Heiromphant vs. ARchmage (3.5)

[ForceUser]

That's exactly my point - it's worth a spell level. But 5 of the abilities arn't worth your last 5 caster levels.

Look at it this way: if you were already a 20th-level cleric, hierophant wouldn't look so bad. In fact, it'd be pretty groovy. Just because you can enter the class at 14th level doesn't mean you have to, or even should. Assuming your campaign never goes epic, sure, then you've got some tough choices to make. But if your campaign does go epic, hierophant is suddenly outstanding: a 20 cleric/5 hierophant is a fantastic character. Whether you make those cleric levels up on the front end or the back end, it all works out the same by 25th level.

 

[Nightfall]

I'll wait and see what the Player's Guide to Clerics and Druids offers instead. Perhaps Anchorite or something else will be of use.

 

[Synicism]

I saw the preview versions of the Archmage and the Heirophant when they were released online and both of the classes were pretty much identical - you sacrificed spellcaster levels for neat metamagical powers.

In the game we were playing at the time, we used those versions (nobody had gthe FRCS) and the Archmage was really, really nasty.

When we switched, he was just BS. Sacrificing spell slots really means very little compared to the sheer level of power you get out of the high arcana.

So yeah, compared to the Archmage in 3.5, the Heirophant blows. Either house rule the Heirophant to keep getting caster levels or fix the Archmage to not be so ridiculous.