New Incantatrix Questions

[Scion]

So a class that gets all good saves, divine sorcerer spellcasting, and tons of cool abilities (the Favored Soul) is balanced for normal D&D? A feat that is more powerful than an Epic feat (Spellcasting Harrier, Draconomicon version versus the "you don't get to combat cast feat" in MiniHB) is balanced for normal D&D?

I guess we just have different interpretations of what "balanced" means.

Ahh yes, the favored soul. This thread isnt for discussing this, if you would like to start another thread I'd be happy to go into detail about why this class is fine, or even underpowered, compared to a normal cleric. But lets just hit a couple of big ones: Very limited spell selection (vs the clerics knowledge of every cleric spell), no domains (huge hit here), TWO stats needed to cast spells. If anything this class is interesting, but underpowered. It gets some nice beanies, but I've been in several threads that have gone over the numbers, and combinations.. it is either about on par or well below it depending on what you are going for. Not exactly a powerhouse.


As for the feat, every book has some issues, whether good or bad. I simply changed that one to be adding to the concentration dc equal to the BAB of the character who has the feat. It works great Even the core has a few broken things here and there, every book is entitled to at least one. The favored soul is pretty weak in a lot of ways though.

 

[James McMurray]

I too could recite a laundrey list of why I think it isn't balanced. But what would be the point? We're both already convinced that we're right. And its wholly a matter of opinion as to whether something is balanced or not.

This thread and the maximized dispel thread have shown that you and I just have different definitions of the word balanced. No big deal. If it works for your group, great.

 

[Scion]

I too could recite a laundrey list of why I think it isn't balanced. But what would be the point? We're both already convinced that we're right. And its wholly a matter of opinion as to whether something is balanced or not.

Because I want to know what all of the problems might be so that I can change them for my own campaign. However, I have been through a few threads about it, and no one has come up with any real problems other than, 'they arent balanced compared to sorcerers'. Which of course is a nonsensical remark, clerics arent balanced compared to wizards. The comparison has to be between the class that is most resembles, and they most resemble the cleric.

I doubt that the 'laundry list' has anything I havent seen before, but feel freem to message me with it if you will, just ask me not to respond to you about it

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Instant Metamagic, you just apply a metamagic feat to a spell without preparing it that way beforehand or increasing its casting time.

Nice!

A wizard's prepared spell works as if she had prepared it with the metamagic feat, but it does not use a higher level spell slot.

Lessons not learned

Another PrC banned IMC.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Not in my 3/5 DMG, they don't. It says two extra schools! From that book, emphasis mine:

Note, the example immediately following that paragraph is contradicted by the rule ITSELF. Normally, a Transmutation specialist chooses, using the PHB rules, TWO prohibited schools. Ergo, when the character becomes a Red Wizard, s/he must choose two additional schools.

Only a Divination-specialist Red Wizard would have to choose a single additional school, because only Divination-specialists choose a single prohibited school using the rules in the Player's Handbook.

Well, continue reading the example that follows right after that.

"For example, Ghorus Toth is specialized in the school of Transmutation. His prohibited schools are abjuration and enchantment. When he becomes a Red Wizard, he must choose one other prohibited school. He decides to select conjuration as his prohibited school." DMG 3.5, p. 194, emphasis mine

It seems that the example conflicts with the rule. The same is also the case with Circle Magic, where it says in the rule that adding to your caster level affects both level dependent variables and caster level checks, yet the example indicates that they must be paid for seperately.

Clearly, alot of sloppy cut and paste work was done. The original Red Wizard was designed for 3.0 where they didnt have the flat 2 school penalty for specialization. This is clearly in need of errata, but until then I will go with the assumption that only one extra school is given up and circle magic bonuses to caster level affect both level variables and caster level checks. You are, of course, free to do the opposite.

 

[Pax]

Well, continue reading the example that follows right after that.

Don't you read all of a post before replying? I already stated that the example violates the rule it attempts to illustrate!

It seems that the example conflicts with the rule. The same is also the case with Circle Magic, where it says in the rule that adding to your caster level affects both level dependent variables and caster level checks, yet the example indicates that they must be paid for seperately.

Where the example and the rule disagree, the rule always wins. I play by the rules, not by the purely anecdotal examples. ^_^

By the RAW, the Red Wizard - unless he is a Divination specialist - gives up two additional schools of magic. To do aught else, is to apply house rules (which is well and fine to do [I do it quite often, myself], but should always be clearly labelled as such ...).

 

[Falling Icicle]

Don't you read all of a post before replying? I already stated that the example violates the rule it attempts to illustrate!

Calm down. Anger will not solve anything. Nor will condiscending remarks. We are all intelligent people here and it is extremely insulting to me that you just assume that I didn't bother to read your post before responding to it. I quoted the example because I felt that your quoting was selective and wanted everyone to see the entire text. Especially since the conflicting nature of the rule printed and the example flollowing it helps to illustrate my point.

Where the example and the rule disagree, the rule always wins. I play by the rules, not by the purely anecdotal examples. ^_^

By the RAW, the Red Wizard - unless he is a Divination specialist - gives up two additional schools of magic. To do aught else, is to apply house rules (which is well and fine to do [I do it quite often, myself], but should always be clearly labelled as such ...).

And if you read [/B]my[/B] post, you would have seen that I already told you that you could interpret it as literally as you want, and you would certainly have a position every bit as strong as mine in doing so. I feel that much of the process of 3.5 conversion has been rushed and sloppy. The disparity between the rules and the examples immediately following them is, IMHO, clear evidence of this. Since I own the 3.0 FRCS, I went back and checked and sure enough, most of the 3.5 text for the Red Wizard is cut and pasted right out of that book (including the example), without the slightest consideration for how the rules have changed in the new edition. And this kind of thing is not limited to this book or this one class. As many have pointed out, previous errata for various spells, feats, etc that helped to balance them dramatically in the previous edition have been completely ignored when those things have been updated to 3.5 edition.

Whoever did the DMG Red Wizard in 3.5 either simply overlooked the fact that the rules for specialization have changed, or they accidentally passed it over in editing. You can feel free to go by the letter of the book if you like (and the examples given ARE part of the rules, meant to clarify rather than confuse, which was supposed to be the whole point of the 3.5 edition). I prefer to discern the designer's intent in any situation where a conflicting statement arises, especially in a conversion from one rules set to another where the change needlessly punishes a class far beyond what was originally intended to balance it. You can even condiscend my position by patronizing me and telling me it's ok to use my "house rules." There is simply no reason to argue over semantics. I will play the game my way, you will play it yours. But please, don't insult people with your matter of fact "laws" of the game. A "law", which BTW, contradicts itself.