One of the explicitly stated design goals for the Pathfinder RPG is to bring the power level of the core races and classes into line with non-core 3.X edition releases, which are supposed to be greatly overpowered compared to 3.X edition core. The only problem is... I can't find these allegedly overpowered races and classes in significant quantities! Sure, I can see an occassional overpowered race, such as the Warforged, or an overpowered class, like the Archivist, but for every one that is overpowered there is another that is underpowered (Healer class anyone?) and several at core power level.
I simply cannot see the implied consistent overpowering of races and classes in later 3.X releases. Rather I see varied power levels ranging from overpowered to underpowered and balanced in between. Perhaps I the Book of Nine Swords might have some overpowered classes, I wouldn't know since I don't use it, but that is not really a fair point of comparison. After all, the Book of Nine Swords was a test-bed for 4E concepts and released at a time when Wizards of the Coast were already hard at work on 4E and didn't really care anymore about whether their products will break 3.X edition or not, as long as they got to test their 4E mechanics (in fact, breaking 3.X edition might even have been of benefit to them, since that would entice more people to move to 4E).
As far as I am concerned, the real problem here is versatility in some of the non-core base classes.
An archivist, while on paper limited from what a cleric or druid can do, has access to the full spell lists of both classes. The archivist has a reasonable number of spells per day, single attribute dependance, and, with a sufficiently large spellbook, can give a wizard a run for sheer raw diversity, with Summon Nature's Ally, Summon Monster, and every other spell on both class lists. Add to this the fact that the other class features aren't so shabby, either, and you have a potential for CoDzilla +.
An artificer, on paper, seems very limited, with only a handful of infusions and crafting features. But, allow the artificer to build a selection of wands and scrolls, and they can then access as many single spells as they choose to, ever published. Granted, the lead time for the artificer is longer than the wizard, but the artificer does not have even the flimsy limit of a spellbook to limit their potential. Additionally, the artificer will not have any reasonable limit, aside from downtime restriction, on having the best gear available for their wealth and level.
With a minimum of preparation, these two non-core classes have the ability to exceed the capabilities of even the highest powered base 11 classes. PFRPG has come somewhat up to a point where at least some of the base classes can adventure with some of the non-core base classes and not be overshadowed.
The Archivist gets bonus spells off Wisdom, so it isn't dependent on a single ability score. And the class is not overpowered if the DM limits availability of scrolls (or gold to buy said scrolls)reasonably. The "sufficiently large spellbook" is a big assumption. Also notable - the class doesn't get turning, so it gets nothing powered by turning attempts.
A lot of things are theoretically overpowered, but until someone actually plays the class in a low to mid level game, it's difficult to say. On that note - I've never played an Artificer, so I have no idea how powerful that class is.
|
A lot of things are theoretically overpowered, but until someone actually plays the class in a low to mid level game, it's difficult to say.
I have. Same with mystic theurge PrC. My experience is that they're both woefully underpowered in a standard game. Don't believe me? Compare the spells of a Wizard at 7th level and a Wiz3/Cleric3/MT1.
Venerable dragonwrought kobolds:
-4 Str + 2 Dex - 2 Con + 3 Int + 3 Wis + 3 Cha
I did an Ice wizard once out of Frost Burn (used the ice spell feats, and Frost Mage) and Complete Arcane (elemental savant) that could cast any from any school in full plate and have a DC 35 + spell level. I would be completely willing to use the build for an entire 20 level campaign truthfully.
I simply cannot see the implied consistent overpowering of races and classes in later 3.X releases.
Who said it was consistent?
The Archivist gets bonus spells off Wisdom, so it isn't dependent on a single ability score. And the class is not overpowered if the DM limits availability of scrolls (or gold to buy said scrolls)reasonably. The "sufficiently large spellbook" is a big assumption. Also notable - the class doesn't get turning, so it gets nothing powered by turning attempts.
Agreed. I have an Archavist in my AoW campaign. The character's knowledge skills and dark knowledge are more important then their spellcasting. Yes, the character has a good selection of spells, but you find wizard spellbooks more often than you find divine scrolls. A lot of the character's money when to scrolls for learning spells.
Overall, the class is better balanced and more enjoyable than a cleric due to options they have. Of course, the fact that AoW is Knowledge skill heavy, really lets the class shine.
Creative Director
|
While it's true that most of the later base classes (duskblade etc.) were more powerful than the core class equivalents, that's only part of the reason in Pathfinder RPG the races and classes have been notched up slightly in power. Here are 4 others:
1) Base races getting more powerful effectively makes them equivalent to +1 ECLs, in theory. So you can play goblins and gnolls and orcs and the like alongside of humans and elves pretty easily, even if those more monstrous races aren't the expected core PC races.
2) Survivability. Especially at low levels, the swing factor in the game is pretty high. One orc with a greataxe or a scythe can swoop in and kill a 1st level full-health raging barbarian with a single shot in 3.5, causing a totally random death to a player's character. This might be "realistic" but it's certainly not fun. Making characters tougher makes them more able to survive, and not making them TOO much tougher keeps the element of danger in there. It's a balancing act.
3) Keep the interest. For most classes, once you reach higher level there's no reason to STAY in the class. This is especially painful and true for sorcerers, wizards, rogues, clerics, fighters, and paladins. Why aim for 20th level in one of these classes when even a mediocre prestige class gives you more flavor, more power, more versatility, and more fun? By giving all of the base classes things to look forward to almost every level, and especially by giving them all a cool "capstone power" at 20th level, the hope is that we'll see more devotion and dedication to those classes. At the very least, high-level NPCs built with base classes only won't suddenly have a weird dip in power and options.
4) Part of a Beta's job is to test boundaries. We're testing those; finding out if people like having slightly more powerful characters for the reasons above.
|
How about Whisper Gnomes being so much better then other small races by a long shot?
There is a very obvious power creep that happened and by the end of 3.5 there were issues. Polymorph was completely messed up by that point with 5 monster manuals and several other books to rake through for monsters with appropriate hit dice for example.
I like a lot of the changes and the reactions to things at my FLGS has likewise been positive. They've sold more Pathfinder Beta books then 4th edition PHBs. :D
I'm digging the sorcerer bloodlines myself, as leveling as a pure sorcerer was rather bland and underpowered. :(
|
|
I don't see it as much as making classes on par with non-core classes (which Pathfinder won't 'officially' be able to use anyway!) as making *all* of the core classes appealing and fun to play, not just the Cleric, Druid, Wizard (un)holy trinity.
Enhancements to the Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian, Rogue, etc., are long overdue, but most especially to the Fighter and Sorcerer (IMO).
That being said, some of the enhancements to the Cleric and Wizard in particular might be a step in the wrong direction. I'm not sure that either of those classes needed quite so much help.
I'd prefer that the Wizard's cool Specialization (and Universalist) toys turned into a series of Feats that could be taken with the Wizard bonus feats, to allow a Wizard these abilities as options, but at the cost of not having those free slots to pick up Metamagic, Item Crafting or Spell Mastery feats. The core Pathfinder Wizard could then look exactly like a 3.5 Wizard (with d6 HD), but have the option of taking specialization feats, or not, *and*, for added versatility, those feats might also be available to other classes, allowing a Cleric of the god of prophecy to pick up a Divination Specialist feat or a Bard to pick up an Enchantment Specialist feat, or, even more flexibly, to allow a Wizard or Sorcerer to pick up a Conjuration Specialist feat *and* a Transmutation Specialist feat, to represent the old concept of 'dual specialization' from 2E. Same with the Sorcerers and their Bloodlines, give them the bonus feats of Wizards and then make the Bloodlines into Feat chains, allow the Sorcerer (or any other class) to pick and choose among them, or even pick one of the lower tier ones from multiple different bloodlines, for the 'mutt' Sorcerer who has both draconic and fiendish blood in his veins, and the *options* have increased many times, while the Sorcerer who does *not* have some special bloodline could use those bonus feats to learn some Metamagics, or even pick up a Specialization feat to improve his use of the Transmutation or Conjuration spells or whatever that he likes to use.
And I certainly wouldn't consider the Duskblade or Warlock good examples of power-creeping non-core, since both classes where one-trick ponies that could easily be outshone by pure-core builds. The Duskblade, in particular, is a hybrid Fighter who can do amazing burst damage a couple times a day, essentially making it roughly equal to a Barbarian. It's a sexy class, but not something you see the hardcore rules-mechanics creaming their jeans over on the CharOp forums.
1) Base races getting more powerful effectively makes them equivalent to +1 ECLs, in theory. So you can play goblins and gnolls and orcs and the like alongside of humans and elves pretty easily, even if those more monstrous races aren't the expected core PC races.
Enabling the play of non-standard races is an admirable goal, but I think it would be better to fix the ECL system itself rather than to increase the power of the base races. +1 LA was never really worth a full PC class level anyway.
You may, for example, want to consider applying negative levels for LA instead of actually having the character have fewer levels.
To illustrate: Under current rules a Fighter Drow in a 5th level party will only be a 3rd level figther. Using negative levels to replace LA, our Drow would be a 5th level fighter but would suffer a -2 penalty to all rolls and have -10 hit points... Negative levels were a good Paizo invention and I think would provide a decent solution to ECL problems, where LA is not really worth a full level.
2) Survivability. Especially at low levels, the swing factor in the game is pretty high. One orc with a greataxe or a scythe can swoop in and kill a 1st level full-health raging barbarian with a single shot in 3.5, causing a totally random death to a player's character. This might be "realistic" but it's certainly not fun. Making characters tougher makes them more able to survive, and not making them TOO much tougher keeps the element of danger in there. It's a balancing act.
You make a fair point here. For the majority it is not fun to suffer totally random character deaths at level 1. In some respects, though, the system is not really broken, because it is easy to start at a higher level for those who want to avoid those risks, but those who enjoy that kind of play are still able to begin at level 1.
Nevertheless, I can see that the option to start at higher levels is not really a systemic solution to the problem, but rather a workaround of the problem. The best way the problem can be solved, while keeping the long-term power level broadly similar, I think, is to frontload some survival-related bonuses to level 1 - and this applies particularly to hit points. Here Paizo already has a solution that is presented as an option in a sidebar: generic or racial bonuses to hit points that characters receive at level 1.
Actual increases in hit dice (e.g. from d4 to d6 and so on) are a pretty bad way to target low-level survivability for the simple reason that, unlike a 1st level generic/racial bonus, they do not really provide many hit points at low levels. At the same time, the extra hit points they provide accumulate by higher levels, so they lead to slight power creep without really impacting low-lever survivability.
3) Keep the interest. For most classes, once you reach higher level there's no reason to STAY in the class. This is especially painful and true for sorcerers, wizards, rogues, clerics, fighters, and paladins. Why aim for 20th level in one of these classes when even a mediocre prestige class gives you more flavor, more power, more versatility, and more fun? By giving all of the base classes things to look forward to almost every level, and especially by giving them all a cool "capstone power" at 20th level, the hope is that we'll see more devotion and dedication to those classes. At the very least, high-level NPCs built with base classes only won't suddenly have a weird dip in power and options.
Here you are completely correct. I really cannot argue with things like the capstone powers. They provide great flavor and come into play only at the end of a character's career, so their impact on balance is not great. The only thing to bear in mind here, I think, is the possible impact on play beyond level 20, should that ever be added and supported in the Pathfinder RPG. It is best to take that into account now, even though higher levels might not be on the agenda at the moment.
On the other hand, some of the abilities gained throughout levels do add to the power level and it would be nice for the relevant classes (e.g. Wizard) to lose something in return for the new things they get. I do understand the need to keep pace with prestige classes, though perhaps some fixing of multiclassing could take some of the burden and not all burden need be shifted on new abilities for the main classes. Maybe have taking a prestige class cost a feat, or give a negative level (see above for how it could also apply to LA) for each extra class taken (maybe not including prestige classes)... these are just some ideas - I am sure something can be thought of.
I must note that some of the extra power added also adds great flavor, so much so, that I cannot complain about it. A good example of this would be the sorcerer bloodlines.
4) Part of a Beta's job is to test boundaries. We're testing those; finding out if people like having slightly more powerful characters for the reasons above.
For me it's a mixed bag. Where the increased power adds a huge amount of flavor or where the class was underpowered to begin with (e.g. Fighter or Paladin), I like the extra power. When the class was already powerful (e.g. Wizard), I am much less keen on it.
You should, however, not forget the impact of ill-defined power creep on backward compatibility. This would not be a major problem if precise guidelines were available as to how much power increase there is vis-a-vis 3.5E D&D - if you could give us a table saying say: +2 ECL at levels 1-10, +1 ECL at levels 11-20 (numbers used for illustrative purposes only). This would enable easy adjustment of challenges and adventures. I undestand, though, that this kind of table might be next to impossible to make with any degree of accuracy.
I simply cannot see the implied consistent overpowering of races and classes in later 3.X releases.Who said it was consistent?
Nobody said it was consistent, but it is implied in the design goal, or else it would not make much sense to rebase the power level around the new material. After all, if it is not consistent, we might as well stick with the initial base.
|
Creative Director
|
My personal favorite example of power creep in WotC books is to compare the bugbear (which, I think, is a pretty solid middle of the road CR 2 monster) from the Monster Manual with the varag from Monster Manual 4. They're essentially the same exact monster, but the varag is pretty much better than the bugbear in every way. Almost as if it's design focus was "we need a new bugbear to fill the niche of bugbear since player characters are tougher than they were when the game first came out."
|
My personal favorite example of power creep in WotC books is to compare the bugbear (which, I think, is a pretty solid middle of the road CR 2 monster) from the Monster Manual with the varag from Monster Manual 4. They're essentially the same exact monster, but the varag is pretty much better than the bugbear in every way. Almost as if it's design focus was "we need a new bugbear to fill the niche of bugbear since player characters are tougher than they were when the game first came out."
Not only that, the Varag are only CR 1 as well; I'd put money on a Varag over a Bugbear any day of the week. Hell, the fact that they (the Varag) each carry a potion of cure moderate wounds alone puts them ahead. Not to mention their masterwork gear.
*sighs*
I don't see it as much as making classes on par with non-core classes (which Pathfinder won't 'officially' be able to use anyway!) as making *all* of the core classes appealing and fun to play, not just the Cleric, Druid, Wizard (un)holy trinity.
Enhancements to the Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian, Rogue, etc., are long overdue, but most especially to the Fighter and Sorcerer (IMO).
That being said, some of the enhancements to the Cleric and Wizard in particular might be a step in the wrong direction. I'm not sure that either of those classes needed quite so much help.
On this note I have to agree. Enhancements to the classes you mention were needed and I don't really have a problem with that (though I do think the option to sneak-attack everything for full damage for rogues went too far, but that's a specific issue, rather than a problem with the overall philoosoply).
And I precisely agree that it is more the Wizard and the Cleric whom I have in mind when I mention power-level increase in classes. Just to mention one change, for example, an increase from d4 to d6 provides a staggering 40% increase in average (mean) hit points, thus cutting into the vulnerabilities of classes that had a d4. Cleric at least lost something, while Wizars lost nothing and gained a whole lot of new stuff - more than Fighters gained for sure!
A good example of a gratuitous power increase would be the effective removal of meaningful prohibited schools. Apart from the increase in power this engenders, I don't actually see this providing any real benefits to the game. The system was not breaking the game, so the removal is not addressing any huge issues and the system provided great flavor, which is now largely removed.
I could see the case for weakening prohibited schools. For example, specialist Wizards would have to use a higher level spell slot to memorize a spell from a prohibited school (e.g. +1 level, but it could be higher depending on balance). Alternatively, Wizards could gain access to prohibited schools by spending feats. A system below can serve as an example:
Prohibited schools are completely off-limits to the specialist, but he can spend feats (let's call them something like Opposed/Forbidden/Neglected Knowledge) to unlock spell levels from his prohibited schools. One feat would unlock one spell level from one prohibited school, enabling the specialist to cast the relevant spells normally.
So for example: Neglected Knowledge: Necromancy 1 would unlock 1st level necromantic spells and would be a pre-requisite of Neglected Knowledge: Necromancy 2 and so the feat-chain would continue. Of course, Neglected Knowledge would get only one entry under feats (or even directly in the Wizard section) where the system would be explained, so as to save precious book space.
Of course, apart from the classes, the power level is also being raised for the races. The +2/+2/-2 does enhance the flavor of the races but perhaps something similar could be accomplished by having a +2/-2 mechanic, but the +2 could be assigned by the player to either of the two ability scores that currently both get a +2. Another alternative would be a +2/+1/-2 mechanic (at least the +1 would not automatically initially provide a +1 modifier).
Then there is also the general increase in power level through things like skill consolidation and removal of requirement of spending 2 skill points per rank in cross-class skill and so on. Of course, this at least solves real issues with the complexity of the skill system and is thus a good thing, but these small power increases all add up and need to be considered when making power-increasing changes to classes and races.
|
|
A good example of a gratuitous power increase would be the effective removal of meaningful prohibited schools.
I'm on the opposite side here. The entire *point* of a Wizard over a Sorcerer is to have all the cookies on your plate. I would much prefer if Specialization had a cost associated to it (feats would be my choice), and only made the Wizard better at that particular school, without affecting in any way his knowledge of other schools.
I've never liked Specialization, not since 2nd edition when you had to give up two or three pre-specified schools, and not even the easier-to-swallow 3rd edition version where you can just give up one school of your choice.
It becomes particularly odd when dealing with schools like Illusion or Necromancy, which aren't really 'schools' at all, but random theme collections of enchantments, evocations, etc. that fit a particular theme, and you can end up with an Enchanter specialist who *can't cast Fear* because that's a necromancy spell he's forbidden to use, or a Shadowcraft Mage Illusionist who *can't create light or darkness* because those are Evocations.
Making specialization bonuses into a series of feats that a Wizard (or anyone) can pick up would solve all of this silliness. The Specialist would still be paying a cost to be better at spells of School X (using up feats that he could have used on other stuff), but not arbitrarily being incapable of casting spells from another school that might have spells that used to be cross-school spells with his preferred school anyway! It would also create much more flexibility, as the 'specialist' could be of any spellcasting class, could pick and choose specialization bonuses and ignore others he doesn't want, and could even choose to 'dual-specialize' like the old 2E Kit Incantatrixes and get a few specialization bonuses with spells from both Abjuration and Enchantment, for instance.
Right now, the Specialization (and especially Universalist!) options just add a bunch of power with no real cost to the Wizard class. I don't think that they are needed. Making those options into a series of Feats would allow one to make a Pathfinder Wizard that is very much like a 3.5 Wizard, by simply using those Feat choices to pick up metamagics, item creation and / or spell masteries, instead of specialization or universalist abilities.
Yay backwards compatibility, as the entire difference between a Pathfinder Wizard 10 and a 3.5 Wizard 10 is *ten hit points.*
Yay flexibility, as the Pathfinder Wizard *can* have all of the cool Universalist or Specialist toys, at the *cost* of not having those feats to spend on the usual suspects.
Bonus flexibility, as Bards can now pick up a Specialist feat in Enchantment, or a Sorcerer can pick up a Specialization feat in Transmutation or Conjuration or whatever.
Suddenly an entire section of the book, these Specialization Feats (replacing the class feature text under the Wizard currently) become opened up to classes other than Wizard, vastly increasing their 'page-count value.' 'Cause entire pages devoted to abilities only available to a single class are less 'valuable' than pages devoted to Feats that Bards, Clerics, Druids, Sorcerers and Wizards can use. (Technically, Paladins and Rangers as well, but those Feats would likely be wasted on classes with such limited spellcasting and small spell lists...)
Do the same thing with Sorcerer Bloodlines (by adding bonus Feats to Sorcerers and turning the Bloodline abilities into Feat chains) and you've opened up the concept of Bloodlines to allow for fey-descended Bards and Celestial-descended Paladins and Wizards who have a dragon somewhere in their family tree. Extra bonus coolness!
|
|
It becomes particularly odd when dealing with schools like Illusion or Necromancy, which aren't really 'schools' at all, but random theme collections of enchantments, evocations, etc. that fit a particular theme, and you can end up with an Enchanter specialist who *can't cast Fear* because that's a necromancy spell he's forbidden to use, or a Shadowcraft Mage Illusionist who *can't create light or darkness* because those are Evocations.
I was commenting somewhere else that a lot of the problems I see with specialisation is that the schools just make bugger-all sense in many cases, and haven't since forever. The idea of schools might not be a bad one, but the actual schools we have? Bizarro.
In response to the original post, there were so many examples of over-powered classes, feats, items, etc., that all of us collectively could scarsely point them all out.
Two examples that immediately jump to my mind (that were exploited by my players, are the Frenzied Beserker prestige class (when they power attack (x4 Str Dmg) they are doing 50+ minimum HP on a normal hit and can't be taken down by most monsters period because of their Frenzy ability, the Ur Priest (9th level spells at 15th level).
The endless stream of splat books from WoTC made the "watering-down" of 3.5 inevitable. That is unfortunate, as it was a wonderful system in its early days. Pathfinder has gotten us back to the sweet and simple game that 3.5 once was. And Pathfinder benefits from 8+ years of 3.0/3.5 material and playtesting, instead of 4th ed.'s scrapping all of that, starting from scratch, and undoubtedly now cutting its teeth with all the loopholes and headaches inherrant in developing any new system.
An overhaul of 3.5 was sorely needed. I for one am grateful that Pathfinder was an option, rather than merely flushing everything that was 3.0/3.5.
|
|
It's analogous to why polymorph became more and more powerful over the course of 3e. More options = More power.
Polymorph, Summoning magic, any sort of mind control / charm / dominate magic, rebuke/command, Leadership feat, high ranks of Diplomacy, 'monsters as PC races,' etc. are *all* threatened by my number one pet peeve, NPC options that use different rules and guidelines than PC options.
Shapeshifting magic, summoning, leadership, etc. would be much more viable if there were no 'gotcha' monsters out there with abilities that would be ridiculous and game-wrecking if a PC ever got their hands on them (such as Efreeti wish-granting or Shadow infinite-spawn-creation).
4E has tried to 'fix' this by getting rid of shapeshifting, mind control magics, summoning magics, etc. but this, IMO, is a terrible fix. It fixes only the symptom, not the root problem, which is a fundemental imbalance built into the game.
As long as there are 'monsters' out there with abilities that the PCs could never be allowed to have, the PCs will never be able to shapeshift into, summon, attract as a cohort, rebuke/command, etc. them, nor will they even be able to *bribe them with money* to abuse their natural abilities to become fabulously wealthy and powerful, no matter how incredibly in their own self-interest it would be to do so. The creature with this power is *trapped* by this power to never, ever be able to use that power intelligently or effectively, as it would 'wreck the game' if an Efreeti with a higher IQ than a bowl of sour milk ever said to some mortal ally (one that *he* perhaps attracted with the Leadership feat...), 'Hey, I'll give you one Wish for every one you make on my behalf, and, together, we'll rule the universe with our infinite Wish-granted power!'
Shapeshifting, summoning, Leadership, etc. aren't broken. Totally unbalanced monsters, including such unlikely suspects as the Maug or War Troll, are what makes these options so out of whack.
The solution is to have a 'fantasy' game that has no Enchantmers or Conjurors or Polymorphers/Wild Shapers, while still trying to pretend to be a 'fantasy' game, despite the Wizard becoming just a fighter that uses lazors to do damage instead of a sword and bow.
Polymorph, Summoning magic, any sort of mind control / charm / dominate magic, rebuke/command, Leadership feat, high ranks of Diplomacy, 'monsters as PC races,' etc. are *all* threatened by my number one pet peeve, NPC options that use different rules and guidelines than PC options.Shapeshifting magic, summoning, leadership, etc. would be much more viable if there were no 'gotcha' monsters out there with abilities that would be ridiculous and game-wrecking if a PC ever got their hands on them (such as Efreeti wish-granting or Shadow infinite-spawn-creation).
I am mostly with you here, but some of those 'gotcha' monsters are classic and add flavor to the game. The point is that their abilities should be limited in such a way as to preserve flavor yet make them not ridiculous to world integrity. That generally means removing infinities: no infinite spawn creation (perhaps the number of spawn cannot exceed X times the Charisma score [where X might even be 1]) and no infinite wishes (perhaps they are limited to X per individual and/or per time period).
4E has tried to 'fix' this by getting rid of shapeshifting, mind control magics, summoning magics, etc. but this, IMO, is a terrible fix. It fixes only the symptom, not the root problem, which is a fundemental imbalance built into the game.
I agree that 4E chose the absolute worst way to fix those issues: it removed all the abilities considered problematic or turned them into trivial abilities. This kills the game for me, because those fantasy abilities are a staple of what I want in my fantasy. I would rather have a completely and utterly unbalanced system than a system that removes these abilities altogether or renders them meaningless, because the latter system just does not inspire me to play a fantasy game at all.
Re: your post about generalists and specialists: I am a big fan of allowing the player to chose to be bad at something (and balancing it with other benefits). For me, that adds a huge amount of flavor to the game. Hence, I am very keen on bringing back prohibited schools (but not making them truly 'prohibited', rather merely more difficult to use - see my post above on the matter for more details of how I would do so).
|
An artificer, on paper, seems very limited, with only a handful of infusions and crafting features. But, allow the artificer to build a selection of wands and scrolls, and they can then access as many single spells as they choose to, ever published. Granted, the lead time for the artificer is longer than the wizard, but the artificer does not have even the flimsy limit of a spellbook to limit their potential. Additionally, the artificer will not have any reasonable limit, aside from downtime restriction, on having the best gear available for their wealth and level.
I've seen a very broken artificer. A player was showing me his character from another game. persistant swift fly, persistant mage armor, persistant shield, (he had a few other persistant protective spells but I can't remember off hand) burning a 50 charges from a staff with polar ray in it could (and had if the story is correct) solo kill a colossal red dragon (energy admixture (sonic), maximized, empowered, then twin). To top it all off he's got a homonculus (in a portable hole) working on magic item while adventureing so no lack of off time.