Non-Core Class Survivor: Round 8

[Shade]

Mark my words, this poll will be won by either Scout or Warlock - two classes that should have been core. A ranger that is more interesting to play than the Ranger, and a sorcerer that works better than the Sorcerer.

I agree wholeheartedly with the reasoning, but I'm not convinced that either will win.

 

[Glyfair]

I'd love to understand the hate-on for the Artificer. Having seen them in play they work rather nicely, and have a niche of their own. Is their vote really a reflection of the anti-Eberron crowd?

I think that's a large part of it. The other large part is there are some particularly abusive builds with it.

I think a smaller part is that they are tied strongly into creating magic items (which they pretty much need to do each level, or lose a major class feature). DMs that dislike that players can do that so easily in 3E, and those that dislike the downtime it requires for characters, tend to dislike the class for that. I don't think that's a huge factor.

 

[Glyfair]

I was thinking more like the Psionic races in EPsiH, the various "races of" new races, the various setting new races, the various environment book new races, OA new races, etc. There's probably not many more there than there are new core classes.

That was my thought of a follow-up. Not that I was necessarily jumping on the boat to run it

I'd say completely avoid subraces and you probably have a good "survivor."

 

[Rystil Arden]

I think that's a large part of it. The other large part is there are some particularly abusive builds with it.

Well, there are abusive builds with almost everything. The problem is that with Artificers, the abusive wand build involves mainly just the class abilities you get by taking the class, with maybe a feat from the back of the book (although it isn't necessary--it just saves you money by letting you make cheaper wands and still get full effect) and a feat from Complete Arcane (this one doubles your damage, but you're still dealing crazy amounts without it).

 

[Glyfair]

Well, there are abusive builds with almost everything. The problem is that with Artificers, the abusive wand build involves mainly just the class abilities you get by taking the class, with maybe a feat from the back of the book (although it isn't necessary--it just saves you money by letting you make cheaper wands and still get full effect) and a feat from Complete Arcane (this one doubles your damage, but you're still dealing crazy amounts without it).

Yes. IMO, the biggest problem with the class is using it with the Complete Arcane. There are a few things in there that are handled better in Eberron. For example, there is a feat that allows you to use two wands at once. It's pretty powerful with an artificer (and in general). However, a similiar ability is part of a class in Sharn: City of Towers, that is much more reasonable.

I don't think you need to avoid the Complete Arcane, but I'd be very wary of what I allow. The wand feats would be particularly careful.

 

[Seeten]

I'm still trying to vote Favored Soul off the list.

Mark my words, this poll will be won by either Scout or Warlock - two classes that should have been core. A ranger that is more interesting to play than the Ranger, and a sorcerer that works better than the Sorcerer.

QFT

I agree so completely with this that if the final 3-6 are still there and I like them all, I'm gonna stop voting.

I got the Favored Soul this time, and I've burned a loser every round so far, mostly via the tried and true, "Vote for stuff that sucks a lot" method.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Yes. IMO, the biggest problem with the class is using it with the Complete Arcane. There are a few things in there that are handled better in Eberron. For example, there is a feat that allows you to use two wands at once. It's pretty powerful with an artificer (and in general). However, a similiar ability is part of a class in Sharn: City of Towers, that is much more reasonable.

I don't think you need to avoid the Complete Arcane, but I'd be very wary of what I allow. The wand feats would be particularly careful.

If you use the PrC in Sharn (and admittedly this means you have to take a PrC for it), you can burn through the wands even more cost-effectively than with the feat, though. I just mentioned CA because more people probably have that than Sharn, plus you've actually paid something fairly substantial if you're taking a whole PrC around the wands, vis-a-vis buying one feat and focusing on something else but being able to do the cheap exploit anyways just because .

 

[lukelightning]

I've always disagreed with the Fluff of Warmages being Wizards trained to spontaneous cast "weaponized" only spells...

Instead I view them as Sorcerers who were caught early, and trained to unleash Death... nothing of that pansy-foo-foo stuff like "Grease" or "Mage Armor".

I just don't think there are enough "fledgling mages" that could be recruited and trained in acadamies to justify war mages being a separate class. This set-up presumes a strong government with a lot of resources and a powerful military presence in a campaign.

I can see drafting or conscripting run-of-the mill people and training them to be warriors, but not warmages. I don't even envision enough volunteer wanna-be warmages to justify them as a separate class; I'd rather just emulate this with sorcerers or wizards.

 

[occam]

Mark my words, this poll will be won by either Scout or Warlock - two classes that should have been core. A ranger that is more interesting to play than the Ranger, and a sorcerer that works better than the Sorcerer.

I'm with you. I have some sentimental fondess for the ranger; my very first AD&D character was a half-elf ranger. But the scout makes more sense to me, and the warlock isn't just an experimental mechanical variation on the wizard. Maybe 4e?

 

[Sammael]

I just don't think there are enough "fledgling mages" that could be recruited and trained in acadamies to justify war mages being a separate class. This set-up presumes a strong government with a lot of resources and a powerful military presence in a campaign.

Since I mostly DM FR, it makes sense to me that many of the War Wizards of Cormyr would be warmages rather than sorcerers or wizards.