|
Can you honestly say that an Aasimar level 2 Magus/10 Eldritch Knight would be overpowered?See my response to this logic above.
Nowhere is there a precedent that the plurality of the word "spells" is indicative of part of the prerequisite.
It has been accepted that a 5th level Wizard can qualify, even though if they have less than a 16 Int, they only have one (1) 3rd level spell they can cast.
But they know more than one spell. Also your argument about precedent goes both ways. Because "RAW" doesn't state X doesn't mean you can do Y.
Expect table variation.
No, but where did I imply that I would and what relevance does "power" have in this conversation?
Table variation occurs because these combinations and builds require interpretation. Everyone is going to interpret all of this information differently, thus table variation. Even when you wholeheartedly believe something is clear and as straightforward as possible, there will still be some player or GM out there who doesn't see it your way. Expect table variation.
|
|
11 and 12 are not the only levels in the game. You could easily have compared at 6, 8, or even 10.Rogue Eidolon, I can't help but notice that you chose odd levels when even levels would be worse for the mystic theurge and even levels when odd would be worse for the mystic theurge.
In addition, your straight cleric build has superior hit points, can cast while wearing armor without penalty, superior base attack bonus, better fortitude save, better channels, and a pair of 8th level domain powers.
I didn't choose 12th in the initial build because it granted the capstone, which is hard to weigh, since it can be strong or weak depending on how tactical one is. I mentioned this in that post--that I intended to compare at 12 (the level of becoming a Seeker) but pulled it down to 11 so I wouldn't have to compare the capstone.
EDIT: I see I didn't word the fact that I pulled it from 12 to 11 very well.
True, or even 14, the best level for the Cleric3/Sor1/Theurge. I picked 12 because it's special level in PFS. If you wish, I will do every level.
Levels 1-3: You level all of these in cleric, so no comparison necessary.
Level 4: You haven't even lost any class features here yet at all. Lose 1 1st and 1 2nd cleric spell per day to get 5 1st-level sorcerer spells per day, cantrips, and the bloodline power. Versatility not included, the spells would be considered an even trade if you could access sorcerer spells from pearls. But you're actually ahead in class features (for the only level ever). This is advantage theurge, which surprised me--I expected to have more weak levels.
Level 5: You make up the 1st and 2nd cleric spell, gaining one more sorcerer spell. You comparatively lose 3 3rd-level cleric spells and some class features. Combined spells isn't too useful for you either. This is the saddest level for Cleric3/Sorc1/Theurge. It's bad.
Level 6: You are now behind by 1 2nd and 1 3rd level spell, and you still only have 7 1st-level sorcerer spells to show for it. This is still bad.
Level 7: You are down 3 4th level cleric spells, and you're up 8 1st and 5 2nd level sorcerer spells. This is still not good news yet.
Level 8: You are now down 1 3rd and 1 4th cleric. But you have 8 1st and 6 2nd level sorcerer spells. You are now ahead in spells by the Pearl of Power index. However, the cleric just got the 8th level domain powers, which might be pretty good.
Level 9: You are down 3 5th level cleric spells. But you have 8 1st, 7 2nd, and 5 3rd level sorcerer spells. This strengthens you lead on the Pearl of Power index, but you're a spell level down for the moment.
Level 10: OK, now you're playing with power. You're only down 1 4th and 1 5th level spell, and you have 8/8/6 sorcerer spells. You curbstomp the straight cleric on the Pearl of Power index, over doubling the value of your slots to hers.
Level 11: The cleric strikes back. She's now 3 6th level spells ahead of you. However, you have 8/8/7/5 sorcerer spells, so you're still nearly doubling her PoP index, and you can have some pretty powerful 4th level arcane spells available.
Level 12: I already did this one above. You over triple her PoP index.
Level 13: Now cleric's got some big toys. She has three 7th level spells that you don't have. But you have 9/8/8/7/5 sorcerer spells. Her extra value is 147k to your 350k.
Level 14: You've capstoned, and it's totally worth more than cleric's level 8 domain powers. If you weren't playing a channel-focused build (and let's face it, the example cleric who boosted wisdom to match the theurge is not playing a channel-focused build), this once per day ability is a gamechanger that can be worth more than all the class features you lost, if you play it just right. It's not just three spells per round, you get a caster level and DC boost as well. Anyway, the cleric is up one 6th and one 7th. You have 9/8/8/8/6 extra spells from 1 to 5. Her PoP index is 85k. Yours is 391k!
Level 15-20: Since you can't keep taking the prestige class, you're clearly not getting any better compared to cleric, although you could gather the level 8 domain powers if you wished, ending with the casting ability of an 18th-level cleric and a 12-level sorcerer or a 19th-level cleric and an 11th-level sorcerer or even a 17th-level cleric and an 13th-level sorcerer.
So when is this ridiculous? You are equal at 3, stronger at 4, weaker for sure at 5-7, similar at 8, and undeniably much stronger at 10, 12, and 14. At level 9 and particularly at 11 and 13, you still have a large advantage (an enormous advantage at 11 and 13) via the PoP index, but it's true that you're missing out on the next level of spells entirely. However, that's nothing full oracles and sorcerers don't have to live with for all their days, and those classes get along fine. If you consider the Cleric3/Sor1/MT versus a pure oracle, the comparison is even more advantageous. You definitively win back 5th and 7th level, you're never behind by a spell level, thus leaving 6th level as the only level where you're at a disadvantage of PoP index.
|
|
I don't really have a problem with these "corner case characters". You can already build cripplingly overpowering characters without any trickery (Archer, Slumber Witch, Summoner).
My only caveat, and I think this is in part what Kyle is saying, is that when your build requires pages and pages of FAQs and Errata and forum threads to clarify and justify, you're putting a GM in an awkward position. Because now she has to make the decision on the spot to allow or disallow whatever it is you're putting in front of her with very limited time to sift through all the details.
When you have a complicated or obscure build or schtick, it's your responsibility to do everything you can to avoid disrupting the game. You need to warn the GM ahead of time. You need to give them the information they need to make a ruling. You need to abide by that ruling. You need to make sure you're not bogging down combat with tons of extra rolls and checks and rules explanations. And if your build is especially powerful, you need to make sure you're not overshadowing the rest of the table.
I think that last part is especially important, as it's often overlooked when a player first realizes that they can make a game-breaking character.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@Rogue Eidolon: I don't think the PoP index is a valid measurement of power, given that it counts lots of low-level spells that you'll never cast anyway. There comes a point where no matter how many 1st-level spells you have, they're not as good as having a whole additional spell level on top.
A 4th-level pearl is 16,000gp, while a 1st-level is 1,000gp. So your index (if I'm understanding it right) says that if I cast 16 more 1st-level spells than you, then I've made up for a 4th-level spell you've cast.
Somehow, that doesn't ring true to me. Does it really seem valid to you?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
My only caveat, and I think this is in part what Kyle is saying, is that when your build requires pages and pages of FAQs and Errata and forum threads to clarify and justify, you're putting a GM in an awkward position. Because now she has to make the decision on the spot to allow or disallow whatever it is you're putting in front of her with very limited time to sift through all the details.
To be fair, this knocks out the entire Magus class (or at least, the use of its primary class features). Though I get your actual point, and it's a valid one, we have to be careful not to over-apply it. There some off-the-shelf PCs that require more FAQs/errata references than some corner case builds.
|
|
@Rogue Eidolon: I don't think the PoP index is a valid measurement of power, given that it counts lots of low-level spells that you'll never cast anyway. There comes a point where no matter how many 1st-level spells you have, they're not as good as having a whole additional spell level on top.
A 4th-level pearl is 16,000gp, while a 1st-level is 1,000gp. So your index (if I'm understanding it right) says that if I cast 16 more 1st-level spells than you, then I've made up for a 4th-level spell you've cast.
Somehow, that doesn't ring true to me. Does it really seem valid to you?
I'm happy to remove the 1st-level spells from the index when we get to high levels, they don't add much to it (you never even get 16 of them, so it's more like whether 9 1st level can compare to a 3rd level, and I think if I looked for it, I could find something that does so--Shield of Faith comes to mind). However, I am confident that 2nd-level spells are incredibly useful even at high levels. To avoid spoilers, I won't name the scenario, but I GMed a 10-11 where the party nearly TPKed and would have cakewalked if they had prebuffed resist energy spells. That's just one of many amazing uses for 2nd-level spells. The idea is that you use some of the slots for prebuffs, so you actually do cast all of them. I've seen a Mystic Theurge (a normal one) save the party's butts many times in my Rise of the Runelords game using buffs and spontaneous breath of lifes with preferred spell. He certainly prevented a TPK to my version of the BBEG.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Looks like the answer is that the FAQ was not assuming PC-allowed races, so they're arcane unless PFS management decides to rule otherwise.
Partial quote below, more available in links:
By not saying anything to the contrary, they are accepting (and enforcing) the idea that all PC-allowed races have arcane spell like abilities.
Naturally Mike could still overrule this (as was already, and always is, the case), but at least we know the intent of the FAQ on this point.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
AAAAAND we got moved to the rules forum, lol...
Dang. I specifically started this thread so that GMs who don't read the rules forum could be aware of the topic and not get blindsided by this down the road and burn valuable table time.
Could we possibly move this back to PFS General Discussion?
About the Mystic Theurge and spontaneous casters, MT specifically says you gain spells known as granted from advancing in the base classes (without specifying any specific class feature as the only valid source of those spells known). That should include any Bloodline/Mystery spells, because if they didn't count as spells known then nobody could cast them. That applies to pretty much all caster PrCs. Of course, this just means PrCs treat spontaneous casters with 'auxiliary' spells known similar to prepared casters with 'auxiliary' spell slots (like Clerics or Spec. Wizards), even though the implementing rules logic is different for each approach. (while spontaneous castes are still a level behind in spell progression)
If this is being compared on a 'power' basis, it seems reasonable to compare it to a race that gets bonus spells known for Favored Class Bonus, which cannot apply to PrCs. That would be for comparison to a single class caster, as well as giving such non-SLA races a boost at low levels, before and after entering the PrC. Although you should probably count the racial SLAs as spells known/spell slots as well, for that comparison.
|
|
You are equal at 3, stronger at 4, weaker for sure at 5-7, similar at 8, and undeniably much stronger at 10, 12, and 14. At level 9 and particularly at 11 and 13, you still have a large advantage (an enormous advantage at 11 and 13) via the PoP index, but it's true that you're missing out on the next level of spells entirely.I'm not sure 1 - 3 is equal since you're having to choose your race based on the exploit rather than standard optimization. Not a huge difference. You're also not taking into consideration any of the cleric's non-spell casting advantages, of which there are several. That said, over all I do agree this is stronge than the standard.
Another question though, what is the PoP index? My good ol' friend google won't tell me.
Sorry, I started abbreviating partway through. It's the value of Pearls of Power to cover those spell slots, if you could buy them all with Pearls of Power. I agree vis-a-vis races, but Plumekith aasimar (or Archonblooded now with the clarification that the continual flame is definitely arcane) are a pretty powerful choice for a Wisdom-based caster anyways.
Spells known don't include class features and bloodline spells, etc. are all class features that simply add to your spells known, rather than being spells known directly. The only exception that I know of is that the oracle should gain all cure spells they are able to cast.
so how do you cast them? they are specified as 'in addition' to the base table, which clearly suggests they are of the same kind. the PrCs flat out do not specify the class feature from which these features may be drawn, so on what basis do you apply that limitation, which would have been easy to enunciate in the rules? if i write up a base class that grants spellslots and spellsknown individually via different class features (without a central table), what is stopping normal casting PrCs from being compatable with granting that progression 'as if advancing in that class'?
To be honest?
This should have negligible impact. Concerns about table variation seem, to me, to be a red herring; table variation always exists; I don't really see this making it worse, unless I'm somehow the exception and the
'rule' is that GMs don't require you to go over your characters with them before you start the game.
And with the overall 'nerfed' power of PrCs, I see this as a positive change because it might actually make a few of them worth trying out. As it stood, the only time I bothered thinking about playing a PrC was when the game was starting at 7th+, and I could be taking my first level in it immediately.
|
Can you honestly say that an Aasimar level 2 Magus/10 Eldritch Knight would be overpowered?See my response to this logic above.
Nowhere is there a precedent that the plurality of the word "spells" is indicative of part of the prerequisite.
It has been accepted that a 5th level Wizard can qualify, even though if they have less than a 16 Int, they only have one (1) 3rd level spell they can cast.
But they know more than one spell. Also your argument about precedent goes both ways. Because "RAW" doesn't state X doesn't mean you can do Y.
Expect table variation.
No, but where did I imply that I would and what relevance does "power" have in this conversation?
Table variation occurs because these combinations and builds require interpretation. Everyone is going to interpret all of this information differently, thus table variation. Even when you wholeheartedly believe something is clear and as straightforward as possible, there will still be some player or GM out there who doesn't see it your way. Expect table variation.
You know I agree with you for the most part. We've had this conversation at least a couple times.
Table variation does happen.
However, I also feel it would be part of the "don't be a jerk" rule for a GM in PFS, to declare an entire character illegal, based on his personal interpretation on a rule, especially when the character really isn't overpowered.
Does it "feel" wrong to get a prestige class so early simply because of your choice of race? Yup.
Does it "feel" wrong to get a prestige class so early when part of the balancing act done for prestige classes was determining when they could even be taken? Yup.
Does it break the game? Nope.
So as a GM, you'd have to determine if you want to tell someone who brings a level 6+ character to your table that "sorry, because my interpretation of this ambiguous rule is different from yours, you can't play your character at my table."
|
Everyone's talking about Mystic Theurge and such but the big thing for me is early access to Bloatmage. That makes a lot more sense for that particular PrC than waiting until level 6. I am excite.
I was very happy to wait until Wizard 5 for bloatmage to get my lvl 5 bonus feat and an Arcane Discovery with it.
|
|
However, I also feel it would be part of the "don't be a jerk" rule for a GM in PFS, to declare an entire character illegal, based on his personal interpretation on a rule, especially when the character really isn't overpowered.Tell me, who's the jerk: the GM that tells a player he can't play because he thinks the character is illegal, or the player that puts the GM in that position by using obscure rulings to do something that is technically legal?
Seriously, if you're building a character around a FAQ ruling, bring the FAQ, and be prepared for table variation.
BS, if you bring the FAQ ruling, and you have all your ducks in a row, then the GM shouldn't be making a ruling that would make your character illegal.
There are some legitimate ambiguities that really ride the line of "I wonder if this is legal or not." Riding those lines as a player, you take it into your own hands if table variation occurs.
But if there is only a small amount of ambiguity (and there doesn't appear to be any here to me), then why, as a GM, would you even consider ruling that someone's character is illegal if they have the sources to back themselves up?
Why, as a GM, would you even consider making it table variation in this situation?
However, I also feel it would be part of the "don't be a jerk" rule for a GM in PFS, to declare an entire character illegal, based on his personal interpretation on a rule, especially when the character really isn't overpowered.Tell me, who's the jerk: the GM that tells a player he can't play because he thinks the character is illegal, or the player that puts the GM in that position by using obscure rulings to do something that is technically legal?
Seriously, if you're building a character around a FAQ ruling, bring the FAQ, and be prepared for table variation.
If it's PFS, the DM can take his table variation and stuff it. As long as it's PFS legal a player can bring the FAQ, sit at a table and watch the DM foam while he plays his character. PFS is as RAW as RAW gets.
If it's a home game, you can expect table variation on everything, up to and including how hit dice are rolled, how much, if any, xp you gain for roleplay and even how much roleplay is approppriate or even necessary.
Yup.
OK, but it's just a bit hard to swallow when the conventional wisdom up till recently always involved the full level slog, and never considered SLA races to be in a specially optimal race to accelerate/accentuate the power of these PrCs. sort of strange if that was intended all along.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it's PFS, the DM can take his table variation and stuff it. As long as it's PFS legal a player can bring the FAQ, sit at a table and watch the DM foam while he plays his character. PFS is as RAW as RAW gets.
If it's a home game, you can expect table variation on everything, up to and including how hit dice are rolled, how much, if any, xp you gain for roleplay and even how much roleplay is approppriate or even necessary.
A PFS judge has as much right to walk away from the table as a player does.
You know what sounds like the opposite of fun? Playing a 4-hour game with someone that actively resents your character.
If your character is going to trivialize encounters, whether or not it's some corner case build, the best thing you can do is put the GM's mind at ease by letting him know, "hey, I know this has the potential to unbalance things. I'm going to make sure everyone else gets a chance to shine and only take off the kid gloves if it's clear we need it."
Somewhat relevant example. I was doing a dungeon crawl, and my character started using his Gloves of Reconnaissance to scout out each room. After a few rooms, the GM took me aside and politely asked me to stop using them because it was going to remove what little challenge the mod had to offer us. I agreed immediately and we carried on.
Antagonism is a horrible way to start a game.
I don't see the unbalancing factor.
Really, if there is some numbers available to show me what I am missing, then I can reconsider.
Seriously agree.
Its a primary spellcaster. Its high end power is in its ability to cast spells, and that's ALWAYS going to be tied to the biggest baddest spells available to you.
And guess what... Theurges are still at least a level behind. Plus they're also probably splitting their casting stats (unless its a sorc/oracle, and now they're TWO levels behind a pure wizard).
What they actually gain now is versatility and staying power... something that they didn't really gain before, as they only got extra low level spells, and their total spells per day weren't actually that far ahead of anyone. Certainly, their versatility wasn't ahead of what UMD could provide in many cases.
In a way, this may actually let things work as described or intended for this prestige class.
Certainly, I don't see how a theurge can be more powerful than a pure Wizard... but at least they're close.
|
|
Everyone's talking about Mystic Theurge and such but the big thing for me is early access to Bloatmage. That makes a lot more sense for that particular PrC than waiting until level 6. I am excite.I was very happy to wait until Wizard 5 for bloatmage to get my lvl 5 bonus feat and an Arcane Discovery with it.
Yeah, I actually thought about it and decided I don't love it so much after all. Maybe I'm weird but I really don't play Aasimar all that often. ;p
|
|
However, I also feel it would be part of the "don't be a jerk" rule for a GM in PFS, to declare an entire character illegal, based on his personal interpretation on a rule, especially when the character really isn't overpowered.Tell me, who's the jerk: the GM that tells a player he can't play because he thinks the character is illegal, or the player that puts the GM in that position by using obscure rulings to do something that is technically legal?
Seriously, if you're building a character around a FAQ ruling, bring the FAQ, and be prepared for table variation.
The GM, because he/she is banning a legal character.
|
|
I don't see the unbalancing factor.
Really, if there is some numbers available to show me what I am missing, then I can reconsider.
Seriously agree.
Its a primary spellcaster. Its high end power is in its ability to cast spells, and that's ALWAYS going to be tied to the biggest baddest spells available to you.
And guess what... Theurges are still at least a level behind. Plus they're also probably splitting their casting stats (unless its a sorc/oracle, and now they're TWO levels behind a pure wizard).
What they actually gain now is versatility and staying power... something that they didn't really gain before, as they only got extra low level spells, and their total spells per day weren't actually that far ahead of anyone. Certainly, their versatility wasn't ahead of what UMD could provide in many cases.
In a way, this may actually let things work as described or intended for this prestige class.
Certainly, I don't see how a theurge can be more powerful than a pure Wizard... but at least they're close.
I know the idea of the "highest spell slot only" is very popular, but if this were so, then sorcerers would be irrecoverably behind wizards at all odd levels, not even able to compete, and I just don't think that's the case, from plenty of play at a variety of levels.
The Cleric2/EmpSorc1/MT has the same highest spell level as a Wizard or Cleric at all even levels--and it's never behind an oracle or sorcerer on that front, at any level. It has huge versatility and phenomenal staying power--I haven't done the math, but it should be a substantial increase from the math I did above for Cleric3.
|
|
Why would someone resent these PCs?
Is every PrC so sacred?
Balance is not hurt here, just feelings.
If your character is going to trivialize encounters, whether or not it's some corner case build...
I'm talking about any character that's going to overpower the table or slow down the game with extra overhead. It's just about being considerate to the rest of the table.
And if your special build isn't all that powerful, it certainly wouldn't hurt to try to put the GM's mind at ease up front, letting her know that you're not going to dominate the group.
And, you know, following through on that once the game starts.
|
The issue of whether being an aasimar makes your SLA divine instead of arcane is a topic for the rules forum (and one I'd very much like to see answered, so perhaps I'll start the thread...).
And if it does make it divine? then you simply have a level 1 cleric/level 3 wizard and the same thing--say an idylkin aasimar with SNA 2.
|
|
For all those worried about "increased staying power", in PFS the sorcerer doesn't really have this issue beyond about 3rd-4th level anyway. Beyond those levels I think my 11 sor could probably count on 1 hand the number of times he ran out of spells in any slot other than his top one.
Did you build your sorcerer to have spammable prebuffs, though, knowing you would have tons of slots? I'm talking the evergreen low level spells that can save your butt all the way up to 20th.