Please rate the Archmage

[Gumby]

Completely off topic: The movie Chicago is a very good movie that is not broken in any way. It deserves its Oscar nominations, and deserves to win the awards for many of them. Back to Archmages:

I said

What I mean is that your personal choices as to character concept and planning are irrelevant to the discussion currently going on, which asks, "is the Archmage prestige class, as written in the FRCS, a balanced prestige class?"

Then Merlion said

Well to that I say, so are all the spell power+6 munckin archmage/redwizards or whatever that everyone else has mentioned.

yes I did report you...is there for lack of a better word a way to unreport? you just..really upset me with the last portions of that message...I know I am not always as articulate as I'd like to be but I dont like having it held against me..

You're perfectly articulate, you're just wrong, IMO. A prestige class that costs nearly nothing to take, that provides full spellcasting levels, all sorts of neat spellcasting abilities, and increases the spellcaster's DCs by extremely large amounts is broken, in my book.

I'm glad you reported me. Not that I think I was wrong, but I don't like idle threats. As far as the verb for "to unreport," I don't know either. "Disreport?" "Disapparate?" No, that's a Harry Potter spell... Drat.

Edit: to make this post a little shorter

 

[Caliban]

The psi book is just as core as the frcs.

The only reason I'm including the FRCS is because that where the both the prestige classes we are discussing come from.

Psionics are not a normal part of the 3E version of the FRCS, although it does include options for including them.

-> you did use magic items on your wiz (headband etc)

I mentioned a single item (headband of intellect), and noted that it wasn't necessary, as it could be duplicated (or exceeded) with a single spell.

I also find id rather laughable to say that a CR 20 monster is a challenge for such silly min maxed characters like the red you posted....and 4 or 5 of them *lol*sure

Actually, I had the CR wrong. The Great Wyrm Red Dragon is CR 25. A CR 25 creature should annihilate a single 18th level character. The fact that the example wizard has a better than 33% chance of killing it with a single spell illustrates my point.

-
lets get back to topic. I still believe spellpower mages arent that broken. No matter from wich ankle I look at it I wouldnt do it, and I know that my choices would be WAY better and *effective*than that.

And if everyone played the game the way you do, I'm sure there would never be any problems.

I posted my view on this above, I believe that flexible casters and archmages who take counterspell mastery are far better choice.

In general I agree with you. They are certainly more fun.

But what does your counterspell mage do when the dragon just attacks you without casting spells?

My save or die mage might have already killed it.

How effective you are really depends on the situations you have to deal with. The "save or die" mage is basically set up for one thing: combat. He's still got a ton of spell slots he can devote to other purposes, but that's where he shines.

If you have to deal with a lot of combat situations without enemy spellcasters, he will outperform your counterspell mage.

If you have to deal with a lot of combat situations with enemy spellcasters, your guy will do a lot better. Of course, my guy can still kill multiple enemy spellcasters and non-spellcasters with a single spell, if they aren't prepared for it.

Its when you have to deal with a lot of non-combat situations that the "save or die" mage has to take a back seat. But he still has all those skill points and knowledge skills from being a wizard, and other members of the party should be able to take up the slack.

Thus my argument was the PrC is not broken.

You say that my 18th level wizard should be able to easily deal with one or more CR 20 threats, but since you wouldn't build a red wizard/archmage it's not a broken combination.

"Yeah, that's really powerful, but since I wouldn't do it, it's OK."

You are not the yardstick by which Prc's are measured. Just because you wouldn't do it does not mean that it's not overpowered. And it's really not the PRC that's overpowered, it the Spell Power ability. Other than that, I think the Archmage is great.

 

[Dinkeldog]

I've had an archmage in my campaign. The player is fantastic at min/maxing without breaking into munchkin territory. I didn't have a problem with it, though. In fact, he was probably the third most powerful character in the party.

If you're playing a low-magic game, I can see that the PrC would be a problem.

Oh, and be nice to one another, please? Pretend that you're part of a friendly online community. Hatefulness and spite make the Baby Jesus cry.

 

[Celtavian]

Re

"Broken" really is a relative term. Its fairly obvious that "broken" is a matter of opinion and taste.

It is my opinion that the Archmage is not "broken" in the FR, but it is "broken" in a regular D&D setting. The prestige class itself is very powerful, much moreso than other arcane caster prestige classes.

It still fits the FR well because the FR is built for High powered arcane casters. Arcane casters rule the roost in the FR.

So the question becomes: Is the Archmage over-powered for the FR?

I say no, not compared to other arcane caster prestige classes or the divine caster archmage equivalent Hierophant.

 

[Numion]

Re: Re

So the question becomes: Is the Archmage over-powered for the FR?

I say no, not compared to other arcane caster prestige classes or the divine caster archmage equivalent Hierophant.

Yes it is broken. I've DMed one in the FR setting, and it made most encounters one round affairs. Wail of the Banshee with 40+ DC is pretty powerful.

Archmage is broken in any setting because it breaks the D&D's power = level equation quite soectacularly. As in level X archmage combo > level X wizard in terms of raw power.

Like simulacrum said, one's DM can always tailor his encounters to counter the archmages abilities, quite easily, but whats the point then? The archmage ends up frustrated or the whole game is hijacked by the single characters, since the oppositions challenge level has risen too steeply to meet the archmages power.

In short: 1 level of Archmage is much better than 1 level of Wizard in power.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

I think the main thing people here have proved is two things.

1. A combo prstige class/feat oriented character toward one goal is too good at that goal.

2. save or dies suck.

Yeah a 18th levle min/maxed wizard has a 35%chance to get a spell through a cr25 creatures defenses. Sorta like a 18th level fighter has what chance to hit and damage the dragon? The problem comes up when that get through spell ends the fight instead of just hurting the dragon. Of course if someone has death ward and protection form evil there virtually immune to all save or die spells. The only thing they ahve to worry about save or die wise is polymorphs. Get some energy drain proteciton and they can now totally ignore necromancy and enchantment spells.

Without spellpower etc there are way too many creatures at high levels where the wizards just sits back and watches the battle. With spellpower there are way too many battles where the monsters need to roll a 20 to survive.

 

[Grog]

I think the main thing people here have proved is two things.

1. A combo prstige class/feat oriented character toward one goal is too good at that goal.

2. save or dies suck.

You know, I think you're right. Without the save or die spells, Spell Power is nowhere near as unbalanced. This leads me to believe that the problem isn't with Spell Power or the Archmage, the problem is with all the save or die spells in 3E.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

You know, I think you're right. Without the save or die spells, Spell Power is nowhere near as unbalanced. This leads me to believe that the problem isn't with Spell Power or the Archmage, the problem is with all the save or die spells in 3E.

yeah I may be biased but I just hate save or dies. there a part of fantasy, and a part of D&D since the begining, but they just wreck game balance. If the CR18 v CR 25 situation was instead the CR25 creature is 35% likely to take full daamge form your 20d6 fireyball of doom. People would say cool bring it on. The non min/maxed fighter will likely hit 2-3 times for 1d8+18 each so 40-60 ish damage no save, no running out of shots seems fair.

save or dies jsut wreck game balance especially when you factor in the wide range of save diversity. Some mosnters with SR, and save ake it a 35% chance another mosnter of a simialr CR might only have a 5% chance of survival. that's just way to large of a range.

Save or dies being all or nothing influence people to get DC boosting abilities more than ever. Nothing sucks more than throwing 20 spells in a row to no effect because your facing things with good saves. so what do you do, boost those DC, spell focus, spell power, and anything else you can come up with, now 1 in 3 spells get through on the big boys but only 1 in 20 fail against the weak sisters vs saves. Nothing should swing form 35% chance to suceed to only a 5% chance to fail and be of a similar CR.

remove save or dies, and success and failure mean a lot less less need for super boosters and if you fail you at least still did something.

About the only solution I can think of is don't make save or die effects be save or die. Poly other have it do some kind of virtual HP damage and if you "kill" the opponent the save or die being the final blow it takes effect and they are now a turtle or whatever. Takes some of the fun away from spelcasters so they wont have any insta kills, but it would be way more balanced. So poly other 1d6 a level max 15d6 fort save for 1/2, if poly effect kills oppoentn polymorphed into a whatsit. poly damage heals as subdual damage.

Sorry for the semi OT rant.

 

[Victim]

Yes, 3e introduced Finger of Death, Disintegrate, Wail of the Banshee, etc. Those spells are what cause all the problems.

No WAIT! All those spells were in 2e. So why weren't they broken then? Because a characters on the receiving end of those spells would pretty much need a 2 or 3 to save, even if the wizard was specialized or whatever. Saving throws were generally unmodified by the wizard and spell. Sure, a rare spell might have a -2 mod, and specialists could impose an additional -1. But, using FR materials for Archmage, Greater Spell Focus, and Red Wizard is like giving characters a -13 to their saves.

If save or die spells weren't broken before, when saves were almost automatic, then the reason they're broken now is because saves are too hard.

 

[Grog]

Yes, 3e introduced Finger of Death, Disintegrate, Wail of the Banshee, etc. Those spells are what cause all the problems.

No WAIT! All those spells were in 2e. So why weren't they broken then? Because a characters on the receiving end of those spells would pretty much need a 2 or 3 to save, even if the wizard was specialized or whatever.

Well, that's just it. With a few rare exceptions, save or die spells were pretty much worthless in 1e and 2e. By the time my wizard hit 14th level in 2e, there was no way a finger of death was going to kill any enemy I'd consider dropping a 7th level spell on. So I'd memorize delayed blast fireball instead.

What it boils down to is, save or die spells were too weak in 1e and 2e, but they're too powerful in 3e. And I think this is a good illustration of just how hard these types of spells are to balance. IMO they're probably the biggest thing that's wrong with the D&D system.

If save or die spells weren't broken before, when saves were almost automatic, then the reason they're broken now is because saves are too hard.

I think they were broken before, they were just broken in a different way (i.e., too weak instead of too powerful).