Abjurant Champion

[billd91]

A prestige class, in my opinion, should be designed/tweaked for each particular campaign, which neatly solves this problem, right?

But again, this isn't much of an option in Living Greyhawk where they use the RAW, the FAQ, and a few rulings by the organization in play. For that case, players interested in the abjurant champion have to hope for a favorable ruling from the Sage.

 

[Artoomis]

But again, this isn't much of an option in Living Greyhawk where they use the RAW, the FAQ, and a few rulings by the organization in play. For that case, players interested in the abjurant champion have to hope for a favorable ruling from the Sage.

True enough, though, given the HUGE proliferation of Prestige Classes, I, for one, am not concerned about this one possibly not being as powerful as some would like it to be. It's not like there are not dozens (hundreds?) of other official choices.

 

[starwed]

As with all new mechanics, it went through some changes in development after I turned my work in. I'm not complaining about this fact; in fact, I prefer having other people check my mechanics after I'm done.

I really don't understand this process; why isn't the original designer involved in development as well? I get the impression that the Complete Psionic book suffered especially from this.

MAGE ARMOR IS ABJURATION!!!
CURE SPELLS ARE NECROMANCY!!!
TELEPORT IS TRANSMUTATION!!!

I agree with the first two, but like teleportation effects to belong to the same school as conjuration. Both involve moving physical things across planes. It's just that with teleportation, you end up back on the plane you started with.

 

[cmanos]

The Abjurant Champion (Complete Mage) has an ability called Abjurant Armor, which allows him to add his class level to the shield or armor bonus to AC provided by abjuration spells. As far as I can tell, there is exactly one abjuration spell that provides such a bonus: shield. Am I missing something here, or is this just a really verbose way of saying "add your class level to the bonus provided by shield"?

They do that to leave it open ended for future products.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

Am I missing something here, or is this just a really verbose way of saying "add your class level to the bonus provided by shield"?

Even though we can reasonably assume that Mage Armor was intended I will point out that the wording allows for its use in any spells that are published in the future that qualify.

 

[Seeten]

m...ake....your....own.... spells?

I find one thing dissapointing about most mages i see, they simply resign to whats in the books or not in the books, and give up when they cant find something. I think one of the great/essential things for a mage is to, as your campaigning, spend some time creating spells! when i dm i encourage it, as i see it, mages should with enough time and resources, be able to make a spell to get them around just about any encounter (harder encounters of course requiring oodles of time/xp/gold)

either way, if your upset about the lack of abjurant ac spells? make some!

Thats great if your the DM. Sadly, many players have DM's that do not allow this or even entertain the thought.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

m...ake....your....own.... spells?

A prestige class, in my opinion, should be designed/tweaked for each particular campaign, which neatly solves this problem, right?

Hey, it's the Oberoni fallacy.

 

[bestone]

Hey, it's the Oberoni fallacy.

what the whata falla what?

 

[Crothian]

Hey, it's the Oberoni fallacy.

That's not what their posts are. For the Oberoni Fallacy they have to claim there is no problem because it can be rules zeroed. In both quotes they say the problem can be solved through a rule zero.

 

[Seeten]

what the whata falla what?

2 seconds with google, tells me:

Originally posted by Oberoni on the D&D general board July 23, 2002:

This my my take on the issue.

Let's say Bob the board member makes the assertion:

"There is an inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X."

Several correct replies can be given:

"I agree, there is an inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X."
"I agree, and it is easily solvable by changing the following part of Rule X."
"I disagree, you've merely misinterpreted part of Rule X. If you reread this part of Rule X, you will see there is no inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue."

Okay, I hope you're with me so far.
There is, however, an incorrect reply:

"There is no inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X, because you can always Rule 0 the inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue."

Now, this incorrect reply does not in truth agree with or dispute the original statement in any way, shape, or form.

It actually contradicts itself--the first part of the statement says there is no problem, while the last part proposes a generic fix to the "non-problem."

It doesn't follow the rules of debate and discussion, and thus should never be used.

Simple enough.