Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="airwalkrr" data-source="post: 6106212" data-attributes="member: 12460">On both the arcane archer and arcane trickster front, I don't like introducing new spells into the game, period. In vanilla 3e, the wizard, cleric, druid, and sorcerer are already the most powerful types of characters in existence. Giving them more ammunition in the form of spells is entirely unnecessary in my humble opinion.I am aware of the precious nature of feats, but that is part of the trade-off. If you wish to fully dedicate yourself to a prestige feat path, you have to essentially promise yourself to a specific set of feats from level 6 to 18. You lose the flexibility of being able to take feats that might make your character more versatile, but in exchange you receive feats that allow you to specialize in something to a greater degree than a single feat might. The sum of the feats are more valuable than their parts in other words.For the arcane trickster, I realized ranged legerdemain is not really that great as a feat in and of itself, which is why I tied it to a host of other abilities. Ranged legerdemain in the prestige class essentially is the mage hand spell already but with a special ability that lets you use it to do other things. So because we are enhancing the functionality of a spell, we don't necessarily need a "greater" version of the spell. Even impromptu sneak attack in and of itself probably isn't worth a feat, so I tied it into a host of other abilities. But bear in mind that these feats are not just giving you ranged legerdemain or impromptu sneak attack. They are also giving you +2 to six different skills and +1d6 sneak attack. That alone is likely worth a feat itself if those skills are something you want to focus on.The interesting thing is that if you look at a rogue 3/wizard 7/arcane trickster 10 versus a rogue 3/wizard 17 with the arcane trickster feats, they look nearly the same. The character with the prestige class might look a little better (slightly better saves and skill points and a couple extra feats (bear in mind the arcane trickster is losing 3 wizard bonus feats), but this is more a function of the problem with prestige classes in the first place, that they are inherently better than base classes and hence necessitate taking one or more to be competitive. And I did add a couple small benefits to the arcane trickster prestige feats that are not in the original prestige class to help make up the difference anyway.If you like the solution of adding more spells to the game, then I guess that is for you. I have never found the approach palatable. As time went on in 3e we got more and more spells that let casters do all the things that other classes could do, only better. I think there are enough spells in the Spell Compendium alone for this approach if you desire it. But I prefer smaller spell lists as they make casters less unpredictable and thus makes the game easier to DM.</blockquote>

Verification