Casters Nerfed, Melee Ascendant (3.5)

[Jalkain]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't WOTC R&D do their playtesting with the Iconics (25-pt buy iconics, at that)?

Why would game balance be based on prestige classes that are purely optional for use in the game?

My impression from Ed Strak's comments and the Dragon article was the Red Wizard and (hopefully revised) Archmage went into the DMG as examples of how PrCs could be adapted to a specific campaign setting -- not to set the gold standard for prestige classes.

I agree. There's no reason to suppose that these PrCs are being deliberately designed to supplant everything else at higher levels.

There's way too much being read into some of these announcements. A couple of months back there was uproar about how broken the Mystic Theurge was, because it could cast so many buff spells each day. Now we hear that the buff spells have a greatly reduced duration, and suddenly the Mystic Theurge isn't quite the force people thought it would be.

Let's just all take a few deep breaths, and just try not too draw too many wild conclusions from what is after all rather sketchy and incomplete information.

 

[Nail]

Huh? By that logic, no character under 20th level is viable, because the DM might throw the tarrasque at the party.

I think you're missing the point.

I look at it this way: "...I don't have to outrun the grizzly. I've just got to out-run you."

 

[Cloudgatherer]

The players are never forced into particular option by what the DM might throw at them. There is no "must" in PC design. The DM is supposed to design appropriate encounters for the PCs, whatever the PCs are.

If the PCs aren't up to the challenge of an archmage, the DM shouldn't be throwing archmages at them. The challenges are designed for the PCs, not the other way around.

While I agree with this, there is an issue of comparable characters. Take two spellcasters who choose different routes, one archmage (or other spell power class), the other not (assume same party).

If the archmage boasts better DCs and is more effective in combat, how does that look for the non-archmage? "Why did I stick with the wizard class? I should have take that PrC!"

I will agree that players should take PrCs and pick feats and skills according to a concept, but very rarely does a player say "I wanna play second string to that guy (points at archmage)." In addition, the archmage doesn't even really *have* a concept. Uber-spellcaster is about all that comes to mind, any character who wants to be "good" with magic can take it...

 

[Tidus4444]

People are forgetting that these fatigue spells are going to hurt the spellcaster just as much. It would only take one of these, plus another strength reducer ('im almost certain there is a no save strength reducer somewhere out there) to kill a mage.

 

[Grog]

Edit: Since I'm here...

Thanks. That's quite a list so far...

 

[Umbran]

You'd be surprised how many people consider tailoring your enemis to the PCs as "babysitting the PCs", and go on how their PCs and players have to be smart and cunning and effective to survive.

First off, no, I would not be surprised. I've been here for quite a while.

Second, there's a wold of difference between "babysitting" and "tailoring to an appropriate challenge". The first implies an unwillingness to kill PCs. The second implies monitoring so that the risk isn't so high that the PCs have no chance of success. Making sure the PCs can survive is not the same as making sure they do survive.

Third, DM's who make absolutely no effort to tailor their challenges to the PCs are not pertinent to this discussion. If they want an encounter that wipes out the PCs, they will have it. The presence of the Archmage PrC won't make it more or less likely.

That, in essense, is the thing - the PrC don't "raise the bar". The DM raises the bar. The DM chooses the encounters, tailored or not. He chooses them easy, medium, or tough, whether he's trying to match the PCs or not. If he wants tough, he'll have tough, whether or not there's an Archmage PrC in the core book.

 

[Saeviomagy]

While I agree with this, there is an issue of comparable characters. Take two spellcasters who choose different routes, one archmage (or other spell power class), the other not (assume same party).

If the archmage boasts better DCs and is more effective in combat, how does that look for the non-archmage? "Why did I stick with the wizard class? I should have take that PrC!"

Don't archmages permanently give up spell memorisation slots to gain their powers? When a wizard only gets 4 base slots per spell level, giving up one seems quite a price.

Other spell power PrC's have costs associated with them too. The red wizard is forced to lose a few schools of magic...

 

[cable]

Elder-Basilisk pretty much nailed it. Once you crunch the numbers you see these spells just don't live up to their respective spell levels. But I suppose us number crunchers are notoriously hard to please.

These spells are as unbalanced as Miasma from Masters of the Wild. Why do I say this? Miasma is basically useless as a PC spell because the PCs will have dealt with the NPCs one way or another well before Miasma's effect really kicks in. However if NPCs were to cast it on PCs then it would be devastating because PCs will always suffer the effects of Miasma regardless of how fast they dispose of the NPCs.

These new spells are basically like Miasma in that it is much more devastating for NPCs to use on PCs than the other way around not because of the paltry primary effect (combat penalties) but because of the secondary penalties. Is this what the revision team call balance?

Not to mention that these spells are weak for their level. Prayer which is a 3rd level cleric spells is basically the same as Waves of Fatigue except that it gives bonuses to allies as well as penalties to enemies. In nearly all circumstances it would be better to have Forcecage and/or Reverse Gravity than Waves of Exhaustion as the former allows no SR in addition to their other benefits.

 

[Cloudgatherer]

Don't archmages permanently give up spell memorisation slots to gain their powers? When a wizard only gets 4 base slots per spell level, giving up one seems quite a price.

This is true, but giving up 3 spells to have +6 to all save DCs and SR checks is a rather small sacrifice. Yeah, the archmage has fewer spells, but those spells are much more powerful.

 

[ruleslawyer]

It'd be nice to see them use a spell power fix for the DMG 3.5 archmage.

My own fix:

Spell Power +2: Only available type, costs a 9th-level spell slot, can be taken only once.

I don't see why people find the RW overpowered: Spell Power is really nice, but you give up a LOT for it in terms of restricted schools, and it only works for one school. RW: Enchantment? Great, unless you're facing constructs, feytouched, plants, undead, or anything with a mind blank effect. Necromancy? Stoppable by a simple 4th-level cleric spell (death ward). Transmutation? Very good, but of course in 3.5e disintegrate isn't an insta-kill, and you give up a huge number of schools for it anyway. RW appears to be for smackdown characters (which, IMHO, are not identical to workable PCs) and BBEGs, which is fine by me.