Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="charlesatan" data-source="post: 3395468" data-attributes="member: 20870">I don't think anyone on this board doesn't think that the Abjurant Champion is "too good". Every other warrior-mage prestige class however gives up something. In the case of the EK, as I pointed out earlier, you're losing out on two levels of spellcasting at the very least. Or will you now complain that the Mystic Theurge is similarly imbalance because it combines the Cleric and the Wizard, or that the Arcane Trickster is also imbalanced because you're combining the Rogue and the Wizard?Higher level spells means you're more effective in the same way that a Fighter prizes a higher base attack. Honestly, there's not much difference between a +20 BAB and +16 BAB since you still have the same number of attacks but it's nice.Rogues get sneak attack dice. Have you seen a Two-Weapon Fighting high-level Rogue that managed to hit with every attack?And honestly, the only reason I think Wizards are as they are isn't necessarily for balance reasons but because of sacred cows, a hold-over from the previous editions of D&D. You said it yourself in an earlier post, Clerics and Druids are the most powerful classes in the game. Yet you're not complaining about them. A 20th-level Cleric can easily outshine a 20th-level Wizard. But at the end of the day, they're both "spellcasters" and while they have different spell lists, the Cleric/Druid isn't quite lacking in offensive spells (Flamestrike, Firestorm, etc.).Are spells powerful? Yes. But so is a Orc Barbarian 2/Fighter 4/Eye of Gruumsh 4/Frenzied Berserker 10 who has 58 Str and can Power Attack at a ratio of 4:1 when wielding a two-handed weapon. I'm not saying non-spellcaster types are equalling spellcasters, mind you, but at the end of the day, you have to bear in mind that D&D isn't Street Fighter or a PVP MMORPG but rather a team game and you and your party members are all playing on the same team.People go warrior-mage because it's fun. Not necessarily powergaming fun but fun because it's a different role. You're neither Conan nor Gandalf but rather you're Elric who results to more spellcasting than usual. Or Corwin of Amber. It's also the same reason why people pick up Hexblades and Duskblades. Does a 20th-level Hexblade equal a 20th-level Fighter? Or a 20th-level Duskblade a 20th-level Wizard? Not necessarily but they go ahead and play them because it's different.And no, a Fighter 10/Wizard 10 can't emulate a Hexblade 20. Or a Duskblade 20. (And neither does a Hexblade 20 emulate a Duskblade 20 and vice versa -- they may both be "warrior-mages" but they're each performing a different role: the former is more of a "debuffer" while the latter is more offensive oriented, throwing in the occassional ray but not fireballs.)Other people's roles isn't invalidated by your choice. I mean I can't believe any party couldn't use an additional Fighter. And rounds spent buffing yourself means rounds the Wizard can hurl a fireball at the opponent. Or the Cleric healing someone else (or actually wading into combat).It only degenerates into a PVP situation if you let it. And warrior-mages aren't as good as a dedicated tank.We appreciate alternative views. It's one thing to say however that "warrior-mages are powerful" from "warrior-mages are about as broken as gestalt classes". You need to back the latter up with more convincing arguments than what you've presented. And so far, no one's convinced. And the fact of the matter is, they aren't up to par as gestalt classes.I'm about balance too. But you can't perceive balance in an isolated environment. Take the Bard. Contrary to popular belief, I don't think the Bard is weak. Sure, if it goes toe to toe with the Fighter, he'll die. But that's not his role. His role is to buff the party. Few classes can give a +6 morale bonus to attack and damage after all for example. He's "balanced" in the context of the party, not of the individual.And FYI, just because you're a game developer doesn't necessarily mean you're a good one, just as there are successful businessmen and unsuccessful ones. (Not that I'm saying you're not good, by the way. I have nothing to base any claim against or for it.)</blockquote>

Verification