Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="StGabe" data-source="post: 3396773" data-attributes="member: 49275">Well you were basically the first person in this thread to explicitly agree to this so that's not so clear.  I've said all along that there are varied levels of brokeness being presented with the Champion at the clear top and clearly not "viable" if you want any semblance of balance.First of all, at the highest levels I think that a Cleric doesn't touch a wizard.  I said that clerics were nearly broken in 3.0 but that was also slightly patched in 3.5.  The reason why they are broken isn't because of their spells in so much as it is simply the case that they are too good at doing too many things.  Secondly, if this were a thread about Cleric PrC's then yes, I would be complaining about them!  There are a lot of poorly written Cleric PrC's as well.  Finally, it's not a "sacred cow" rule.  Wizards really are that powerful (albeit weak at early levels).  Sorcerors are nerfed Wizards exactly because it was clear that you couldn't make a wizard more powerful and probably should go with less.Completely irrelevant.  Yes, other broken combos exist.  Because way too many poorly written PrC's, feats and variants exist in far too many books and some DM's, and most people who discuss rules on internet forums (it seems), just take them all, part and parcel, without figuring out which ones actually work.The problem with chasing after other forms of brokenness is that eventually everyone in the party has to be broken or they're useless.  Making a character isn't about "hey, that's a neat concept" but rather, "how do I best break as many rules as possible so that I can keep up".Apparently they are.  Why else are they whinging so much that, "oh my gosh!", they lose 2 whole caster levels?  There's a lot of great buffing goodness in the first 4-6 levels and if you want to argue for a PrC that lets you access that much of the wizard spell list along with a decent BAB then I'm not really taking a position against that.Multiclassing in the core rules has been created around a notion of modularizing class abilities.  That's not an opinion or an aesthetic, it's a very clear design goal.  To create a balanced world, the modularized levels have to be roughly equivalent.  This is why, for example, you will see that a caster PrC will not get a level of spell progression on a level where they gain another beefy ability.However the design principle, especially in 3.5, has been very shoddily applied and the Complete series, the PHB2, etc., are rife with poorly written PrC's that fail to implement this.Typically only if you allow OTHER broken elements of the game.  More and more when I talk about things like this on online forums it seems to be assumed that everyone uses every sourcebook out there.  Uh, no.  In fact, I've never been in a campaign where the DM (myself, or someone else) didn't put time into vetting which classes, spells, variants, etc., were allowed.  This has become increasingly important in 3.5 where there is just so much stuff out there and so much of it is poorly written.Basically this argument is: "yes, but Class X in Book Y is broken, so I have to be broken too."  In other words: you've given up on balance before you even began.Granted, it's fun to talk about all these class combos and such, and that's probably why everyone assumes they're all fair game, but in practice, at the table, I think you'll find you have a lot more fun with a DM that actually tries not to let anyone get broken so that everyone else doesn't feel like they have to powergame too.The point is that the bard is completely outclassed.  There's little point in being a Bard if you can have a better BAB and better spells as a fighter/wizard.  Songs are mediocre and you'd get better skills as a rogue.The same spells that the fighter/wizard "tank" is casting.  In otherwords, he too is outclassed.</blockquote>

Verification