Ok i was reading this class for the first time the other day and i got kinda upset here is why.
First the spell per day they get is Sorcerer ( meaning 6 per level every level up to 9th )
it can ware some armor ( witch is a personal problem not really a system one )
and its spell list is pretty much every combat spell in the book... so it is just a overglorifyed Sorcerer really ( because every single Sorcerer i see is all combat spells with one or two others ) but it seemed to me that with all it gained it didn't really lose anything to balance itself with a normal starting class... i may be wrong but i allways make sure that if it is a starting class it has to be on par with the ones from the core books ( PHB DMG ) anyway it seemed to me that it was grossly overpowerd compaied to the normal casters in the PHB. anyway just how i felt looking at it the other day
Anyway mainly i want to know why it got Sorcerer Spells per day and Charisma based casting when it used its positive Int mod for the extra damage. seemed to me thta with what it gained it should be limited to the Wizard spells per day at the least...
Well, yay... I just got my whole post eaten... grar. I'll try again in a bit when I feel less grumbly. I forgot which computer I was on - this one doesn't retain what I wrote in case I need to backtrack.
ctrl-A, ctrl-C... ctrl-A, ctrl-C... *repeats mantra*
TK
First, welcome to the boards. I think you will be quite at home here (unless you go insane due to the influence of ... well, I won't name names but there are a few nutcases around here. :-) )
As to your question, it will depend on the uses arcane magic finds in your game (DM always gets the last word of course but ideas can certainly be proposed to help the game). If arcanists are only used to blast enemies then it can be unbalancing, but warmages are very narrow focused and there are probably plenty of challenges that a sorcerer could help deal with, assuming proper choice of known spells, that a warmage might not be able to compensate for. Sorcerers get buffing spells to help other party members if direct attack spells don't work (say due to energy resistance, SR, high saves or other factors/effects. Ultimately I think the game designers playtested the warmage and the sorcerer in parties using a variety of situations and tweaked it to the most appropriate level using the known data. Adding additional experiments (playtests) could show an imbalance depending on test conditions. Try a modified warmage in your game and see if the tweaking brings it into balance. Also, challenges of different sorts could potentially show the strengths and/or weaknesses.
No need for all that playtesting. The warmage is just a steaming pile of dog crap, plain and simple. I disallowed them. I have similar feelings about the Beguiler, but I'm a little more hesitant to utterly condemn them, since they actually seem to be quite a bit more limited than even the warmage. Still, both these classes seem to steal the Sorcerer's thunder and I don't like that.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
As to your question, it will depend on the uses arcane magic finds in your game (DM always gets the last word of course but ideas can certainly be proposed to help the game). If arcanists are only used to blast enemies then it can be unbalancing, but warmages are very narrow focused and there are probably plenty of challenges that a sorcerer could help deal with, assuming proper choice of known spells, that a warmage might not be able to compensate for. Sorcerers get buffing spells to help other party members if direct attack spells don't work (say due to energy resistance, SR, high saves or other factors/effects. Ultimately I think the game designers playtested the warmage and the sorcerer in parties using a variety of situations and tweaked it to the most appropriate level using the known data. Adding additional experiments (playtests) could show an imbalance depending on test conditions. Try a modified warmage in your game and see if the tweaking brings it into balance. Also, challenges of different sorts could potentially show the strengths and/or weaknesses.
QFT. My initial reaction on reading the warmage was also OMG! this is teh broken! However, I am going to allow it in my next game to playtest it and see if it is broken. My philosophy is that, as much as I think I know how this game works, desiging for it is not my full time job. WotC employs a ton of people for whom it is there full time job, and I give them the presumption that they know what they are doing. This presumption has generally been justified in my experience. I find it to be the height of arrogance to say that I know more about the game than the designers and that I can determine whether something like a new class is balanced just by reading it. I think it's fair to say that the warmage is on the upper side of the class power curve, but I don't know that it's broken.
Think of it this way - the warmage is the lazy player's spellcaster. It doesn't require you to carefully think through your spell choices, to know all the options when you level up. You just plug and play, like the barbarian. The class is not versatile, it does not do much outside of combat, and it is hosed by any creature with high SR or magic immunity (other casters can summon or use indirect attacks against such foes, the warmage lacks this alternative). It's a narrow class, but it's the type of thing that some players enjoy. It's probably better than a sorcerer that only takes evocation/combat spells, but that's just one build you can make with the sorcerer class.
....<I>t will depend on the uses arcane magic finds in your game.... If arcanists are only used to blast enemies then it can be unbalancing, but warmages are very narrow focused and there are probably plenty of challenges that a sorcerer could help deal with, assuming proper choice of known spells, that a warmage might not be able to compensate for....
I agree wholeheartedly. My group just finished up a campaign in which we had a Warmage. The character was incredibly over-amped, as far as blasting spells went. However, the DM put us in a situation where blasting was the last, worst option. Finesse spells were called for, and buffing, and so other spellcasters were given a chance to shine. We were also put in an environment where spell-blasting was detrimental to our continued existence.
As one of the other spell-casters in the party, I appreciated the heavy firepower the warmage brought; it softened up the baddies long before they got to the fighters. It was a little disheartening and daunting UNTIL I realized that I could do things HE couldn't.... The first time I heard, "Whoa...nice spell.... Nice tactic." from the warmage, it was Alllllllll worth it.All this to say: yes, warmages may be over-balanced. There are possibly several (read: MANY) classes that I believe are over-balanced. However, over-balancing CAN be countered by a good DM and some good role-playing by the other characters (as well as bad roll-playing by the warmage. (read: FIZZLE))
|
The general feeling I've found from people who play a lot of casters, and who really tend to dissect spellcasting strategy, is that direct damage is generally the weakest way to go.
"Save or X" spells, battlefield control, spells like domination that can turn enemies into friends, movement-based spells... Those are where arcane casters really shine, and tend to be more effective than blasting in a many (but not all) situations.
The warmage is a one trick wonder. A decent wizard, or even a sorcerer with the right spell selection, will be more powerful than the warmage in a greater variety of situations.
The general feeling I've found from people who play a lot of casters, and who really tend to dissect spellcasting strategy, is that direct damage is generally the weakest way to go.
"Save or X" spells, battlefield control, spells like domination that can turn enemies into friends, movement-based spells... Those are where arcane casters really shine, and tend to be more effective than blasting in a many (but not all) situations.
The warmage is a one trick wonder. A decent wizard, or even a sorcerer with the right spell selection, will be more powerful than the warmage in a greater variety of situations.
I have to agree wholeheartedly. I always tell my caster players that they do themselves a disservice by choosing the xdx damage spells. I have been thwarted more often as a DM by bestow curses, TK and blade barrier combos, creeping doom, you name it than by a fireball or orb of force.
In my current campaign the Sorcerer (a changeling) focused on obfuscation, misdirection and a host of enchantment spells- in effect he became a one man CIA. The wizard focuses on battlefield management and buffs, and the party rocks as a result.
One of my players plays a warmage in our Shackled City campaign. She is a casual player, and so the ease and plug and play nature of the warmage work well for her... her usual class is a fighter. I haven't found it unbalanced, though some DMs I know impose the sorcerer's spells known feature on the class as a balancing maneuver.... I don't find it inherently unbalanced, but that is a good quick-fix for those that do.
- Ashavan
I agree with Sebastian. The warmage class chooses all of your options for you, and they're not really good options anyway. The warmage is a split ability class (like the Monk and the Paladin). They need three or more ability scores high (Charisma to get access to spells and set DCs, Intelligence to add extra damage, and Dexterity since a lot of the warmage spells are ranged touch targeting. Oh, and Strength if they're going to be running around in all of that armor. Sucks to be them while the sorcerer and wizard are running circles around him hasted and wearing bracers of armor. If your group plays with point-buy (which it really should if you're at all concerned about play balance) rather than rolling, you'll find that this limits the usefulness of the warmage rather a lot.
Think of it this way - the warmage cannot use mage armor (remember that mage armor applies to incorporeal touch attacks and is weightless), invisibility, fly, polymorph, telekinesis, greater dispel magic, greater teleport, protection from spells, or time stop! And that's just one from each level that they can't have. Hallucinatory terrain can deal 20d6 damage to a small horde of monsters who think that the path veers out from the cliff just a wee bit. Dimensional anchor keeps fiends from screwing you over with their greater teleport or gating powers. Stoneskin and other spells like it can make you or whoever you choose practically invulnerable in melee. Dimension door can make you a master of the battlefield - or get you the heck out of it once the balor shows up. Confusion - why kill a monster when you can have it (or its friend) do the deed for you? Bestow Curse can cripple any foe. Hire some mercenaries when things get tough and let loose with Mass Enlarge Person! And don't forget Enervation! (And those are just 4th level spells...)
TK
Oh, Sebastian - if you get a chance look at the Draconic Adept class from Dragon Magic and tell me what you think. I may have misread it, but it appears to be that you get a breath weapon usable at will without a delay... So I'm not sure what the limiting factor on that is (since it does pretty much the same damage as a warlock up till 14th level or so, except to a whole swath of whatever you can put in your way).
Ok well i like what i have read, you guys know your stuff. anyway here was the answer my expert mage player gave me to that last bit... Scrolls... that bastard... one of the other characters is a Wizard who is in love with the guy and she is gonna be makeing him the scrolls of spells he cant use... good idea too i kinda liked it. but honesty i still like the Wizard better. i plan on my next game going back to my Spell point system..
BTW.. anyone know if they ever came up with a offical Spell Point / Magic Point system for the game? not spells per day? i know alot of people made their own but i never really looked for a offical one...
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Oh, Sebastian - if you get a chance look at the Draconic Adept class from Dragon Magic and tell me what you think. I may have misread it, but it appears to be that you get a breath weapon usable at will without a delay... So I'm not sure what the limiting factor on that is (since it does pretty much the same damage as a warlock up till 14th level or so, except to a whole swath of whatever you can put in your way).
I'm flattered that you would want my opinion. Dragon Magic is not on my purchase list (I'm dragoned out in general), but I would guess that the limitation is range. The warlock blast, IIRC, goes out to 60 feet (and that's before you start piling feats on top of it). I'm guessing the breath weapon has a more limited effect. The warlock damage is also (again, IIRC), non-typed, whereas breath weapons are most likely energy damage. There may also be a save for the breath weapon, which warlocks don't have. Such saves are normally pretty low (as compared to spell saves).
Here is an "official" spellpoint system from Unearthed Arcana.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/spellPoints.htm
wow not a bad system... i might start useing it.. once i have my system written up i am gonna post it here and have you guys help me break it appart to see if it would work out well.... Awesome info. Thanks!
Scrolls... that bastard... one of the other characters is a Wizard who is in love with the guy and she is gonna be makeing him the scrolls of spells he cant use... good idea too i kinda liked it.
That's about as viable as a druid casting magic missile. You can't cast a spell from a scroll, or wands or staves, unless you have the spell on your class list. The warmage cannot utilize scrolls of anything not listed as a warmage spell, unless he happens to have Use Magic Device. Period. A scroll of greater teleport is about as useful to him as it is to a fighter.
I agree with everyone above who stated that DMs should have varied campaigns where the answer is not "just blast it". Often classes seem cool until played and then the one trick pony gets old. Think of a campaign where the DM uses very few skills besides spot and listen. How will the PCs look? Cross-class max spot and listen, multiclassing, PrCs, etc.
Another thing that gives the warmage a great deal of punch are the sudden feats. In a campaign that has few encounters a day these are extremely potent. If you have many encounters the effectiveness of these feats, as well as magic casters, goes do quite a bit.
Scrolls... that bastard... one of the other characters is a Wizard who is in love with the guy and she is gonna be makeing him the scrolls of spells he cant use... good idea too i kinda liked it.That's about as viable as a druid casting magic missile. You can't cast a spell from a scroll, or wands or staves, unless you have the spell on your class list. The warmage cannot utilize scrolls of anything not listed as a warmage spell, unless he happens to have Use Magic Device. Period. A scroll of greater teleport is about as useful to him as it is to a fighter.
True true, sadly he has levels in Bard
HA!!!! i win i got him to change classes before it was too late!!! i dont have to deal with him being a warmage now lol...
The general feeling I've found from people who play a lot of casters, and who really tend to dissect spellcasting strategy, is that direct damage is generally the weakest way to go.
"Save or X" spells, battlefield control, spells like domination that can turn enemies into friends, movement-based spells... Those are where arcane casters really shine, and tend to be more effective than blasting in a many (but not all) situations.
The warmage is a one trick wonder. A decent wizard, or even a sorcerer with the right spell selection, will be more powerful than the warmage in a greater variety of situations.
I have to agree wholeheartedly. I always tell my caster players that they do themselves a disservice by choosing the xdx damage spells. I have been thwarted more often as a DM by bestow curses, TK and blade barrier combos, creeping doom, you name it than by a fireball or orb of force.
In my current campaign the Sorcerer (a changeling) focused on obfuscation, misdirection and a host of enchantment spells- in effect he became a one man CIA. The wizard focuses on battlefield management and buffs, and the party rocks as a result.
I agree. Accept the warmage still has buffing and battlefield control spells not just damage. True strike, fist of stone, fire shield, fire shield mass, fire wall, gust of wind, stinking cloud, prismatic wall, acid fog, sleet storm, evards black tentacles, tensers transformation, poison, waves of exhaustion, scintillating pattern, continual flame.
And would someone please tell me why in the heck they got Flame strike? A spell dealing divine damage?
Some of the spells I mention deal damage. I still put them in there because the damage is either a secondary function or it is used is used in a defensive manner, like fire sheild which, I consider a buff. Gust of wind has tons of non battlefeild uses. I can't begin to guess why continual flame made it on he list.
A sorcerer can use buffing and teleportation spells. But those take a permanent place in one of their few precious spell slots. So they may get a handful of these awesome spells to bear. Meanwhile the warmage has an entire arsenal to call upon at will. If their is a reason why something has to be destroyed a warmages spells allow his to attack any weakness. A nimble rogue with evasion? No problem, Phantasmal Killer,stinking cloud or magic missle. Any Low save? No problem a warmage has a spell to capitalize on it. No low save? Touch attack spells. Spell resistance? Fine, orbs away! Gods help you is you have an elemental subtype.
Even as part of a stealth operation a warmage is geared for a distraction of epic proportions. With their sheer breadth of chaos causing spells they could make any force believe they were being assaulted by a platoon of casters.
Personally I think their spell list and casting methods destroys any sorcerer. But added on to that they get armor, more hit points, and a cadre of special abilities.
In my humble opinion, and from experiance, the warmage is a bloated munchkin paradise. Congrats on avoiding that mess buddy!
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
In my humble opinion, and from experiance, the warmage is a bloated munchkin paradise. Congrats on avoiding that mess buddy!
Your experience:
1. Designing games professionally?
2. Playtesting the class?
3. Based on your many years of play (less than 5 IIRC)?
4. Reading the class?
Just curious as to which one you base your opinion on.
Don't get me wrong, you make a decent enough argument, but I just want to understand why your argument, based on how things might happen, is more persuasive than that of other posters who actually played with the class and didn't find it broken.
It's like arguing about who will win a football game. You can talk about the stats, argue about who has the better players, but it's the actual play of the game that determines how much influence those numbers have.
I guess I'm more likely to rely on the outcome of the actual football game rather than the armchair quarterbacks that talk about it in the abstract. And, before I rely on them, I'd probably see what a (reliable) professional sports commentator thinks.
In my humble opinion, and from experiance, the warmage is a bloated munchkin paradise. Congrats on avoiding that mess buddy!
2. Playtesting the class
Sebastian while I fully understand and share your respect for the men and women who earn their livelyhood aiding a hobby we both enjoy. I fail to see why any critisism of their work is moot without a background check.
I in no way claim to be a professional, nor do I claim a superior amount of D&D experiance or knowledge. Which is why when I add my claim or argument to a post I try to add reasons and examples why I think or feel the way I do. Anyone is free to argue and question those points and hopefully if I am mistaken they will.
So as to the question of how I base my opinion it is seeing the class in action, platesting the class against other casters, and long and numerous discussions on the topic with my peers. Which, despie playing only a little longer than I have and never being employed as game designers, have opinions that I value.
See also
In my humble opinion
Which I added to say that these are my thoughts and feelings. Which is all that they are.
Don't get me wrong, you make a decent enough argument, but I just want to understand why your argument, based on how things might happen, is more persuasive than that of other posters who actually played with the class and didn't find it broken.
Maybe I am wrong. Maybe they are wrong. More likely their is no "right". If they want to argue their point further they can. Thats what these boards are for.
It's like arguing about who will win a football game. You can talk about the stats, argue about who has the better players, but it's the actual play of the game that determines how much influence those numbers have.
Thats true. But we aren't arguing that. We are sharing opinions.
And if you find me an unrelaible source. Then disregard what I say, that is the right of anyone on these boards. And unless I've been destructive, hateful, vulgar, or irrationally insensitive, which I do not believe I have, I still think I've a right to post my opinions alongside everyone else.|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Sebastian while I fully understand and share your respect for the men and women who earn their livelyhood aiding a hobby we both enjoy. I fail to see why any critisism of their work is moot without a background check.
Because they get a rebuttable presumption that they know what they are doing. So does the Paizo staff. You do not. I do not. We have to prove ourselves. If you're going to assert that they are wrong, you're going to need to do more than make a theoretical argument about how the game plays.
So as to the question of how I base my opinion it is seeing the class in action, platesting the class against other casters, and long and numerous discussions on the topic with my peers. Which, despie playing only a little longer than I have and never being employed as game designers, have opinions that I value.
Excellent! Please tell us about your playtesting and your demonstrable experiences with the class in play. Please tell me what happened in the game that made the warmage too powerful vis a vis the other classes. That is useful information. If you say to me "the warmage totally owned, and when we fought a golem, he wasn't even phased by its magic immunity because of X, Y, and Z." I'm going to say "huh. I'll be damned, that class sounds pretty broken."
In my humble opinion
In my humble opinion, my farts don't stink. That doesn't make it a fact upon which I would advise others to rely.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Thats true. But we aren't arguing that. We are sharing opinions.
I disagree. This class sucks is an opinion. This class is borning is an opinion. This class is broken/too powerful is a statement of fact. In chess, is the queen broken? How about playing as white? What about when you get a second queen? Is the ace of spades too powerful in Texas Hold Em? Does having everyone see the cards give one player an advantage?
Games are a series of interactions based upon logic given certain rules. When those rules are simple, you can make abstract arguments about their interactions. When they are complex, abstract arguments become very difficult. You are asserting that one rules subset strategically dominates another rules subset. You are making this argument based on abstract reasoning in a complex rules set. Others are making this argument based on experiments (playtesting) in a complex rules set. These are not opinions, they are predictions about the results of the interaction of these rules sets.
I allowed warmages into my campaign last year, with much fanfare. To date, none of my 5 regular players and 3 sometime players have ever even given the class a second look.
This means nothing, I know, but perhaps it's anecdotal evidence that my players know that severely limited character classes won't fare well in farewell's game longterm.
No need for all that playtesting. The warmage is just a steaming pile of dog crap, plain and simple...
The warmage is a one trick wonder. A decent wizard, or even a sorcerer with the right spell selection, will be more powerful than the warmage in a greater variety of situations.
In my humble opinion, and from experiance, the warmage is a bloated munchkin paradise...
Truer words have never been spoken :)
I don't think the class is broken, but it's severe lack of versatility prevents it from holding a candle to the core classes (and many others). I let players make that choice at their own risk.
IMHO :)
Jack
I find it very amusing that I call the class a steaming pile of dog crap and get nothing, but someone else posts up their own reasonable arugment as to why they feel the class is broken, and they are the one that gets challenged!
Was mine considered to be so opinionated that no one would take it as a reference, and therefore it is in no need of disclaiming or critique?
Or perhaps "warmages" are considered public figures, and thus my vituperative portrayal couldn't be seen as "libel" against the class because no one was really likely to belieive that warmages are, in fact, dog crap? As opposed to a more structured argument that others might take as a reference?
In Rping situations the class fell back on high charisma and intimidate checks and many times was more valuable than a mind effecting spell from a wizard.
Despite the fact the class could not go invisible or teleport It survived attacks, encounters and traps more often due to armor and higher hit points.
In combats against single creatures, multiple creatures, creatures of elemental subtypes, and encounters with obvious terrain advanages the warmage consistantly had a spell to bring to bear that was very effective and could be repeated constantly until victory. A trait that sorcerers and wizards did not share.
The fact that a warmage has little to no need of scrolls staves and wands led to income placed in armor and magic items to compensate for their lack of versatility, (boots of flying, ring of invisibility ect.)
In game the warmage surpassed in usefulness the fighter, wizard, and bard, because a walking arsenal proved very valuable in a variety of situations. This occured regularly.
I do not recall the numerical details of each encounter roleplaying or otherwise. I do remember several noteable instances however. Him quickly clearing the field of multiple elementals. The team barely escaped an encounter with them before as they lacked the warmage for a short time. Several ambushes where the wizard only had one or two spells that COULD help while the Warmage always had something VERY helpful to pull from his large spontanous spell list.
I'm sure I could bring up more instances and data. But since I'm not payed to keep records I feel woefully underqualified to do the job.
I don't care. I've argued my case and the defense rests. It's an opinion. If you disagree, fine that's your opinion. Even if your opinion is that my opinions aren't opinions.
|
It's nice to get an opinion, to know what to watch out for.
I don't game right now (damn real life jacking up my fantasy life!!!) so it's nice to get some opinions/experiences so when I get my crap together I'll be less of a babe in the woods.
And I know to take it all with a grain of salt, so Mr. Golem, if I find out that the warmage isn't indeed broken, and Mr. Saern if I find that it isn't indeed a steaming dog turd, I won't hold it against you or try to start a flame war or nothing.
I'll just poke fun at you a little bit.
In Rping situations the class fell back on high charisma and intimidate checks and many times was more valuable than a mind effecting spell from a wizard.
Despite the fact the class could not go invisible or teleport It survived attacks, encounters and traps more often due to armor and higher hit points.
In combats against single creatures, multiple creatures, creatures of elemental subtypes, and encounters with obvious terrain advanages the warmage consistantly had a spell to bring to bear that was very effective and could be repeated constantly until victory. A trait that sorcerers and wizards did not share.
The fact that a warmage has little to no need of scrolls staves and wands led to income placed in armor and magic items to compensate for their lack of versatility, (boots of flying, ring of invisibility ect.)
In game the warmage surpassed in usefulness the fighter, wizard, and bard, because a walking arsenal proved very valuable in a variety of situations. This occured regularly.
I do not recall the numerical details of each encounter roleplaying or otherwise. I do remember several noteable instances however. Him quickly clearing the field of multiple elementals. The team barely escaped an encounter with them before as they lacked the warmage for a short time. Several ambushes where the wizard only had one or two spells that COULD help while the Warmage always had something VERY helpful to pull from his large spontanous spell list.
I'm sure I could bring up more instances and data. But since I'm not payed to keep records I feel woefully underqualified to do the job.
I don't care. I've argued my case and the defense rests. It's an opinion. If you disagree, fine that's your opinion. Even if your opinion is that my opinions aren't opinions.
This is getting way too confrontational. Saern.... I didn't respond to the steaming dogpile of crap comment because that's not an argument, but a statement that you dislike the class.
Sexi - You're entitled to your opinions. If you don't like warmages, by all means do not allow your players to play one. I do not find your arguments persuasive, however. This may be because my players are not munchkin players (the one metagaming player is too afraid of something happening to his character to be effective) or it may be that a warmage is not unbalancing in all styles of play. It may be that the player in your campaign playing the warmage has an encyclopedic knowledge of the spells his character has available, while my player does not. It may be that your player is a strategist and simply plays the character very well.
I don't believe these things make a class broken. It just makes the class good at killing things. Which frankly is a trait shared by fighters and barbarians, with no ill effect to the game.
Sebastian is challenging your arguments in a way that might be expected from him (he's a lawyer). Please remember that people may have differing opinions, or differing expectations of support for an argument.
The classes don't balance exactly. Some are strong at low levels, others at high levels. Some are good at all levels, but never great. At low levels, a warmage is an exceptionally good class. But I still don't believe it's broken.
Of course, I tend to believe that all classes have merit. I have only found one class I consider absolutely broken in 3.5 (though I confess I haven't examined them all closely, especially some of the newer ones). That class is one I wanted desperately to work - the truenamer. The math for the class's primary ability breaks down at high levels, much to my dismay. (If I'm missing something on that one, please let me know, as I'd love for the class to work and still review it regularly, hoping I'll find the math works, but it never does)
As for warmages.... yes, they are incredibly good at killing things. I still fail to see how this makes them broken, unless you play a strictly hack and slash campaign (which it doesn't sound like you do). A good fighter should still be better against a single powerful opponent. A small group of intellegent humanoids should still be able to effectively limit or flank the warmage, requiring him to at least cast defensively. His hit points are good, but not great, AC good, but not great. The warmage in my campaign does lots of damage, but is still quickly taken down - consistently the first person down in combat.
I'm not saying the warmage is a good class, or that you're wrong for saying it doesn't work in your campaign, but saying it's broken suggests that it won't and CAN'T work in someone else's campaign. Rather than offer helpful suggestions you've simply stated that the class is broken to someone asking advice.
Sebastian challenged you to provide examples of how it is broken. Any arcane class willing to use up its spells for the day that has available combat spells is capable of quickly clearing a field of multiple elementals. Was this instance significant because the warmage did it without expending substantial resources (in terms of spell slots)? Was it, in fact, an encounter that (like a deadly trap requires a rogue) required the expertise of a combat oriented spell caster? An ambush, by its nature is a combat situation... of course the spells the warmage had were appropriate. This doesn't make it any more broken than a sorcerer with many known combat spells.
Boy - that was long. Anyway. In my book, so far, warmages can be cool for some players, but many players will eventually find them limiting and regret the choice. If you play a hack-n-slash campaign, you may find them overly powerful, since they will almost always have something useful in a strictly combat situation.
my 2 coppers.
- Ashavan
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I'll say one last thing.
Everyone who has played the game more than once thought the Warmage was broken when they first read it. They looked at that class, they looked at the sorcerer and said "woah! This is teh broken." They made the exact arguments that are being made on this thread (higher hit points, casting in armor, extra abilities, spell versitility to a certain extent). Everybody saw this.
So that raises the following questions:
1. Did I see this and WotC missed it? Unlikely. Like I said, it's blindingly obvious to compare the class to the sorcerer and see the similarities (and differences).
2. If WotC saw it, why'd they put it in? Here's the level of analysis that isn't being performed when you say to yourself "WotC just likes to make broken stuff" or you assume that you found something that they missed. They love the game as much as anyone, they care as much about game balance as anyone, they aren't going to miss something as obvious as the stuff in step 1. That's why I always ask what makes you think you know better than WotC. At this point, I ask myself a third question.
3. What am I missing that makes this balanced? That's what this thread is about. Everyone has done the analysis under step 1. Some have done the analysis under step 2 and concluded that they saw something that WotC either missed or didn't care about. The rest of us are having a conversation about step 3.
Everytime somebody posts "I read X and I know it's broken" and that's all they say, or they just back it up with the obvious arguments, I know that they either didn't make it past step 1 or they have too big an ego to move past step 2.
Thanks for the data. I'm not particularly convinced by it, but I appreciate learning more in my attempt to answer step 3.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Of course, I tend to believe that all classes have merit. I have only found one class I consider absolutely broken in 3.5 (though I confess I haven't examined them all closely, especially some of the newer ones). That class is one I wanted desperately to work - the truenamer. The math for the class's primary ability breaks down at high levels, much to my dismay. (If I'm missing something on that one, please let me know, as I'd love for the class to work and still review it regularly, hoping I'll find the math works, but it never does)
Okay, one last last thing - what book is the truenamer in Ashavan? Tome of Magic?
Okay, one last last thing - what book is the truenamer in Ashavan? Tome of Magic?
Yes.
Everytime somebody posts "I read X and I know it's broken" and that's all they say, or they just back it up with the obvious arguments, I know that they either didn't make it past step 1 or they have too big an ego to move past step 2.
Thanks for the data. I'm not particularly convinced by it, but I appreciate learning more in my attempt to answer step 3.
I'm am not so arrogant as to assume I am right. But the evedence I've gained on my own is still all that I have to go on. In my campaign the Warmage trumped all. In F2K's game they didn't make par. It just goes to show what can shine and what can't given the circumstances. I'd like to think my campaignes are not super combat based. But what do I know? I've only played under a handful of different styles. But I'm not pretending that I am the D&D expert either. I just look at a class, try to do my homework on it, and see what I find. Sorry if that's not good enough but it's all I have. Trust me I'd really like to have a professional D&D consult.
I never actually used that scary term broken (I swear check any of my posts). I just added my argument that a warmages spell list has versatility outside of combat. Because of this I feel that their major limiting factor may not be as debilitating as others have stated. But since D&D can't be played the same way twice my findings are unique and will not match everyone else. I thought adding "in my experiance" and "opinion" was enough to keep me from sounding like it was my way or you are stupid. Or whatever it is I was (or am) being accused of.
Everything I wrote is because I came to those conclusions while looking for question three. If you think I'm wrong thats fine. Please challenge me. I honestly learned a lot about the warlock that way. All I ask is that you challenge and counter the points I make, not my credibility or intelligence.
And for the record I don't find this debate personal and I'm not angry. Just bored with it. I've never thrown in my two cents before to have someone test to see if the coins were genuine.
Their just two cents and hardly worth all this effort.
In my opinion.
Happy gaming!
I'm going with the steaming crap.
Stepped on a warmage once. Had to scrape my shoe to get the stink off.
I have actual playtesting experience with this class.
Not that great; an overspecialized class.
The Armor and HP don't help much, because they are still a liability in close-quarters combat, and die quick. Imagine you are playing a rogue, but with a lower dex, and no sneak attack. They crumple VERY fast.
The player playing one in a particular game was a next-to-useless monstrosity, unable to do much outside of combat. Even then, many of its spells are targeted at Fort or Ref, which are the two saves more likely to be high in foes, compromosing their power.
The class is, if anything, narrow and underpowered. In combat they are solid, but they will lack some of the versatility and ability of other casters. An equal level Wizards or Sorcerer is a much greater threat and a more useful class.
I don't think the Warmage is especially overpowered, but I do think it's a fairly dull class. They do one thing well: blast foes. And they have a lot of spells to do that.
But... at each level, they're usually only going to use one or two spells. Then, maybe a couple of others for when they encounter unusual creatures (those with immunities/vulnerabilities). They lack invisibility, knock, fly, and a whole bunch of other really useful spells.
The armour and hit points are a benefit, except that the Warmage really doesn't want to get into a position where they have to rely on these things, and Improved Invisibility (a spell they can't use) is a better protection anyway.
I do see a couple of problems with the Warmage:
1) They do make the Sorcerer look underpowered. But then, the Sorcerer is probably the weakest class in the 3.5 PHB (except perhaps the Bard). Personally, I'm inclined to think we need similar classes for the 'missing' schools (Abjuration, Conjuration, Divination, Illusion and Transmutation) in the vein of the Warmage, Beguiler and Dread Necromancer, and then remove Sorcerers and specialist Wizards from the game entirely.
2) The Orb spells are a bit too good. They work on the premise that a ranged touch attack removes the need to a save, but the two are not even close to equivalent. To rebalance these spells, they really need to do less damage.
3) The Sudden metamagic feats are also probably a little too good. These are balanced by the fact that you need prerequisite feats to get them, which means they represent a major investment for a Wizard or Sorcerer. But Warmages get them free, which is most likely a problem.
All that said, the biggest equaliser for the Wizard and the Sorcerer over the Warmage, Beguiler and Dread Necromancer is the Spell Compendium.
Okay, one last last thing - what book is the truenamer in Ashavan? Tome of Magic?
Yes, the truenamer is the third class presented in Tome of Magic.
- Ashavan
I'm sorry if I sounded confrontational. My "steaming pile of dog crap" was obviously a little tongue in cheeck, but I was also genuinely amused and confused, not angered, when I saw that my statement wasn't the one drawing the questioning. As I surmised, it was too banal to even warrant a discussion. :)
Seriously, though, looking at the warmage, part of the reason I dislike them is they seem an odd paradox. They have one purpose: blasting. They do this well; too well according to some, not well enough according to others.
But then they go and give them armor proficiencies. I'm not sure if this is for flavor reasons or an attempt to make some sort of balance. Assuming it's flavor, it's not my cup of tea, but okay. Assuming it's balance, it creates the illusion that this thing is actually designed to stand in combat with it's mighty 1/2 base attack progression and d6 HD. That seems a major lack of focus to me. Not to mention, they can take just one or two more feats and become capable of casting in full plate, which is probably a waste of their feats, but the option is still tempting, furthing sending the classes off-center.
My major problem with it is that I go on the assumption that the PHB classes are suppoed to be necessary, archetypical, and at least as good, if not actually better, than any supplemental classes. Therefore, as has been mentioned before, the warmage seemed to remove one of the sorcerer's key roles. But, then it was shown that blaster wasn't really gone from their abilities, as the sorcerer could do that but also pick up some other useful spells and use scrolls and wands easily, still retaining significance over the warmage.
Then came the beguiler, and my problem with the warmage resumed under the premise that each of these focused classes was going to systematically steal the sorcerer's roll, leaving their only strength as being able to mix all the tactics of these other classes, which isn't really a strength at all because wizards, not sorcerers, are the spellclasting class to go with if you want versatility.
Therefore, partly because I don't like the package that it comes with and partly because I oppose the ethos of the thing, I hold the warmage in contempt.
I hope by my elaboration that it's clear these are just opinions, and their merit lies not in any factuality, but in bringing certain points to bear that others might not have considered.
EDIT- Koldoon, I meant to address your questions with the Truenamer. I've played one before for a short while at the higher levels. Unfortunately, the party size was enormous, and thus many of the creatures were of a CR high enough to generally negate the truenamer's abilities, so I focused on buffing the party. They remain extremely viable in that regard at every level.
Did you factor an amulet of the silver tongue (or whatever it's called) into your calculations? That makes a huge difference and is, I think, a necessary item. Also, don't forget to add Skill Focus: Truespeech. There's a total +13 when you get the bigger amulet.
I played with a grey elf that had... 14 Strength, I believe. He also had a +1 keen outsider bane longsword. In the specific game I played in, it was a waste of money due to the higher CR (and thus higher AC) monsters. However, I think in a more typically group, the truenamer could be a good secondary combatant. I also had a magical mithril shirt and a shield, and my AC was good enough that I'd make a nice flanking partner. With a few self-buffing utterances, the truenamer becomes an excellent buddy for a cleric, rogue, or even fighter. Also handy to have around when the stuff hits the fan.
My recommendation is to build the truenamer like one would a lightly armored cleric. They function similarly in actual gameplay. I wish I had some experience playing them at lower levels, but my guy tells me that they're even better there. However, that's just my gut.
I've got spare change in my pocket, so I'll add my 2 cents:
I would just caution the assumption that WOTC releases products that are "balanced" or "play tested".
If history is our best indicator, then we should expect some degree of inequity and imbalances or errors to creep into the game as more material is introduced.
As an aside, I have seen more at least three responses from WOTC "customer service" regarding rule clarrifications that did not agree with FAQs or SRDs. Due to this poor track record, I no longer accept players correspondence with WOTC "customer service" at my gaming table while I run the campaign.
This thread is fairly amusing...Sebastian is correct in pointing out that using the term "broken" (weather it was actually used or implied) for WotC published material shouldn't be tossed about based on a few data points conducted by the casual gamer. The term "broken" suggests that there is a loophole in the rules of a game system that can be exploited that gives an advantage over other players within the system (e.g. see all kinds of Magic combos or Mini's stat blocks.) The thing about tabletop RPG systems, is that the GM can make sure that the playing field is level for all the players - all are equally challenged as individuals and as a group.
Thus, there is nothing broken about a Warmage or any other prestige class published by WotC and used within the published system.
As a caveat, WotC does publish Errata for their core and supplimental texts. It is important to keep up with these corrections as they truely ARE to fix broken verbiage or stat blocks in various aspects of the game system (see the spell: polymorph as an example).
As ever,
ACE
|
|
In regards to the Truenamer, the DC's assume that you have sought out the most powerful truenaming-boosting items available to you and focused on enhancing your intelligence. If you look at the amulet of the silver tongue (I think it's called) and add those bonuses in at a level where that item is appropriate, the truename DC's are hit with about the same frequency as you advance.
That's the problem with a skill-based magic system. If they don't count on you having items and stat boosters, then the system gets broken when a player attains those. So they have to build it in.
In regards to the Truenamer, the DC's assume that you have sought out the most powerful truenaming-boosting items available to you and focused on enhancing your intelligence. If you look at the amulet of the silver tongue (I think it's called) and add those bonuses in at a level where that item is appropriate, the truename DC's are hit with about the same frequency as you advance.
That's the problem with a skill-based magic system. If they don't count on you having items and stat boosters, then the system gets broken when a player attains those. So they have to build it in.
It should not be IMPOSSIBLE to successfully affect a creature of the same CR as you. A player shouldn't have to start with an 18 INT, buff that one score at every opportunity, take skillfocus truenamer, and still STRUGGLE to use their most basic ability. DC 15 + 2 x 20 = 55 - that's what a 20th level truenamer has to hit at 20th level to affect something that's CR 20.
ASSUMING a role of 20:
20 + 23 (max ranks in class skill) + 3 (skill focus) + 6 (assuming a 23 intelligence from ability score increases every four levels)= 52
Magic items shouldn't be required for you to succeed with your most basic ability.
- Ashavan
PS - Note that a fighter with the same 20 automatically hits. And even if he didn't, he'd actually have rolled a
20 + 20 (base attack bonus) + 6 (equiv str bonus) + 1 (weapon focus) + 1 (greater weapon focus) = 48
Balor = AC 35
Pit Fiend = AC 40
Gargantuan Red Wyrm = AC 42 (and CR 24) [because of the size increase, a Red Wyrm's AC is actually better than a Collosal Great Wyrm)
Each of these the fighter has a chance to hit at LEAST 1/4 of the time, and for the Balor demon over half the time when making a single melee attack.
Players shouldn't succeed all the time, but they should have a reasonable chance.
|
|
I think it might be useful at this point to provide the point of view of an actual WotC playtester (not recently, and not D&D, though I've playtested other RPGs for other companies). I should also note that I've also run playtests, so I've been on both sides of this one.
1. Playtesting is hard. This is especially true of a game with as many interacting parts as D&D 3.5 is right now. Each new feat, spell, class ability, magic system, magic item, or whatever increases the number of ways the system could break exponentially. Given the recent changes to polymorph, I think WotC would have no hesitation about agreeing that broken things make it through the playtest system.
2. Playtesting is not monolithic. Playtesters test things in different ways and come to different opinions. Even if some playtesters identify something as broken, it may be that other playtesters disagree. I have no idea what sort of playtest reports WotC received on the Warmage (and nor do you, unless you were reading them), but it is quite possible that the same reservations we see here were expressed by some part of the playtest community, but not taken up by the designers. I've been both the playtester and the designer in that situation.
3. (Which brings up...) Running a playtest is hard, too. Playtesters give you mixed reports. Some of these are obviously useful, some obviously useless, and many are ambiguous. Playtesters are often (usually in my experience) not professional writers, and regularly provide feedback that is difficult to understand.
Sometimes this feedback points to a problem that only exists in the playtester's mind. Sometimes it points to a problem that the playtester didn't even notice. Sometimes it points to a crucial problem with the system. Sometimes it is completely misleading. And sometimes the designer miscategorizes which sort of feedback he has gotten and how accurate it is.
4. Playtesters sometimes miss the point. It is entirely possible that the designer is trying for a specific goal that is misunderstood by the whole playtest community. A really good designer will thus sometimes dismiss playtest results as not responsive. Unfortunately, so will a bad designer. One of them is probably (though not certainly) right.
5. Different DMs run different games. As a result, a (whatever) that isn't a problem in any of the playtest campaigns may be a complete gamebreaker in my campaign. That something isn't broken in every campaign doesn't mean it isn't broken in any campaign.
6. The goals of a company selling a game and the consumer of that game are not perfectly aligned. There is a strong incentive for a company to meet the actual (which are different from the expressed) needs of its entire fan base, but without ever meeting all the needs of that fan base. Once you meet all the needs, where will your market come from? This is, by the way, a very difficult thing to do well, and, given my point 4 above, any particular piece of the system may be a problem for some part of that market.
Everytime somebody posts "I read X and I know it's broken" and that's all they say, or they just back it up with the obvious arguments, I know that they either didn't make it past step 1 or they have too big an ego to move past step 2.
Fallacious (conclusory, ad hominem, non sequitur, etc.) argumentation affects my opinion of the validity of a response, as well. I think I'll just leave it at that.
FWIW, I've not formed an opinion of how broken (or not) Warmage is/would be. I know that I'm not much interested in playing it, but in that it falls into a category that holds most prestige classes and some other base classes as well, so it's probably not a useful data point.
You answered quite a few questions I and others I know were curious about.
Thanks for taking the time to share your insight Doug.
...The Armor and HP don't help much, because they are still a liability in close-quarters combat, and die quick. Imagine you are playing a rogue, but with a lower dex, and no sneak attack. They crumple VERY fast...
This is a point others have rightly made, and I think it's worth repeating again (is that redundant?). Armor and a few more hp is a non-ability -- a warmage will die nearly as quickly as a wizard in any face-to-face melee combat.
|
|
As someone who did a lot of playtesting for another company (West End Games) back in the day, I've got to add a major "Me Too!" to Doug's post. He hit the major points right on the head. Just playing a game before everyone else might sound easy and cool, but if the playtesters and developer actually do their jobs, it is a lot harder than it sounds.
An excellent job!
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
How many last things can a person post?
Sexi - Nothing personal and my responses probably should have been in the rant thread rather than targeted at you. I can't stand it when people say that something is broken and support that statement with obvious and vague abstract reasoning or an assertion that their knowledge of the rules system is sufficient that they don't need to provide arguments, as I outlined above. To the extent that you did not say the class was broken or provided playtest based experience, my comments were not applicable to you.
I've also been involved in formal playtesting in the early stages of D&D 3.0, and I agree with the comments above. My argument is not necessarily that WotC playtests their products or that formal playtesting unearths all bugs, but that all else being equal, if I don't playtest and they don't playtest, they're in a better situation to determine whether something is balanced than I am.
Look at it this way. You're sitting at the table with me, you, and Monte Cook. You say, "Are the classes in Arcana Unearthed balanced?" I say "No" and go on to explain my thoughts on game design and how the classes in Arcana Unearthed work. I've never played the system before. I've never designed a published game before. But I have a decent argument. Monte just says "Yes." He refuses to explain anything. He doesn't tell you if he's actually played Arcana Unearthed, he just points at his name on the cover and leaves it at that. While it's possible I have a good explanation, you've got to ask yourself what Monte's explanation would be. I'm not saying to rely on Monte because he's Monte, I'm not saying to disregard my explanation, I'm saying that his explanation is necessary to determining the answer to the question. In my experience, playing the material is the best way to figure out what Monte's explanation would be.
|
|
How many last things can a person post?
I think that's a level-dependent class feature. You'll have to check the rules. 8-)
My argument is ... that all else being equal, if I don't playtest and they don't playtest, they're in a better situation to determine whether something is balanced than I am.
I think that's a reasonable position to take, but it's not one that I take--or at least I don't take that position for every company's products. In general, I start with a rebuttable presumption that any given rule is reasonable before I read it, then I start to form an opinion. The more closely the rule follows rules that I've played with before, the more I trust my intuition about whether the rule is balanced. The more radical the changes, the more evidence I require to consider it to be either broken or reasonable*.
The amount of evidence I require for rebuttal also depends a great deal on how much I trust the company that produces the game. In the case of Wizards of the Coast's products, the standard for rebuttal is higher than it is for many other companies' products. There are companies whose work I presume to be broken until I see evidence otherwise, though I tend not to buy products from these companies, of course. In this, I treat game publishers the same as I treat book publishers: I'll read a Baen book longer than I will an Ace book before deciding it's not interesting, and I'm unlikely to buy a Harlequin even if it has been strongly recommended.
But even for WotC products, there are things I distrust or dislike enough even without playing them to not allow them into my games.
All that said, if someone asks about whether some element is broken, I think it's entirely reasonable to say, "I don't like the looks of that and I won't allow it in my game", or "I've tried that, it didn't work for us, and I think you should watch out for it", or the reverse. As long as you clearly identify your play experience (or lack thereof), these can all be useful. When I see these comments, I will (and I suspect others will also) weight those based on experience more heavily than those based on speculation. But I don't think the speculation is illegitimate.
I suppose I take the same attitude as a DM or player that I take as a playtester. Some things are almost-certainly fine and warrant little inspection, some things feel questionable, and some things have big, flashing warning lights. If someone points to a feature as possibly problematic, it's worth more effort to me to check it out, even when I decide he was wrong.
FWIW, I particularly like Hero Games's practice of explicitly noting powers (etc.) that often cause serious problems for the GM and thus deserve particular scrutiny. Of course, the Hero System is particularly tunable and particularly breakable, so the GM must be more vigilant than a d20/D&D DM.
* For example, the Warlock was a big departure from other caster classes that we had seen before. My initial reaction was that the class could be a serious problem, but because it was so different I chose not to immediately outlaw it. After playing with it for a while, I think it's not broken, but also not very interesting.