Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kitcik" data-source="post: 5662692" data-attributes="member: 98256">Well, at least a constructive response.Is it really better than a caster, though? Say your party is comprised of this character, a rogue, a barbarian, a wizard and a cleric. You face off against a rogue, a barbarian, a wizard, a cleric and a druid. Everyone is 15th level.The difference is we have one guy that has to get taken out by the barbarian, or the rogue, or the cleric with Divine Might, or the druid in wildhsaped form (all bolstered by wizard buffs) vs. they have an extra caster with a full complement of spells up to 7th level and wildshape ability. In other words, they can leave me for last, while we have to deal with the druid immediately. Seems like the guys with the druid would have a big advantage despite the Unbeliever's spell immunity.I am not yet dead certain that the caster is significantly better, but I am leaning in that direction.You say "cannot be beaten in combat except by special means" but a 15th level warblade would likely beat this guy in combat. As would a self-buffing cleric or druid. Furthermore, those other classes provide a variety of utility while this class does not, it just defends itself from magic. [Also, keep in mind you are not immune to non-targetted spells.]Or, if you disagree with that, I'd be curious why?</blockquote>