First off let me say this. I 'm not trying to "beat' you. I myself like a straight Wizard a million times more over any Arcane Trickster. Truth is i love to death both the Wizard and the Rogue, and if i was to choose between the two, i wouldn't be able to do it. Therefore, ever since 2nd e, most of my characters were something in between. Even as a DM, my favorite villains are something of the like. A wizard back in the days earned respect because he grew from a mosquito everyone could smash with his little finger (during the early levels), to the most fearsome of figures. It required clever tactics and patience to make it past the low levels. Same for the Rogue except that he wasn't as weak in the beginning. Still smart play was the way to get yourself out of trouble. A Sneak Attack wasn't an "every day of the week" kind of ability. You managed a sneak attack, you partied! Multiclassing was even harder. If you wanted the flavor of any two or three classes combined, you knew you 'd become a "Jack of all trades, master of none" ... simply because thats how it should be.
Okay... but you were talking about how an Arcane Trickster was stronger than a straight wizard. I'm just trying to figure out how. I assumed you were talking in terms of power, so I pursued that venue first.
Now lets see... Do we have those same classes ever since 3.0? Multiclassing??
Sure we do. Rules standardization was welcome, no complaints there...( even though foggy 2e rules allowed for more RP over rules-lawyering).
The good old classes are here almost intact, some of their improvements were welcome as well..
...But what have we here? Prestige Classes? Cool!! Customization, almost infinite options.....
....but we also have the death of the good old core classes...
Who is stupid enough TODAY to go counting the fighter's total of feats beyond 10th level??? Hell beyond 5th!!!???
Designing those classes up to 20th Level, was nothing but a joke!!
Why bother?
Nowadays the power-hungry player (if not stupid as well!) is fed pretty well! He gets to be "Jack of all trades, Master of All!" What is the point in that??
Finding a new spell for your spellbook was great news! It was rare... It MEANT something. Now you get spell like abilities for your warrioresque build that beats the hell out of any of my spells in my good old spellbook! Its a JOKE! Hell, i even think the Sorcerer is stupid and broken. "Let's make a Wizard who doesn't have to break his head over which spells to memorize! We don't want to tire his little brain! Lets give him a few spells he can do over and over again! Fireball...Fireball... FireBall..."
Shall I get off your lawn?
Seriously, you think Sorcerers are broken? They're considered weaker than wizards by a measurable amount my optimizers including myself, and I play them constantly. Cha as a casting stat instead of a Int (which grants skill points) or Wis (will saves), slower learning of spells, only a slight advantage in spells per day compared to a specialist wizard, inflexible spell list which means if you choose the wrong spell (Fireball comes to mind) you're stuck with it for a while, no class features except a familiar...
Do i like the Arcane Trickster??? Sure he's cool. Still he's B-R-O-K-E-N!! You get to be a Wizard and a Rogues at alomost 100% of both classes... Why bother sticking to one or the other?? Why bother stay multiclassed? Why bother think? Why bother play smart? Those monster will die at your feet no matter what, cause you can do EVERYTHING AT NO COST!
We have been over this before. A standard Arcane Trickster are not broken. it is decidedly less powerful than a straight wizard, which can be broken if you play it right, but is not inherently broken either. You trade spellcasting power for some more skill points and a piddling amount of sneak attack. This is underwhelming from a power perspective and will not cause monsters to spontaneously die at your feet, nor does it allow you to do EVERYTHING AT NO COST, for there is a cost. You've lost 3 caster levels by taking levels in Rogue, and you've lost out on a lot of skill points by going into Wizard and even Arcane Trickster.
It proves that the Arcane Tricker has a 50% of beating the straight wizard in his own game. He gets to do that by ONLY using his "arcane" side... his spells. How balanced is that?
You missed the point. Allow me to say it clearly: You are using extra power to compensate for weaknesses incurred. This acknowledges that there is a weakness in your build regarding spellcasting power. You brought yourself closer to the power a straight wizard had, though you're still not there as you only cast 2 ninth level spells per day compared to a straight wizard's 7. That's a large discrepancy!
You don't have a 50/50 chance. Granted, some of that might be due to me being a highly experienced charop veteran, but still, 5 ninth level spells (and a few 8ths) is very big deal.
What can the Wizard do in a Dead magic Zone? Can he attack effectively? Can he prove himself useful? No...
1. Your arcane trickster won't be of much use either. Low BaB results in irrelevant melee capabilities while your HP is still going to be very low. Can't really use magical weapons or armor in an AMF either, which I hear is important for people who want to hit things with sharp objects and not get hit back.
2. Dead Magic Zones are, as far as I know, a Faerun thing. Not really present in most non-Faerun games. I think bringing in such a situational thing is unfair. It would be rather like me mentioning that Sneak Attack is useless against a wide variety of high level enemies (undead, constructs, plants, oozes, elementals, very large creatures whose vitals are out of reach, concealed enemies...
Except running across those enemies is a bit more common than running into Dead Magic Zones, so maybe that is fair to bring up.
3. When an antimagic field comes up, it's only a 10ft emanation that has to be centered on the caster. Quite frankly, it's not hard to keep your distance from the enemy and Gate in something nasty, or lob in a few spells that don't care about AMFs. (The most immediate example is Orb of Fire, but you can also Gate in something nasty.)
Can he hide effectively From True Seeing, See Invisibility etc..? No...
Wait a moment. I seem to remember the Hide skill only working if cover was around, and even then only if the enemy does not have Mindsight, Blindsense, Blindsight, Tremorsense, Lifesense, Scent, or other extraordinary sensory mechanisms. Isn't this a problem for the Arcane Trickster who tries to hide, since by the time True Seeing comes into play enemies will have these extraordinary senses?
Can he be persuasive, diplomatic, can he lie as well as the AT when spells are not an option? No...
A valid point; while there are spells for this, a wizard can't do it without spells. On the other hand, you are taking into account that when spells are required the wizard was doing it 3 levels ahead of you?
But let's give this one to you.
Can he fire a damn arrow when his spells run out? No...
Wizards do get crossbow proficiency.
Hell, the wizard I linked to above has longbow proficiency from being an elf, huge strength and dexterity scores from being a Balor. Just hand him a bow with some arrows and he's good to go.
Can he find the damn letter hidden inside the mattress?
Are you arguing that a wizard cannot
locate an object?
Can he open a damn lock without losing one of his spells?
Wand of Open Lock or Shatter. Or, you know, Shapechange into something that can do it. Shapechange is useful that way.
Well... The Arcane Trickster can do all the above AND he is as good as a wizard...
Again, I'd hardly call being 3 levels behind as good.
And as long as we're on skills, Battlemagic Perception and a Ring of Greater Counterspells still work against Conceal Spellcasting and False Theurgy since they don't require identification.
Honestly, the only area I consider an Arcane Trickster superior in is certain skills and the ability to find traps. He can do it constantly without using up spellslots. His skills make him versatile, but it's certainly not going to give enough an advantage to make the Arcane Trickster B-R-O-K-E-N. Arcane Tricksters are fun and useful, but not overpowering.
Seriously.
More than enough for a PVP against a wizard. Don't Forget... He who rolls the biggest initiative wins...
Well, the complete phrase is "He who rolls highest initiative and has relevant firepower."
You claim that just having two 9th level spells is good enough. Alright, I'll bite. How is it good enough? What spells are you going to prep in those slots and how will they ensure your victory?
No point in having more than a couple of 9th Lvl spells...
8th Lvl ones can do just fine as well!
Er... no, not really. 8th level spells don't approach the power of Shapechange, Gate, or Time Stop.
Sorry to say so, but i don't see the point in this. I could make a built with a Dex of 32 (+II + Magical items) and beat you by one! Is there really a point in this??
I have opinions about the balance of 3.5 that you do not believe in. You have opinions on 3.5 I don't believe in. However, my opinions have the benefit of being shared by the 3.5 character optimization community, ie the people who break the game for fun. These are the people who created Pun Pun, and I they consider an Arcane Trickster to be on the weak side as far as absolute power is concerned. (
No, really.)
I'm just trying to expose you to different viewpoints than your own. To be frank, the paradigm shifted from 2e to 3.5e, and I don't think you realized it. Fireball is no longer king and battlefield control took the throne. Casting was given too much power and mundane abilities like swordplay and skills lost out. Clerics fight as good as fighters while still getting spells, Druids have about the same impact on the battlefield as a tornado, and arcane magic can do pretty much anything.
Also when you build your Dex 32 character, what will the rest of him look like? How much Con will there be for HP, or Int for spells? Cha to talk and persuade people? Let's take a look at the bigger picture and see what it's like.
Obviously, I disagree. How is the Mystic Theurge not TOTALLY BROKEN?
Well, since you asked,
1. It loses 3 caster levels on both sides. You're casting 2nd level spells when the game expects you to be using 3rds. Depending on your DM, this might be acceptable, underpowered, or result in a TPK as 3rd level spells do things that 2nd level ones just can't accomplish. (Haste, Slow, Stinking Cloud, hell, Fireball.)
2. You have to now have high Int and Wis for spellcasting. You can't cast arcane spells in armor so you better keep your Dex up, and your HP isn't too high so you'll need good Con. That's... 4 stats to increase?
3. You only get to cast one spell per round without Quicken, so you're not really getting your magic out the gate any faster than normal.
You end up lagging behind in power in exchange for more spells per day. It's not an especially powerful combination.
It really isn't.
and you can find him in the DMG!! not even some other supplement!! Most of them are much more powerfull than the main core classes.
Hm. Of the DMG prestige classes:
Arcane Archer is considered really weak compared to the intended entry class
Arcane Trickster is considered less powerful
Archmage is considered equal
Assassin is considered a bit better
Blackguard is considered better
Dragon Disciple is considered a little weaker
Duelist is really weak
Dwarven Defender is worse
Eldritch Knight is considered equal
Hierophant is worse
Horizon Walker is better
Loremaster is a bit more powerful
Mystic Theurge is worse
Red Wizard is much better
Shadowdancer is worse
Thaumaturge is better
All in all, a bit of a mixed group with 8 worse, 5 better, and 3 equal. Going numerically, I'd say most PrCs in core are... worse than the base classes you use to enter into them, from a power perspective. (It doesn't help that some core classes, like monks, are just really weak and easy to overpower.)
But don't take my word for it.
