PDA

View Full Version : Arcane heirophant qualification?



Paganboy28
2009-08-26, 04:56 AM
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=121582&highlight=arcane+heirophant

In the above post there is a build that uses 3 levels of wizard and 3 levels of druid to enter the Arcane Heirophant class.

But that doesn't meet the requiresments of a +4BAB....

Can someone explain how this works?

kamikasei
2009-08-26, 05:04 AM
The OP's build was in error, as pointed out in the thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6725097&postcount=9). (Note that, despite what that post says, Wizard 3/Druid 3 doesn't give you +4 BAB even with fractional BAB in play.)

Boci
2009-08-26, 05:08 AM
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=121582&highlight=arcane+heirophant

In the above post there is a build that uses 3 levels of wizard and 3 levels of druid to enter the Arcane Heirophant class.

But that doesn't meet the requiresments of a +4BAB....

Can someone explain how this works?

It doesn't. The point was raised by a poster but never adressed.

On a side note, it is possible to boost BAB by using partial BAB (ropgue 1 / cleric 1 has a BAB of 1 instead of 0) but not even that allow you to get BAB +4 with wizard 3 / druid 3. Only 3.75.

Paganboy28
2009-08-26, 05:20 AM
OK, just as noted it was never really dealt with and skimmed over.... people then came up with further builds based on Wiz 3/Druid 3...

Glad I am not going mad yet.

Paganboy28
2009-08-26, 06:58 AM
How come in the Races of the Wild description of the Arcane Heirophant, says that a 3rd level wizard, 3rd level druid, 4th level arcane heirophant has the wild shape ability of a 7th level druid???

Page 108 under the Wild Shape rules....


This suggests that its possible to go 3rd wizard/3rd druid???

Or is it a mistake on their part?

Boci
2009-08-26, 07:00 AM
How come in the Races of the Wild description of the Arcane Heirophant, says that a 3rd level wizard, 3rd level druid, 4th level arcane heirophant has the wild shape ability of a 7th level druid???

Page 108 under the Wild Shape rules....


This suggests that its possible to go 3rd wizard/3rd druid???

Or is it a mistake on their part?

Sample characters are wrong quite often. Eityher that or maybe the BAB +4 preq was a mistake.

Paganboy28
2009-08-26, 07:01 AM
Sample characters are wrong quite often. Eityher that or maybe the BAB +4 preq was a mistake.

Yup, thats what I am thinking. But gleemax is down so can't find out....

sofawall
2009-08-26, 10:47 AM
I suspect it has joined the ranks of such sample characters as the Abjurant Champion and Fiend-Blooded.

Paganboy28
2009-08-26, 11:56 AM
Hmm...

There is an errata for RotW....

I can see on the gleemax forums arcane 3/druid 3 builds.

Is this because they are using partial BAB cheese or something else?

sofawall
2009-08-26, 12:01 PM
Partial BAB is not cheese, for one thing. Next you'll be saying taking more than one prestige class is cheese.

Seriously, why do (most) people on this board have such a strong aversion to anything powerful? If it's more powerful than, say, a medium optimized Rogue, people start having problems. Is it just me, coming from Gleemax, or what?

Anyway, as has been pointed out, it only has 3.75 BAB with partial anyway, so it still doesn't work.

Boci
2009-08-26, 12:01 PM
Hmm...

There is an errata for RotW....

I can see on the gleemax forums arcane 3/druid 3 builds.

Is this because they are using partial BAB cheese or something else?

Partial BAB is not cheesy, just logical. And using it does not give you a BAB of +4, just +3.75.

Godskook
2009-08-26, 12:02 PM
The only druid 3/wizard 3/AH X builds I've seen involve mystic theurge, for Druid3/Wiz3/MT2/AH10/MT+2 Other than that, I don't think I've seen it.

Paganboy28
2009-08-26, 01:04 PM
Partial BAB is not cheese, for one thing. Next you'll be saying taking more than one prestige class is cheese.

Seriously, why do (most) people on this board have such a strong aversion to anything powerful? If it's more powerful than, say, a medium optimized Rogue, people start having problems. Is it just me, coming from Gleemax, or what?

Anyway, as has been pointed out, it only has 3.75 BAB with partial anyway, so it still doesn't work.


Well it may not be "cheesey" as somethings but its using the rules in a way that is mechanical rather than in the spirit of a roleplay game.

Sometimes it seems people design characters with loads of dips into classes to get an ability without any thought of the roleplay element. If we had to roleplay going to find someone to teach us how to become a [insert x number of y classes] then we would probably just either stick to a core class or limit ourselves to maybe one, at most 2 PrC's rather than trying to "optimise" a character.

Doing that reduces the game to a simple min/max logical calculation which has no roleplay "soul". This is what the computer MMORPG's end up as which just means everyone ends up like everyone else eventually.

Being a non-computer game, DnD is a roleplay game and people forget the roleplay element.

Anyway off topic.

Boci
2009-08-26, 01:09 PM
Well it may not be "cheesey" as somethings but its using the rules in a way that is mechanical rather than in the spirit of a roleplay game.

Not really. If you're a rogue 1 / cleric of mask 1 / monk 1 you should have a BAB better than that of a Wizard 2, (both mechanically and flavourwise) but without fractional BAB you do not.

As fdor the argument of "optomizing distracts from role play" I just don't get it. I have never played a character I considered weak. I always optomize, and yet somehow I can always role play as well.

As for the argument that it encounrages dipping, if someone wants to cherry pick some class features via dipping with no flavour justification, then I doubt the presence or absence of fractional BAB will change anything.

UserClone
2009-08-26, 01:16 PM
Well it may not be "cheesey" as somethings but its using the rules in a way that is mechanical rather than in the spirit of a roleplay game.

Sometimes it seems people design characters with loads of dips into classes to get an ability without any thought of the roleplay element. If we had to roleplay going to find someone to teach us how to become a [insert x number of y classes] then we would probably just either stick to a core class or limit ourselves to maybe one, at most 2 PrC's rather than trying to "optimise" a character.

Doing that reduces the game to a simple min/max logical calculation which has no roleplay "soul". This is what the computer MMORPG's end up as which just means everyone ends up like everyone else eventually.

Being a non-computer game, DnD is a roleplay game and people forget the roleplay element.

Anyway off topic.

Could someone link him to Stormwind Fallacy? I'm too lazy right now.

Kylarra
2009-08-26, 01:20 PM
Could someone link him to Stormwind Fallacy? I'm too lazy right now.

I should probably not feed the lazy, but whatever!


- Stormwind Fallacy: The statement that optimization (specifically character optimization) and roleplaying are mutually exclusive. Formally identified as a logical fallacy by WotC forum member Tempest Stormwind.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=574238&postcount=2

Optimystik
2009-08-26, 01:24 PM
To summarize the Stormwind Fallacy: Any sane adventurer's job is to (a) not die, and (b) be effective at his job. Thus, they have plenty of in-universe excuses to optimize themselves. A wizard who is going adventuring will logically do his best to procure a Headband of Intellect, so doing so would be quite in-character for him.

kamikasei
2009-08-26, 02:01 PM
This isn't particularly an instance of the Stormwind Fallacy. Rather, it's a difference in approaches to the game: some people see all classes as in-game entities, others see them as just bundles of mechanics used to make the character you want to play. A character isn't aware, in character, of how his levels are constructed or which classes he has dips in. He just knows what he can do. The argument that dips or careful building hinders roleplaying because you're ignoring having to go and find trainers and dedicate months of downtime to each new class doesn't make much sense, because all of that is being added in by the person making the argument. The only roleplaying being missed out on is arbitrary, entirely unnecessary stuff being erected as a deterrent to multiclassing.

Fractional BAB and saves are pretty much the opposite of cheese, since they even everything out to something more sensical than the RAW. You don't end up at level 10 with +2 BAB because you were attempting to build to a concept poorly supported by the standard classes (as if any build that hard to assemble needs further punishment); you don't end up with one good save common to all your classes pushed in to the stratosphere while the others languish in the mulch.

If Wizards made any effort to write well-balanced and distinctive classes which allowed you to easily represent a wide range of desirable abilities and styles, then I might take the implicit argument that trying to colour outside the lines they've set out is inherently an act of vandalism. As it is we've been handed a toolbox full of scraps and broken parts and shouldn't be begrudged a little sandpaper and oil to make things do what they should be capable of when the factory turns them out.

sadi
2009-08-26, 02:52 PM
So where are these rules for partial bab written at?

kamikasei
2009-08-26, 03:09 PM
I had thought they were on d20srd.org, but can't find them. However, the concept is simple enough. There are three progressions for BAB (good, average, poor) and two for saves (good, poor). If you look a base class 1-20 with each type, you can see the progression goes:

BAB:
Good = level,
Average = level * 3/4,
Poor = level/2;

Saves:
Good = level/2 + 2,
Poor = level/3.

So for your BAB and for each save, you just look at how many levels you have in classes granting which type of progression for it. You can tot them up first and then do the calculations, or you can just say that every level of Rogue grants you +0.75 BAB, +0.5 Ref, and +0.33 Fort and Will, for example. It would seem to me to make the most sense to only add the +2 to a good save once even if you have many classes for which it's a good save, but I don't know if that's part of the formal rules.

Wizards did an article about the whole thing here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20060303a), where they also consider fractional caster progression from PrCs, but some PrCs are irregular in that regard so it's more troublesome.

sofawall
2009-08-26, 03:10 PM
Umm, Unearthed Arcana, I believe.

EDIT: Oh, the ninja!

Yeah, it's one of the rules in Unearthed Arcana that isn't in the d20srd.

Douglas
2009-08-26, 03:14 PM
It would seem to me to make the most sense to only add the +2 to a good save once even if you have many classes for which it's a good save, but I don't know if that's part of the formal rules.
It isn't, and the official writeup in Unearthed Arcana is fairly explicit about going the other way. A Paladin 1/Monk 1 using fractional saves would have a +5 fort save.

kamikasei
2009-08-26, 03:18 PM
It isn't, and the official writeup in Unearthed Arcana is fairly explicit about going the other way. A Paladin 1/Monk 1 using fractional saves would have a +5 fort save.

Yeah, I remember finding that very silly - I mean, isn't it the kind of issue they were trying to get away from?

sofawall
2009-08-26, 03:19 PM
That makes less sense than the normal version...

Kamikasei is a skilled ninja indeed.

sadi
2009-08-26, 03:20 PM
Umm, Unearthed Arcana, I believe.

EDIT: Oh, the ninja!

Yeah, it's one of the rules in Unearthed Arcana that isn't in the d20srd.

That's probably why I've never heard of it. No one I've ever played a game with has that book.

sofawall
2009-08-26, 03:22 PM
It's actually the default in all my groups, despite no one I know owning the book. :D

Boci
2009-08-26, 03:22 PM
That's probably why I've never heard of it. No one I've ever played a game with has that book.

A lot of it can beso-so, but its hard to argue against the logic of fractional saves and BAB.

Douglas
2009-08-26, 03:23 PM
Yeah, I remember finding that very silly - I mean, isn't it the kind of issue they were trying to get away from?
No. They were trying to fix stuff like the rogue/bard having less BAB than a wizard, taking a PrC with the exact same BAB and save progressions resulting in a reduction in BAB and (bad) saves due solely to peculiarities in when the rounding gets done and the exact level split between base class and PrC, and so on. Stacking the first level +2 is an entirely separate issue and was apparently viewed as just an expected and intended benefit of multiclassing.

sadi
2009-08-26, 03:31 PM
A lot of it can beso-so, but its hard to argue against the logic of fractional saves and BAB.

But unfortunately I have to have it in print somewhere to get it dm approved. Since the current game I'm paying is basically core plus anything you can get approved besides.

Boci
2009-08-26, 03:45 PM
But unfortunately I have to have it in print somewhere to get it dm approved. Since the current game I'm paying is basically core plus anything you can get approved besides.

And "Here's a really cool houserule that obviously won't break the game and helps wil in the logic gaps of the current mechanics" isn't enough? That doesn't sound good.

sadi
2009-08-26, 04:04 PM
And "Here's a really cool houserule that obviously won't break the game and helps wil in the logic gaps of the current mechanics" isn't enough? That doesn't sound good.


New DM, only played 3.5 a few times. It's all an attempt not to lose control, I know that and I don't blame her. The group is all melee focused too, we have no ToB classes (because no one wanted to play one) 1 rogue, 1 bard, 4 melee types (fighter/ranger/paladins) and me, who is going for an arcane heirophant even though I'm only level 5.

Johanas
2009-08-26, 04:25 PM
And for the record, she did correct that build a ways down the post. By adding one more level of druid.

ShadowsGrnEyes
2009-08-26, 04:33 PM
yeah, I'm the original poster for the AH build in question. It was a typo that I corrected later down the post after it was pointed out to me. The proper build would have been Druid4/ Wizard3/ then AH.

I'm not aware of any way to get into the class any sooner. Though you could switch to Dru3/Wiz4 for the same effect as I believe wizards BA goes up at 4th as well.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-08-26, 10:35 PM
I'm not aware of any way to get into the class any sooner. Though you could switch to Dru3/Wiz4 for the same effect as I believe wizards BA goes up at 4th as well.Focused Specialist Wizard 1(Precocious Apprentice)/Druid 4/anything 1 works if you're going partial BAB. Otherwise you need Wiz 2/Druid 4. Either way, you've got entry after 6th, the same time a normal character could go Mystic Theurge.

Also, partial BAB isn't broken. Heck, I played with it for my first month before I was told that that wasn't how BAB worked.

DragoonWraith
2009-08-26, 11:13 PM
It seems like quite a few people assume that you use partial BAB without having read the actual partial BAB rules. It just makes sense.

Including the +2 on good saves is up for debate, but considering that in theory, 1st level class features should be much weaker than the Xth level of whatever else, it seems like a not-unfair bone to toss to multi-classed characters. Of course, as CharOp is all-too-aware, there are lots of instances where that isn't the case.

At any rate, you should definitely get the +2 at least once per good save that you have. Repeated +2's... eh, again, debatable. I'd probably side with "no", but it's really not that big a deal most of the time.

Myrmex
2009-08-27, 12:22 PM
To summarize the Stormwind Fallacy: Any sane adventurer's job is to (a) not die, and (b) be effective at his job. Thus, they have plenty of in-universe excuses to optimize themselves. A wizard who is going adventuring will logically do his best to procure a Headband of Intellect, so doing so would be quite in-character for him.

That doesn't demonstrate a fallacy though, since you are only using an argument to counter another argument. The actual fallacy is that somehow optimization & roleplaying are mutually exclusive activities. While there is not necessarily a logical connection, there is certainly an anecdotal one.

The fallacy is:
If optimization, then no roleplay. It's essentially been declared a non sequitor (latin for does not follow), since there is nothing inherent in either of those activities that prohibit the other.


This isn't particularly an instance of the Stormwind Fallacy. Rather, it's a difference in approaches to the game: some people see all classes as in-game entities, others see them as just bundles of mechanics used to make the character you want to play. A character isn't aware, in character, of how his levels are constructed or which classes he has dips in. He just knows what he can do. The argument that dips or careful building hinders roleplaying because you're ignoring having to go and find trainers and dedicate months of downtime to each new class doesn't make much sense, because all of that is being added in by the person making the argument. The only roleplaying being missed out on is arbitrary, entirely unnecessary stuff being erected as a deterrent to multiclassing.

PrC's have a lot of associated fluff, many with fluff requirements. Even the DMG describes PrCs as special, optional classes that should be "tailored" for your campaign. The idea behind many PrCs isn't "OOPS I HAZ SPESHUL POWERS PEW PEW!!" but a mechanical representation of things that should have come about through roleplay- association with a guild or organization, a follower of a particular ideology or religion, or some specialized training.

lsfreak
2009-08-27, 01:57 PM
The issue of having many classes depends on how much weight you put on written fluff, versus being able to refluff something. With the written fluff, you're right that often it doesn't make sense. Insert your own fluff - that is, roleplay your character well - and a lot of options make perfect sense. See Eldariel's bard/arcane archer/sublime chord/sacred exorcist/abjurant champion. Using written fluff it makes zero sense, using Eldariel's fluff the character is unique with an very well-written background and perfectly acceptable reasons for his class choices.

Myrmex
2009-08-27, 03:08 PM
The issue of having many classes depends on how much weight you put on written fluff, versus being able to refluff something. With the written fluff, you're right that often it doesn't make sense. Insert your own fluff - that is, roleplay your character well - and a lot of options make perfect sense. See Eldariel's bard/arcane archer/sublime chord/sacred exorcist/abjurant champion. Using written fluff it makes zero sense, using Eldariel's fluff the character is unique with an very well-written background and perfectly acceptable reasons for his class choices.

In some cases, you can make mechanics fit the fluff. But in other cases, you have to jump through hoops to make the fluff fit the crunch. Like anthropomorphic bat druids or godless clerics of death & planning.

panaikhan
2010-03-24, 08:20 AM
I'm working on an AH build byself.
I'm looking at an Illumian (Races of Destiny) so I can boost my effective spell casting level, and I'm pretty sure a Druid 4 / Mage 2 can qualify - the earliest I've managed yet.
I've also considered Druid 3 / Mage 2 / Fighter 1 (or variants of the same).
Skill ranks require a minimum of 5 levels - it's the BAB that bites.