What Do you think of the revised Archmage?

[Merlion]

Personaly, I dont see a problem with the way it was, and I dont really feel save DCs were getting out of hand.
And if they were, i dont feel that this drastic a change was needed to balance it. As has been said, making it so each and every DC increasing effect doesnt stack would have done the job. Or as I have also seen said, decrease the possible bonus from Prestige Class effects slightly in some way. I dont think virtualy eliminating DC increasing effects was really neccesary. All thats left is Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus, and they have been greatly reduced in power.
As far as the Archmage specificaly goes, I think a lot of the horror stories I've heard about it have stemmed from Archmage/Red Wizard hybrid PCs...something I dont see as an issue since only under unusual circumstances should a PC be taking the Red Wizard class...and if they do, there are considerable(non mechanical) drawbacks involved.
That being said, I dont really dislike the change...adding to caster level is handy(although for many spells it wont affect damage much do to caps). I dont really like the fact tho that they seem to be doing away with DC increases entirly.
But the real point of this thread was to see what all the people who felt the Archmage was so drasticaly "broken"(a term I feel is 90% relative anyway) think now.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Personaly, I dont see a problem with the way it was, and I dont really feel save DCs were getting out of hand.

IME the problem was either save DCs or low saving throws. I really don't think it's fair to my players to give every NPC a rod of absorption or a ring of counterspells or a scarab of protection (especially with only 2 or 3 charges)...

Really, I think my players should be able to use save-or-die spells. However, if they're so much better than any other attack spell that it's no longer an option but a requirement (like Haste 3.0) then clearly something is wrong.

As far as the Archmage specificaly goes, I think a lot of the horror stories I've heard about it have stemmed from Archmage/Red Wizard hybrid PCs

Spend some time at Monte Cook's forum... there was a DM who had to use epic level creatures against his high level party because he let a Red Wizard who was not also an archmage into his campaign.

The RW was weaker - the save DC only applied to one school of magic and you had a bigger "entry" cost - although by dropping necromancy you didn't actually have to pay a cost

 

[Merlion]

Which sort of proves my point on that...to me, Red Wizard is an NPC class.
And I guess experinces differ...I've not experinced a lot of situations where NPCs were like always unable to make there saves. Or if it did happen, I think it stems more from the CR system, which often seems if used straight from the book, to pit PCs against foes that are supposed to offer a challenge but are actualy more like speed bumps.
And yes, the prevelance of save or die spells at higher levels is also a seperate problem in and of itself. One of the things Monte Cook is trying to address in Arcana Unearthed.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Which sort of proves my point on that...

I don't see how it proves your point (I'm not trying to be snippy). The Archmage is stronger than the Red Wizard in nearly every way. If the Red Wizard can break campaigns over it's red-hued knee-caps, the Archmage will do it, even worse.

Anyway, it's just an example. There were archmage examples too, but the RW one stuck in my head because of the epic monsters.

In any event, I have three big problems with 3.0 Spell Power.

1) The boost. If all your 6th-level spells are now as effective as your 9th-level spells (assuming you're using non-stacking Spell Power) then it's over the top. You're not really paying anything. To make matters worse, 3.0 disintegrate was over-the-top. I'm not 100% happy with the new disintegrate, but I understand WotC didn't want to boost spell levels unless they had too.

2) The cost. I don't think WotC has the ability to design classes with high costs and high benefits effectively. This is part of the problems with prestige classes in general.

3) Sean K Reynolds did not write the class that way. It didn't use to give spellcaster levels at all. It was altered after playtesting, possibly by mistake, and just released.

to me, Red Wizard is an NPC class.

Perhaps. I can picture neutral Red Wizards being player characters. They're not so easy to role-play like that, but it isn't like every Red Wizard is an agent to his Zulkir masters. Of course, you shouldn't use RP restrictions to balance a class.

And I guess experinces differ...I've not experinced a lot of situations where NPCs were like always unable to make there saves.

I have. "Oh look, it's a fighter. Use Hold Monster. Mr. Rogue, move in." Of course, the fighter always has a chance of making his save (unless he's facing a super-optimized Red Wizard/Archmage with 18 starting Int, Spellcasting Prodigy, Greater Spell Focus Empowered Empowered Empowered Fox's Cunning and he read a +5 tome of clear thought last year), but Hold Monster will knock the figfhter out in round one more than half of the time (assuming you're using an Enemies and Allies player wizard), whereas direct damage, Mord's Sword, etc will take a while. (I think direct damage is too weak, even if I don't compare it to save-or-die.)

NPCs don't have a lot of money, either. A Ring of Freedom of Movement costs 40 k (out of 220k for a 20th-level fighter) and there are many other save-or-"die" spells out there.

In order to help the BBEG survive (assuming he's a fighter) I need to cover him with specific magic items, like the ring of spell turning, which I don't think is fair to the wizard player. (It seems like DM cheese to me.)

Or if it did happen, I think it stems more from the CR system, which often seems if used straight from the book, to pit PCs against foes that are supposed to offer a challenge but are actualy more like speed bumps.

True, about the CR system and the saving throw system. The 3.5 CRs look a lot more accurate to me.

WotC didn't want to make a massive change to the saving throw system ... that wouldn't be a revision, but a new edition. So instead, something else had to change.

Spell Power was broken, a lot, in 3.0 because of the saving throw system. I don't know if so many high-CR monsters are going to get massive saving throw bonuses for all three saves (the only ones we've seen are dragons and outsiders), so the Archmage with 3.0 Spell Power would probably still be broken in 3.5.

And yes, the prevelance of save or die spells at higher levels is also a seperate problem in and of itself. One of the things Monte Cook is trying to address in Arcana Unearthed.

So I've noticed.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

It still would of been seen as a nerf but I think the problem was more bad save oriented, or actually too large of a difference between good saves and bad save, especially when comparing monsters to NPCs.

It seemed that if your spell DCs could threaten some of the monsters out their in their good save it meant you have to roll a 20 to succeed if its your bad save and your a classed opponent like a PC or an NPC.

You should be able to threaten monsters in their good save, so trying to reach that goal with a character isn't wierd to me. The problme was PCs built to face those creatures obliterated all other oponents becaue of how save or dies work.

If I had been on the design team I woud of pushed for the disinigrate fix to be applied to all save or dies, and the multiple saves fix to all save or else spells. And i would of tried to bump up saves in general a bit and closed the gap between low and high saves. low would of liekly been more medium like in star wars when compared to high.

I think the heavy weakening of things like spell focus don't really abllance things they just make it so they are lame feats to pick.

 

[Celtavian]

re

Why didn't they just get rid of Spell Power altogether? I mean +1 level, c'mon now. That is worthless. The only plus is at least it doesn't say one way or the other whether spells that affect spell power can exceed normal damage caps and it is only a 5th level spell slot.

I'm definitely going to have to play with this a bit. I liked the Spell Power ability and I don't know that I like it being eliminated. The class was created for the FR where the magi are supposed to be supremely powerful.

 

[Technik4]

Spell Power

If, as was mentioned on this thread, it is implicit that it can be taken more than once, it still has its uses. As a Wiz15/Acm5 with Spell Power taken 4 times (the other time being one of the other many cool abilities) you would have a caster level of 24, and since high level spells seem to be going up to 25, thats pretty sweet. Not to mention +4 on spell penetration checks, also pretty sweet.

Especially since Spell Power has one of the lightest fees, a 5th level spell slot. Give up 2 5th and 2 6th (or whatever combination fits your desire) and youre good to go.

The "cost" is taking a weaker spell focus (its a good entry feat now! on par with skill focus...) twice, having less spell slots than a regular wizard, and 1 bonus wizard feat (at level 20). Seems like you make out pretty good to me (oh and familiar stuff doesnt go up to 20).

Technik

 

[ashockney]

If you haven't seen the effects of "mastery of shaping" and "mastery of elements" in game...you don't have a leg to stand on. The only reason this isn't broken, might be because of the ridiculous number of creatures with spell resistance and immunities at 12th level and up.

 

[Merlion]

Or it might be because in truth there isnt really such a thing as "broken"

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

There are a few things that could be classified as broken.

Like the gibbering orb - Temporal Stasis eye ray every round (along with 23 others, it doesn't miss, it never fails Initiative, etc.).