Please rate the Archmage

[Merlion]

and might I add that maybe DMs need to institue house rules or whatever to disallow some of thease absurd combinations that people are aparently using which seem to have nothing to do with playing a role and everything to do with getting the best number on the character sheet. Or at least putting some campaign/storyline obstacles in there way. Rather than calling any class spell etc that can be abused by such a player "broken" and saying it shouldnt have been published, wont allow it in my game etc..

 

[Numion]

and might I add that maybe DMs need to institue house rules or whatever to disallow some of thease absurd combinations that people are aparently using which seem to have nothing to do with playing a role and everything to do with getting the best number on the character sheet. Or at least putting some campaign/storyline obstacles in there way. Rather than calling any class spell etc that can be abused by such a player "broken" and saying it shouldnt have been published, wont allow it in my game etc..

Maybe you're right... and maybe those who design these PrC's should make them so that those kind of tweaks wouldn't be needed.

And you do realize that your argument that DMs should "just houserule it then" would make a lot of the discussion here moot. There would be no incentive to design well-rounded, balanced PrC's, because everything could just be houserules. If I wanted to houserule, I wouldn't buy products but make them myself.

I've playtested the Archmage enough to know it's not balanced. It made most of the encounters in Bastion of the Broken Souls trivial. Even the player realized this, and gave away the character without bitching. Actually the whole group realized this, and were happy when the character was gone.

I've got plenty of gaming experience, and I know that some things just look different on paper than in actual play. So you see why I'm a little skeptical when people who haven't tried some rules try to tell me they're ok.

BTW, it's also considered poor design if a PrC's mechanical advantages are offset by roleplaying disadvantages.

 

[Merlion]

I think you missed some of my point. It seems to me that a lot of the people who think various things are "broken" base that on how abused they can be by people who focus on power characters.
I'm speaking in general here.
Would it really be right for the developers never to publish a good, interesting class or spell just because it was open to be abused?
I'm saying I think maybe(MAYBE) the problem is less with the products and more how there being used. That maybe play style has a lot to do with a lot of thease things on a lot of levels.
I am not challenging yours or anyone elses experince...although others who've done the same things have aparently had different experinces so we see again that a lot of it is opnion, play style, and implementation.
Actualy...and this isnt neccsarily aimed at you Numion...I've seen some posts on here that make me wonder why the posters DONT just create there own rulesset entirly from scratch.

 

[Numion]

I think you missed some of my point. It seems to me that a lot of the people who think various things are "broken" base that on how abused they can be by people who focus on power characters.

I just think that if we're going to discuss the merits of certain class, it's far better to see how it is used by a player who wants a powerful character than to see how weak you can make a character with that class. I'd say that it doesn't give any information about the Archmages balance as a PrC if we make as weak as possible archmage. However, we might have some indication of the class' balance if we make a powerful Archmage (min/maxed), and compare that to a min/maxed straight wizard.

But you're right, these things shouldn't be condensed into mathematical excercises; only real measure is if you're having fun with it, it's all good. If you enjoy playing Archmage, go ahead, if your group also enjoys it.

We didn't.

I'm saying I think maybe(MAYBE) the problem is less with the products and more how there being used. That maybe play style has a lot to do with a lot of thease things on a lot of levels.
I am not challenging yours or anyone elses
experince...although others who've done the same things have aparently had different experinces so we see again that a lot of it is opnion, play style, and implementation.

Playing style is important. I run a group of powergamers, and this campaign that has now been going for 23 levels was intently decided to be "everything goes" style, so these problems I have with some PrC's might not be problems for other more conservative groups.

Actualy...and this isnt neccsarily aimed at you Numion...I've seen some posts on here that make me wonder why the posters DONT just create there own rulesset entirly from scratch.

Nah... I'll just use the core rules in my next campaign, without prestige classes.

 

[Merlion]

~shudders~ the prestige class thing is one of my favorite concepts from 3e
But thank you that was one of the most...sensible exchanges I've had on here yet.
I think your right...the limited playing I've gotten to do has been with more middle of the road types. a lot of thease super combos and stuff people talk about on here never even occured to me or anyone I've played with

 

[Apok]

The original version would be better, but might also prove too powerful if used in epic play (when the archmage is going to get 20 caster levels anyway).

I, personally, love the original Archmage and recommend that it is used in place of the existing one. Yes, the primary downside (lack of spellcasting levels) is negated at epic levels, but that is true of all PrC's that don't offer full spellcasting progression.

Believe me, though, this isn't an issue. Once you get to epic levels, the abilities of the Archmage PrC are going to be the least of your worries.

 

[Numion]

~shudders~ the prestige class thing is one of my favorite concepts from 3e
But thank you that was one of the most...sensible exchanges I've had on here yet.
I think your right...the limited playing I've gotten to do has been with more middle of the road types. a lot of thease super combos and stuff people talk about on here never even occured to me or anyone I've played with

You've got nothing to worry about if your group has a bit sense in them. My players just aim to maximize the damage output. There is some roleplaying too, but it doesn't get in the way of the minmaxing I run lethal games too, so my players have had lots of tries to end up with the designs they have.

After all, most things aren't broken before someone tries to break them.

But I hope the archmage works for you, it's got very good flavor - and the other abilities besides spell power are good IMO.

 

[Merlion]

The division is interesting. Some seem to think spellpower is absurdly powerful. Some see it as nice but no big deal...and this all among people who've seen it in action. That sort of thing is why I can only be so cynical about the Wizards designers themselves...they've got a tough job trying to keep everyone...or at least as many people as possible...happy. While dealing with the coporate wizards/hasbro people(which I know is no fun from limited experience...I used to work in a Gamekeeper store, which is owned by WOTC), and trying to produce things that they themselves think are good.
See and for instance, with my archmage theres no way in Baator I'm spending all my High Arcana on Spell Power. 2 at most. Arcane Fire is a must for my character concept. Spell Like abilities are rather fitting for a sorcerer too....

 

[gfunk]

Come on guys, this is FR we're talking about! The Spelldancer, Incantrix, and Archmage are supposed to be broken!

 

[Merlion]

Or maybe just a different style of world/play