally speaking people whom I've seen not allow MT would also not allow the Leadership feat. With a similiar arguement. Leadership is two in one, just a different way. Personally I don't think that it's in too much doubt as to HOW the leadership feat is more overpowered than the MT, but that doesn't really matter.

Face it, the DM poster said he didn't like it "because". Sure, his because is a because it's overpowered, but something he apparently let himself get tricked into, proof of it's 'overpoweredness', he's gone about the wrong way. His argurement for why it's overpowered, if you read it carefully, is that it has more options than one person should, and it takes more spotlite time than one person should. Now, the leadership obviously does this too! And really I don't think that the people who are saying MT is underpowered are debating the fact that the MT has a LOT of options. And since that was the guy's real beef, you're arguing over the same side. You BOTH (all) think the MT is overpowered in the same way he does. Although it's obvious that he's also failing to see your point (that the MT is a horriffically weak character), you're also failing to see his (that it's two in one! TWO IN ONE@! THAT'S JUST NOT RIGHT!!!)

Lol

 

[Storm Raven]

you're also failing to see his (that it's two in one! TWO IN ONE@! THAT'S JUST NOT RIGHT!!!)

I'm not sure I'm failing to see his point. I'm just not buying his contention that a pair of spellcasters who can cast 3rd level spells would be more valuable to a 9th level party than one who can cast 5th level spells, and I'm thinking they would be even less so if only one of them could effectively act in a round.

 

[DungeonMaster]

I'm not sure I'm failing to see his point. I'm just not buying his contention that a pair of spellcasters who can cast 3rd level spells would be more valuable to a 9th level party than one who can cast 5th level spells, and I'm thinking they would be even less so if only one of them could effectively act in a round.

I might say that not just you have failed to see my point, repeatedly. And the rest of the time there's a willingness to ignore it, which is intellectually dishonest.
If we're all playing fair ball, and I'll retract my claims of dishonesty, I'de like to see your "total spell levels *analysis*" for the MT+cohort vs. wis+cohort. And claim total crushing victory for the Urge.
I'de also like to see some admission that the addition of druidic magic is a crushing advantage.
And that my caster level to break SR is equal to your wizards. And I'll spend the remaining cash not on the rod but on a bigger headband of intellect so the DC is the same.
And that despite all claims to the contrary, your wizard's robe of the archmagi isn't any less "contrived" than my character's gear in terms of when you could acquire it, friendly high level wizards lending you their spellbooks not withstanding.

Then we can discuss that in reality, you have a mere +2 caster level difference, 2 extra feats , and a handful of 6th level spells versus a metric truckload of lower level ones and a character is significantly greater in survivability, in saves, AC, hp and well.

 

[ThirdWizard]

The thing is, many people see a higher level spell as being much much better than a lot of lower level spells. In other words, a sixth level spell isn't equal to two or even three fifth level spells, but it is worth more. And, there are times when the MT is two spell levels below the straight classed character. By the time you're casting fifth level spells, third level spells are all but worthless, and second level spells practically are worthless, except for a select few utility spells.

To convince someone that the MT is useful, first you must convince them that the fact that they have a bunch of low level spells actually makes a difference against an equal CR challenge.

 

[DungeonMaster]

Then Third Wizard it comes down to the specifics of the game.
And it's not just lower level spells, it's the arcane/divine mix.
If your DM runs 1 short encounter a day then you do look like crap. If you have the standard 4, you're breaking even. If you have more than 4, you're hot stuff.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I somwhat agree. I think the MT is a perfectly balanced PrC for a "normal" game. It's definately underpowered for one big encounter per day, but I don't think it is overpowered when dealing with lots of encounters a day. That depends on if you think low level spells are actually worth anything.

But, the arcane/divine mix doesn't make much difference when looking at a 4 person party situation, as a party is better off with a separate divine and arcane caster. In the case of the MT trying to fill both roles at the same time, his resources will be too spread out, so he has to choose one to specialize in anyway. You can't handle both arcane and divine duties at once.

 

[dnabre]

And I'll spend the remaining cash not on the rod but on a bigger headband of intellect so the DC is the same.
And that despite all claims to the contrary, your wizard's robe of the archmagi isn't any less "contrived" than my character's gear in terms of when you could acquire it, friendly high level wizards lending you their spellbooks not withstanding.

Then we can discuss that in reality, you have a mere +2 caster level difference, 2 extra feats , and a handful of 6th level spells versus a metric truckload of lower level ones and a character is significantly greater in survivability, in saves, AC, hp and well.

Ignoring specific builds presented, gear can only go against the MT. At best, the MT and full caster can buy the exact same gear, and get the same benefits from it. Most likely some amount of the MT's gear is going to be compensating for his weaknesses (headband to up spell DCs because his stats are spread widely, ioun stones to boost caster level because his is lower). The full wizard having the extra feats for crafting only makes that matter worse.

Specific gear picks and spreading across cohort needlessly complicate the matter. The MT's gear simply won't make it better than a full caster, unless the MT is better than the full caster irrespective of gear (unless there are specific synergies which have not been brought up). So please stop arguing from gear.

 

[dnabre]

I somwhat agree. I think the MT is a perfectly balanced PrC for a "normal" game. It's definately underpowered for one big encounter per day, but I don't think it is overpowered when dealing with lots of encounters a day. That depends on if you think low level spells are actually worth anything.

I think the MT's extra healing between encounters and the straight caster higher spells ending encounters quicker will balance out for the most part. At least past 12-14 level, before then the MT's pretty screwed.

 

[DungeonMaster]

You see that isn't true dnabre. The MT can select gear that works well for him, specifically. Like for instance the Monk-Belt.
Really 3 levels of caster level are worth 45000 GP. It's not "insignificant" but it's not that much money, particularly at the higher levels. The single classed characters often rely upon spell trigger items like wands and scrolls that the MT simply doesn't need because of his raw spell capacity.
The gear, caster level, and stat dependency arguments have been dispelled.
The net result is you're left with the value of a higher level of spellcasting versus the all powerful divine/arcane mix for lower level spells.
We've been here before, it's 2nd edition demi-human casters all over again. It wasn't balanced then, it isn't balanced now.

 

[DungeonMaster]

Third Wizard in the standard wiz,fig,clr,rog party you don't need a cleric + wizard in the 4 person party. You could have an MT + druid. They win by versatility alone. Or an MT + paladin. Or an MT + monk.
He fills the shoes of both characters sufficiently enough to be bereft of the others and gain another aspect of either the spell system or the combat arena.
Or you can add more "hybrid" classes to the arena as well. Arcane tricksters, eldricht knights and what have you. As more characters overlap in ability their versatility increases and that is real power.
It's 2nd edition all over again. The standard party casts 2 6th level spells fighter and rogue charge into the fray. The hybrid party casts 4 5th level spells or does the same as the standard. They just have that much more versatility.
If the cleric goes down, well the standard party is in a real bind. If the wizard with teleport goes down the standard party is in a real bind. No one cares in the hybrid party, because more than one person can teleport, more than one person can raise the dead, there's arcane hierophants and mystic theurges and arcane tricksters....