Are There Other Ultimate Magus-Type PrCs?

[Palanan]

Is there a list of all the PrCs which simultaneously advance two casting classes? Apart from Ultimate Magus, I’m aware of the Arcane Hierophant, Fochlucan Lyrist and the Green Whisperer from Dragon 311, and of course Mystic Theurge. I’m sure there are others I’m not bringing to mind, just wondered if these had been indexed in some handy link somewhere.

And in particular, are there other PrCs which allow you to power spellcasting on one side using spell slots on the other, as per the UM’s augmented casting?

[Falontani]

True necromancer from lm
There is another in tome of magic for shadowcasters

[Mike Miller]

I don't know of a list, but if you see Eldritch in the name, that is usually an indication of duel progression.

[flappeercraft]

Might I link you to the Theurge Handbook (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?224999-The-Urge-to-Theurge-A-Theurge-Handbook-WIP)? There is a lot of what you ask for and more.

[liquidformat]

True necromancer from lm
There is another in tome of magic for shadowcasters

Shhh do not mention that blasphemous class!

[ExLibrisMortis]

Mind Mage is the arcane/psionic version of Ultimate Magus. I mean, not explicitly, but it does many of the same things.

[noob]

If you start talking about dual progression classes.
Then there is also mystic theurge.
There is also the mind mage but adapted to psionics(legal as an adaptation) which progress two times psionic classes(and nothing prevents you from progressing twice the same class)

[Scots Dragon]

Okay then...

Mystic Theurge (Arcane/Divine), from the Dungeon Master's Guide

Cerebremancer (Arcane/Psionics), from the Expanded Psionics Handbook

Fochlucan Lyrist (Bard/Druid), from Complete Adventurer

Eldritch Disciple (Divine/Invocation), from Complete Mage

Eldritch Theurge (Arcane/Invocation), from Complete Mage

Ultimate Magus (Arcane Prepared/Spontaneous), from Complete Mage

True Necromancer (Cleric/Necromancer), from Libris Mortis

Sapphire Hierarch (Divine/Incarnum), from Magic of Incarnum

Soulcaster (Arcane/Incarnum), from Magic of Incarnum

Arcane Hierophant (Arcane/Druid), from Races of the Wild

Jade Phoenix Mage (Arcane/Martial Adept), from Tome of Battle - this and the RKV are included but you may or may not actually qualify them as magic-users but instead being closer to eldritch knight type gishes, which is fair. I'm just including them here for completeness.

Ruby Knight Vindicator (Divine/Martial Adept), from Tome of Battle

Anima Mage (Arcane/Vestiges), from Tome of Magic

Tenebrous Apostate (Divine/Vestiges), from Tome of Magic

Noctumancer (Arcane/Shadowcasting), from Tome of Magic


There are probably a few others in Dragon Magazine, but I haven't the patience to go through every issue of that.

[Psyren]

Might I link you to the Theurge Handbook (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?224999-The-Urge-to-Theurge-A-Theurge-Handbook-WIP)? There is a lot of what you ask for and more.


Shhh do not mention that blasphemous class!

It's actually not bad since it stacks with Mystic Theurge (despite neither class being divine), letting you hit double-9s. Having a form of casting that doesn't need any verbal components can be useful no matter how limited it might be. The fact that you don't have to level up as a Shadowcaster to qualify (thanks to Creeping Darkness) helps too.

[umbergod]

It's actually not bad since it stacks with Mystic Theurge (despite neither class being divine), letting you hit double-9s. Having a form of casting that doesn't need any verbal components can be useful no matter how limited it might be. The fact that you don't have to level up as a Shadowcaster to qualify (thanks to Creeping Darkness) helps too.

True Necromancer is the blasphemous class in this case I think, as it makes you a terrible necromancer

[Psyren]

True Necromancer is the blasphemous class in this case I think, as it makes you a terrible necromancer

Ah I think you're right, I was so used to erasing it from my memory that my eyes slid right over it :smallbiggrin:

[umbergod]

Ah I think you're right, I was so used to erasing it from my memory that my eyes slid right over it :smallbiggrin:

Youre not alone, i had to read that post a few times bc i try my best to pretend that class doesnt exist

[liquidformat]

True Necromancer is the blasphemous class in this case I think, as it makes you a terrible necromancer
Ya was talking about True Necromancer, the class is just bad.


There are probably a few others in Dragon Magazine, but I haven't the patience to go through every issue of that.

You missed Yathrinshee from Players Guide to Faerun but seeing how horribad that one is it might have been on purpose....

Also does totem rager count? I feel like Magic of Incarnum really could have used a totemist/druid mix prc that would have been amusing.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Scots Dragon
Okay then...

This is an excellent list, thanks for writing it up. I especially appreciate the notation of which classes are advanced for each one.

It looks like Ultimate Magus is the only dual-spellcasting class that uses one side to power the other. It's a pity there isn't a divine version of this.


Originally Posted by liquidformat
You missed Yathrinshee from Players Guide to Faerun but seeing how horribad that one is it might have been on purpose....

Huh. Apart from the lost casting levels, what’s so terrible about this one?

[Ramza00]

It's actually not bad since it stacks with Mystic Theurge (despite neither class being divine), letting you hit double-9s. Having a form of casting that doesn't need any verbal components can be useful no matter how limited it might be. The fact that you don't have to level up as a Shadowcaster to qualify (thanks to Creeping Darkness) helps too.

Adding to what Psyren said.

Wizard 1/Shadowcaster 3/Noctumancer 10/Mystic Theurge 6 is a legal build if you use Precocious Apprentice for early entry into Noctumancer and this gives you 19 levels of Shadowcaster Mysteries and 17 levels of Wizard Spellcasting. Without Precocious Apprentice you are still 17/17 which is double 9s like Psyren said.

[flappeercraft]

Huh. Apart from the lost casting levels, what’s so terrible about this one?

-Requires Drow which is LA +2 and terrible for that.
-Requires the Lichloved feat which is about as good as dodge and has the prerequisite of Evil Brand which is about as bad
-Requires the Spell Focus Necromancy which isn't that bad but not really any good either
-Loses 4 Caster Levels (6 if you count the LA)
-4 Dead levels
-The capstone is a Wail of the Banshee 1/day, which is actually particularly crappy. Both Death and Sonic effects, has a fortitude save which is the most commonly buffed to the top and allows SR. At that it also has a lower area than the actual spell.

So a ECL 20 character who takes this class is honestly complete garbage. Assuming Cleric 5/Wizard 3/Mystic Theurge 3/Yathrinshee 10 gets CL 14 for Cleric and CL 12 Wizard. You're better off as a Cleric 5/Wizard5/Mystic Theurge 10 with which you get 8ths with both as opposed to the 7ths with Cleric and 6ths with wizard. Plus it has the advantage of not having 3 feat taxes and you even have better HP since not only with Yathrinshee you have bad HD, but you have LA which reduces those aforementioned HD by 2 and you already have bad Constitution as a drow.

[PhantasyPen]

I'm sorry, what's wrong with True Necromancer? I don't see any red flags while I'm looking at it. Sure the capstone's a little weak but that doesn't really matter when you've got a Cleric/Wizard with Double 9's

[Scots Dragon]

I'm sorry, what's wrong with True Necromancer? I don't see any red flags while I'm looking at it. Sure the capstone's a little weak but that doesn't really matter when you've got a Cleric/Wizard with Double 9's

It doesn't reach double 9s.

The first four levels only advance arcane and divine casting in alternating levels.

[ExLibrisMortis]

True Necromancer and Yathrinshee are only good (for some value of "good") for caster level shenanigans. Wizard/cleric into TN and Y with Theurgic Specialist and greater consumptive field, and all that. As an advantage of sorts, you're not massively powerful--as compared to an Incantatrix--but still have one thing you're stupidly good at (Necromancy).

[JoshuaZ]

It looks like Ultimate Magus is the only dual-spellcasting class that uses one side to power the other. It's a pity there isn't a divine version of this.



Anima mage also does this a bit (at least it has some very nice abilities on the arcane side which are essentially fluffed as using the binding to power the arcane magic).

[OgresAreCute]

There's also the Soul Manifester (Soulcaster adapted to psionics rather than arcane) in the mind's eye update here (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20060217a)

[liquidformat]

I'm sorry, what's wrong with True Necromancer? I don't see any red flags while I'm looking at it. Sure the capstone's a little weak but that doesn't really matter when you've got a Cleric/Wizard with Double 9's
Here are the reason's according to K's Necromancer Handbook he says it better than I could:

Top Ten Reasons True Necromancers Are Bad
1. At 14th level, you are five caster levels behind in both classes, so if the party Fighter took Leadership, and his cohort got Leadership, he’d actually be bringing more Necromancy to the table than you. As a fighter.
2. You have to take the Death Domain as a Necromancer Cleric, which is a waste of a Domain Slot when you are trying to be good at Necromancy.
3. In the early levels, you postpone your access to Animate Dead by 4 levels.
4. At 8th level a True Necromancer can create, but not control Ghouls. A Cleric at that level can control but not create Ghouls. Guess which is better? At 11th level, the True Necromancer gets the ability to control Ghouls, and the Cleric gets the ability to create them, so there’s no point at which this is advantageous.
5. The only unique ability of the True Necromancer class is unimpressive. Desecrate is a great spell, but it’s also a second level spell.
6. True Necromancers eventually get a bonus to Rebuking – at 17th level they have a +1 bonus to their Rebuking level. But at 7th level they have a 3 level penalty to their Rebuking level. So at low levels when rebuking is good they can’t use it, and at high levels when Rebuking doesn’t matter they don’t care.
7. True Necromancers are always going to have underwhelming Save DCs. Between MAD and the fact that they are often forced to use spells that are 3 spell levels lower than what the single-classed casters can use, they’re going to be out enough Save DC that it shows. A lot.
8. As a True Necromancer you have all the disadvantages of both a Cleric (the gods can take away all your spellcasting at any time), and a Wizard (you have Arcane Spell Failure, preventing you from wearing good armor). Also, your BAB and HPs stink when compared to a Cleric.
9. Control pools from Animate Dead actually don’t accumulate between your two classes. It’ right in the spell, if you cast the spell it considers all undead you control from all castings of Animate Dead, not just your Arcane or just your Divine castings of the spell. Some people say differently, and some even quote CustServ, but when was the last time you won an argument with your DM using the line "some guy on a board said that CustServ told him....."?
10. There is almost no synergy between Cleric and Wizard Necromancy. Any synergy you desperately want to find could be replicated by just taking the Apprentice feat at first level and having some Use Magic Device. Get yourself a couple of Wizard Scrolls or something. It’s a better buy than setting 5 caster levels on fire. Smart cookies can even get the right spell effects off monsters for free, no less.

for more go to his handbook:
http://www.ruleofcool.com/smf/index.php?topic=725.0

[Sleven]

The fact that you don't have to level up as a Shadowcaster to qualify (thanks to Creeping Darkness) helps too.

What’s this about getting into noctumancer (and presumably progressing?) without taking a level of shadowcaster? (away from book right now)

[SLOTHRPG95]

It looks like Ultimate Magus is the only dual-spellcasting class that uses one side to power the other. It's a pity there isn't a divine version of this.


Cerebremancer with the Cannibalize Spell Feat (from Dragon #349) can also do this, but it's not super-efficient.

[Ramza00]

What’s this about getting into noctumancer (and presumably progressing?) without taking a level of shadowcaster? (away from book right now)

You still have to take Shadowcaster levels it just gives you a 2:1


A CREEPING DARKNESS:
MULTICLASS SHADOWCASTERS
Darkness spreads, and night overcomes the day. Experienced spellcasters who turn their efforts toward shadow might find their connection to primal darkness growing swiftly, at the expense of their previous abilities.
When a multiclass sorcerer or wizard gains a new shadowcaster level, she can choose to sacrifice a preexisting level of sorcerer or wizard, in exchange for an additional shadowcaster level. For instance, a 3rd-level wizard/4th-level shadowcaster who attains a new shadowcaster level becomes either a 3rd-level wizard/5thlevel shadowcaster, or a 2nd-level wizard/6th-level shadowcaster. A character can exchange only one such level at a time.
[…Skipping stuff explaining the rebuilding process…]
This notion of creeping darkness does more than add an alien element to shadow magic. DMs who introduce shadow magic into an ongoing campaign can use this as a way of allowing players to embrace the new material without having to abandon their existing characters.

In effect whenever you gain 1 level of your class at level up, you can instead of advancing Shadowcaster by 1 you can advance it by 2 by subtracting 1 of your Wizard or Sorcerer levels. But due to the bolded clause I did above I actually see very little benefit, just a marginal benefit. This is because new spell levels happen at Odd Levels like normal, yet Creeping Darkness allows you to trade in levels at an "Even Level Ratio"

So this following build is legal with Creeping Darkness and will allow you to have more “wizard stuff” and less “shadowcaster” stuff for more levels of actual play for 2nd level spells > 2nd level mysteries.

Level 1-Wizard 1
Level 2-Wizard 2
Level 3-Wizard 3
Level 4-Wizard 3 / Shadowcaster 1
Level 5-Wizard 4 / Shadowcaster 1
Level 6-Wizard 3 / Shadowcaster 3 (You lose 1 2nd Wizard Spell Slot and 1 1st level Wizard Slot, but you gain a whole new level of Shadowcaster Mysteries.)
Level 7-Noctumancer 1 (Net Wizard 4, Shadowcaster 4)

In reality though if your goal is Noctumancer doing Illuminan Improved Sigil Krau or Precocious Apprentice is more beneficial than Creeping Darkness for it allows you entry to Noctumancer at an early state. At level 7 you can be a Shadowcaster 6 plus Wizard 4.

[Psyren]

What’s this about getting into noctumancer (and presumably progressing?) without taking a level of shadowcaster? (away from book right now)

My bad, I explained that inartfully. You do take levels of Shadowcaster, but you're able to take two at a time - one normally, and one by swapping out a wizard level. This means that at your lowest levels (first 4) you can be a straight wizard, preventing you from running out of magic in the same way that leveling as a Shadowcaster might force you to. Then you only need 2 levels where you're advancing Shadowcaster before you go into Noctumancer.

So the ideal progression might look like this:

1st level = Wiz 1
2nd level = Wiz 2
3rd level = Wiz 3
4th level = Wiz 4
5th level = Wiz 3/SC 2
6th level = Wiz 3/SC 3
7th level = Wiz 3/SC 3/Noct 1

Ninja'd by a possibly better progression

[noob]

My bad, I explained that inartfully. You do take levels of Shadowcaster, but you're able to take two at a time - one normally, and one by swapping out a wizard level. This means that at your lowest levels (first 4) you can be a straight wizard, preventing you from running out of magic in the same way that leveling as a Shadowcaster might force you to. Then you only need 2 levels where you're advancing Shadowcaster before you go into Noctumancer.

So the ideal progression might look like this:

1st level = Wiz 1
2nd level = Wiz 2
3rd level = Wiz 3
4th level = Wiz 4
5th level = Wiz 3/SC 2
6th level = Wiz 3/SC 3
7th level = Wiz 3/SC 3/Noct 1

Ninja'd by a possibly better progression

Is it really better?
you might have level 4 in wizard at level 4
But then at level 5 you have one less level in wizard than with the other progression(and arguably at level 5 you fight bigger monsters).
Then you enter the prc at the same level.
so in the end all that balances out to approximatively the same level of usefulness

[Ramza00]

Is it really better?
you might have level 4 in wizard at level 4
But then at level 5 you have one less level in wizard than with the other progression(and arguably at level 5 you fight bigger monsters).
Then you enter the prc at the same level.
so in the end all that balances out to approximatively the same level of usefulness

Yes that is the point of Creeping Darkness, it is a marginal benefit. At level 7 it all washes out with how you entry Nocutmancer with you chose to do Creeping Darkness or you choose not to.

And even if you choose to do Creeping Darkness at levels 4 to 6 the amount of benefit is marginal. The only real benefit is you are only 2 levels behind spellcasting instead of 3 levels at level 6 for without creeping darkness your build would be Wizard 3/Shadowcaster 3, but the benefits with level 4 and 5 are extremely marginal and not very big.

Like I said earlier just doing an early entry trick (Precious Apprentice, Improved Sigil Krau, others) give you more benefits compared to Creeping Darkness from levels 5 and 6, but also level 7 and after when a normal Noctumancer build would be entering Noctumancer.


Is it really better?

So I repeat, just a little better, not by much! :smallcool::smalleek:

[Psyren]

Yes, the benefit is more marginal than I may have implied. Mea culpa. I thought it was a cool mechanic though for such closely related classes to have.

[noob]

Still the mechanic is not bad
If only it existed for going from fighter to cleric so that the people who figure out they picked the wrong class could swap.
(also for barbarian or monk to druid or cleric(depending on which kind of barbarian or monk you are) and for rogue to wizard)

[SLOTHRPG95]

Still the mechanic is not bad
If only it existed for going from fighter to cleric so that the people who figure out they picked the wrong class could swap.
(also for barbarian or monk to druid or cleric(depending on which kind of barbarian or monk you are) and for rogue to wizard)

So basically just multi-stage retraining, or specifically those transitions? If the latter, then why those? What makes them special?

[noob]

So basically just multi-stage retraining, or specifically those transitions? If the latter, then why those? What makes them special?

So that there is no beginner making the mistake of going from wizard to fighter or other bad transition?

[SLOTHRPG95]

So that there is no beginner making the mistake of going from wizard to fighter or other bad transition?

So only allow for transitions from non-caster classes into caster classes? Is this a thing about raw power? I've had new players who started out as primary spellcasters but who found they didn't like it and wanted to play Fighters or Rogues or Rangers even though they were giving up spells like Teleport and Raise Dead. Now, I don't have re-training in my campaigns so when this happened they retired their now-powerful casters and made new characters, and were much happier. But if I did have some form of re-training I wouldn't have said "nope you can only re-train from a lower tier to a higher tier, not the other way around."

[noob]

So only allow for transitions from non-caster classes into caster classes? Is this a thing about raw power? I've had new players who started out as primary spellcasters but who found they didn't like it and wanted to play Fighters or Rogues or Rangers even though they were giving up spells like Teleport and Raise Dead. Now, I don't have re-training in my campaigns so when this happened they retired their now-powerful casters and made new characters, and were much happier. But if I did have some form of re-training I wouldn't have said "nope you can only re-train from a lower tier to a higher tier, not the other way around."

Well If somehow the player do not feel irrelevant afterwards then it is okay but he could have done fighting with a paladin or a ranger or a bard or a druid or a cleric(the paladin and ranger castings in fact helps quite a lot shore some of the basic weaknesses of the stab/shoot fighting style and then provides with cool stuff out of battle(such as the escape plot spell from the paladin who says "now you find yourself in front of an evil person with 3 less levels than you")).
the base mundanes classes in dnd 3.5(not the half casters) lacks options in and out of battle (you could argue that as a rogue you have easily 10 skills but even 10 skills does not gives that much poly-valence Ok you might talk with people efficiently but you discover that for that you probably should already get 3 skills just to interact with people)

Even a build as silly as wiz 3/oh I wanted to be a fighter X already gives a lot of options to a fighter over a straight fighter while having like only 2 less points of bab.

[PhantasyPen]

Well If somehow the player do not feel irrelevant afterwards then it is okay but he could have done fighting with a paladin or a ranger or a bard or a druid or a cleric(the paladin and ranger castings in fact helps quite a lot shore some of the basic weaknesses of the stab/shoot fighting style and then provides with cool stuff out of battle(such as the escape plot spell from the paladin who says "now you find yourself in front of an evil person with 3 less levels than you")).
the base mundanes classes in dnd 3.5(not the half casters) lacks options in and out of battle (you could argue that as a rogue you have easily 10 skills but even 10 skills does not gives that much poly-valence Ok you might talk with people efficiently but you discover that for that you probably should already get 3 skills just to interact with people)

Even a build as silly as wiz 3/oh I wanted to be a fighter X already gives a lot of options to a fighter over a straight fighter while having like only 2 less points of bab.

Some people just like playing warriors more. They shouldn't be forced to play a caster just to satisfy your supposed "superior options"

[noob]

Some people just like playing warriors more. They shouldn't be forced to play a caster just to satisfy your supposed "superior options"

The problem is more that with the monster manual a lot of monsters are barely manageable by fighters and that afterwards a fighter will not have a lot of options to do stuff out of fights.
if you want to have cool adventures with a fighter play any game other than dnd.
Or play in dnd with no magic at all(no magical monsters nor magical environments nor any form of magic for the players)
There is megatons of games other than dnd where monsters are balanced around being fought by fighting specialists and not spell flingers and which also have mechanics that are way less clunky and way less about "spells are superior".(also those systems often gives more options to fighters)
Why would you pit tom the kid against the elder evils/casters of doom doctor strange usually fights?
Basically a fighter can not manage the monsters of the monster manuals without tons of spellcasting support or magical items that gives you the equivalent of casters.

Also I am not forcing to play a caster: I am only giving the option to stop being a fighter which is useful if you reach a level at which fighting is obsolete(basically above level 10 for captain wizard groups(groups were wizards picks their known spells at random then cast them semi intelligently) and obsolete above level 1 in groups that allows broken stuff like druids taking greenbound summoning and having an animal companion strong like 2 fighters)

Tl dr: If you want a fighter play any system other than dnd and it will work fine.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Some people just like playing warriors more. They shouldn't be forced to play a caster just to satisfy your supposed "superior options"
That's what gishes are for. After level 7 or 9 or so, the mechanics of so-called "warrior" classes don't support the in-universe notion that they are competent warriors.

The mechanical appeal of fighter-like classes is pretty small, anyway. It's more that casters require more work, which you can easily solve by having a fixed buff suite and never casting besides that.

(N.B. This counts initiators as something more than warriors, having (Su) abilities, which may not be accurate in all cases.)

[Cosi]

Some people just like playing warriors more. They shouldn't be forced to play a caster just to satisfy your supposed "superior options"

So what, he should be forced to play a character that's weaker than he wants? The reality is that non-casters are, broadly, less good than casters, and that this disparity is highlighted in non-combat situations. It's not a desirable situation or a good one, but the reality is that at high levels you either are magic or fall behind. There's no third option (within RAW). Frankly, there's probably not a third option at all.

I mean, think about what you're saying. If your right to play the character you want means that you can demand another player not use the "superior options" he wants for a caster, why isn't the reverse true? I have yet to see a compelling, or even coherent, explanation for why the FIghter is allowed to decide which characters are acceptable but the Wizard isn't.

[SLOTHRPG95]

The problem is more that with the monster manual a lot of monsters are barely manageable by fighters and that afterwards a fighter will not have a lot of options to do stuff out of fights.

Basically a fighter can not manage the monsters of the monster manuals without tons of spellcasting support or magical items that gives you the equivalent of casters.

Also I am not forcing to play a caster: I am only giving the option to stop being a fighter which is useful if you reach a level at which fighting is obsolete(basically above level 10 for captain wizard groups(groups were wizards picks their known spells at random then cast them semi intelligently) and obsolete above level 1 in groups that allows broken stuff like druids taking greenbound summoning and having an animal companion strong like 2 fighters)

Tl dr: If you want a fighter play any system other than dnd and it will work fine.

I mean yeah if you want to play a system where linear fighter, quadratic wizard isn't so true, there are plenty out there. There's even other editions of D&D itself that handle it (somewhat) better. With that said, even at high levels non-casters aren't left totally in the dust, and this is especially true if one plays with fewer splat books (which admittedly tend to heavily favor casters). The truth is, at my table and I suspect at many others, a party of all wizards at whatever level is going to have a much shorter shelf life than if that same party had a barbarian or fighter or two (and a rogue but that's different). You can't prepare for everything (and it's worse with Sorcerers who can't know everything) even with a party of all primary spellcasters and eventually inherent squishyness, especially when caught off guard, is going to end in TPK. It's especially true at low levels, but doesn't disappear at the high end of gameplay. Besides, some monsters even have hard counters to magic built in, in the form of spell resistance or ridiculously high saves, specifically to make them hard to kill with magic. But most importantly, only a minority of players (at least that I've DMed or played with) really care that their Fighter or Monk isn't the most mechanically optimal combat machine in the universe. And those who do? Sure, they can play another game, I guess. You can't please everyone.


That's what gishes are for. After level 7 or 9 or so, the mechanics of so-called "warrior" classes don't support the in-universe notion that they are competent warriors.

The mechanical appeal of fighter-like classes is pretty small, anyway. It's more that casters require more work, which you can easily solve by having a fixed buff suite and never casting besides that.

Somewhat akin to what I said above, this is only a problem if it's made a problem. The most deadly (player character) warrior in any campaign I ever ran was a single-class Barbarian. And he was in a party that usually consisted of mostly full casters, and at one point two gishes. I'm not saying that I can't build 14th-level gish that would've outshone his Barbarian, but that's an on-paper problem, not an in-session problem.

[ExLibrisMortis]

With that said, even at high levels non-casters aren't left totally in the dust, and this is especially true if one plays with fewer splat books (which admittedly tend to heavily favor casters).
Many game-breaking spells are in Core; examples run from haste and polymorph to planar binding to astral projection. Splatbooks do help casters a lot (Incantatrix, Divine Metamagic, Persistent Spell, deeper spell lists), but then they help non-casters a lot (Incarnum, Tome of Battle, Shock Trooper, deeper magic item lists).


If your mundanes are more durable than your casters, you're playing a relatively low-OP campaign (I'm assuming this is what your group wants to play, so it's a good thing). Especially considering that clerics and druids are natively tougher than most any other class, having that crucial good Will save and protective/crowd control/healing magic (plus the ability to stay out of melee).


At the high end, the difference between casters and mundanes is quite big. Consider the following:
Grey elf wizard 5/incantatrix 3
Feats: Scribe Scrollwizard 1, Extend Spell1, Persistent Spellwizard 5, Ocular Spellincantatrix 1, Skill Focus (Spellcraft)6, Iron Willothyugh hole, Item Familiar3

Intelligence: 26 (18 base, +2 from levels, +2 from race, +4 from fox' cunning)

27 000 gp WBL, plenty for a +10 amulet of Spellcraft (10 000 gp), Iron Will (3000 gp) and Large greatsword (<100 gp).

Spellcraft modifier: +45 (+11 ranks, +11 item familiar, +10 amulet, +8 INT, +3 Skill Focus, +2 synergy).

This character can Persist (and then Extend, if needed) any spell they can cast, up to eleven times per day, plus another eleven times for another's spells. That means up to 22 buff spells can be up and running at all times, though it'll only be 11 solo (until you get body outside body or similar, then it's basically unlimited). A lesser rod of extend spell or two is good for your hour/level spells, taking their duration up to 16 hours.

So that's Persistent polymorph into a troll (Large size, physical stats 23/14/23), fox' cunning, haste, wraithstrike, greater invisibility, bite of the were-rat, bull's strength, fly, blur, mirror image, protection from evil... that's 11; then add hour/level buffs like greater mage armour, greater magic weapon, heart of X, and shield. This should get you a full attack along the lines of greatsword +13/+13 (3d6+14 slashing (average 24.5)) and bite +8 (1d4+12 s/p/b (average 14.5)), all made against touch AC. Plus a 60' (good) fly speed and 60' land speed, 20% miss chance, AC 33 (touch 15, flat-footed 28), invisibility, mirror images... the list goes on. If there's a cleric with divine power, you now have full base attack, too, for a full attack of +19/+19/+14 (bull's strength doesn't stack, so you can replace it with something, even divine power itself, through Arcane Disciple (War)).

Next level, you get a feat, a bonus metamagic feat, and 5th-level spells, including draconic polymorph (an extra +8 strength).
It's not even a gish, just a regular full caster specializing in castery things like metamagic. It'll probably kill anything mundane of its level, and then do anything else better, too.

[SLOTHRPG95]

Many game-breaking spells are in Core; examples run from haste and polymorph to planar binding to astral projection. Splatbooks do help casters a lot (Incantatrix, Divine Metamagic, Persistent Spell, deeper spell lists), but then they help non-casters a lot (Incarnum, Tome of Battle, Shock Trooper, deeper magic item lists).

If your mundanes are more durable than your casters, you're playing a relatively low-OP campaign (I'm assuming this is what your group wants to play, so it's a good thing). Especially considering that clerics and druids are natively tougher than most any other class, having that crucial good Will save and protective/crowd control/healing magic (plus the ability to stay out of melee).

I mean yeah polymorph and planar binding are great spells with some potential for abuse even in a core-only game, but haste (although also good) doesn't really have this problem and astral projection is a 9th level spell. But also, yes perhaps I should have made it crystal clear before: I tend to run a relatively low-OP game, and tend to play in the same, and (probably at least partially by self-selection) pretty much all the other DMs and players I know IRL are in the same boat. Nobody I've DMed has ever even heard of, for example, Incantatrix or Incarnum (although I'm somewhat familiar with both). And yeah sure part of this might be culture, but also a DM who takes care considering every single bit of non-core material before letting it into their game shouldn't have a problem keeping tertiary casters or non-casters relevant into the high levels.

[PhantasyPen]

-The problem is more that with the monster manual a lot of monsters are barely manageable by fighters and that afterwards a fighter will not have a lot of options to do stuff out of fights.

-if you want to have cool adventures with a fighter play any game other than dnd.

-Why would you pit tom the kid against the elder evils/casters of doom doctor strange usually fights?
Basically a fighter can not manage the monsters of the monster manuals without tons of spellcasting support or magical items that gives you the equivalent of casters.

-Also I am not forcing to play a caster: I am only giving the option to stop being a fighter which is useful if you reach a level at which fighting is obsolete(basically above level 10 for captain wizard groups(groups were wizards picks their known spells at random then cast them semi intelligently) and obsolete above level 1 in groups that allows broken stuff like druids taking greenbound summoning and having an animal companion strong like 2 fighters)

Tl dr: If you want a fighter play any system other than dnd and it will work fine.

I apologize if I accidentally cut out something vital, but I don't want to just have one post that repeats half the thread so I tried to find your core points and respond to them.


There are more warrior-types than just the fighter, but my statement was not "Everyone should play fighters" it was "people who want to play martial characters should be allowed to do so."
I don't think this is wrong, and I have in fact been running and playing systems that are not D&D for the past half a year or so and find I'm enjoying them just as much, but that doesn't mean martial characters are worthless.
I'm unsure why this is relevant to my original statement, I think you either misunderstood or you're trying to paint a narrative that I am flatly not going to give you.
When someone plays a spellcaster, then says they want to play a martial character instead and enjoys doing that more, and you immediately go into a spiel about why doing so was a terribly idea that can't possibly be fun you're trying to force them to play a caster.
This just repeats point two, which I again don't disagree with.




That's what gishes are for. After level 7 or 9 or so, the mechanics of so-called "warrior" classes don't support the in-universe notion that they are competent warriors.

The mechanical appeal of fighter-like classes is pretty small, anyway. It's more that casters require more work, which you can easily solve by having a fixed buff suite and never casting besides that.

(N.B. This counts initiators as something more than warriors, having (Su) abilities, which may not be accurate in all cases.)


I love gishes, they're awesome, but some people don't like them.
Playing a warrior isn't about the mechanics at this point I think, it's about the heroic fantasy, and for some that means not having any spell slots
Now you see, here's where we disagree, initiators are perfect examples of martial type characters, and I wish that more of them existed.



So what, he should be forced to play a character that's weaker than he wants? The reality is that non-casters are, broadly, less good than casters, and that this disparity is highlighted in non-combat situations. It's not a desirable situation or a good one, but the reality is that at high levels you either are magic or fall behind. There's no third option (within RAW). Frankly, there's probably not a third option at all.

I mean, think about what you're saying. If your right to play the character you want means that you can demand another player not use the "superior options" he wants for a caster, why isn't the reverse true? I have yet to see a compelling, or even coherent, explanation for why the FIghter is allowed to decide which characters are acceptable but the Wizard isn't.

You actually are trying to paint a narrative that is completely separate from what I was talking about. When someone is switching from being a full-caster to a martial class and actually enjoying the game more, it's pretty clear they are playing exactly what they want, and sticking your fingers in your ears to go "lalalalala, Fighters suck~" isn't going to change that. And your post admits that a person who is skilled at playing the game is capable of being better than even the casters, so why should that person be forced to play a caster when they are already doing better as whatever martial class they are (There are more warrior types than just the fighter) forcing them to play a caster is just going to ruin the fun for everyone involved. Case-in-point, in my first campaign, our longest-surviving character was my Dragon Shaman (ain't that a kick in your vaunted "Tiers"). Who outlived two clerics and a wizard all the way to level 10 before being "rocks fall'ed" by the DM.

[noob]

When someone plays a spellcaster, then says they want to play a martial character instead and enjoys doing that more, and you immediately go into a spiel about why doing so was a terribly idea that can't possibly be fun you're trying to force them to play a caster.
I only suggested that this person needed to ask himself the question "is being 234436564546445Z66% irreverent in fights okay for me" if the answer is yes then he can play a fighter at high level and not grab any of the items needed for being relevant.
Also you said that you allowed martial initiators which I count as gishes for me(and I like martial initiators it is just that they are spell based characters which makes them have lots of options in fights).
Also I specified that being a fighter and being relevant could happen at low optimization for a lot of time(10 levels if you have a captain wizard or forever if the casters starts preparing only blast spells) and while you are relevant playing a fighter is fine.

Also I do count the following(but not only those) as casters and as probably relevant in play most of the time: any initiator, any class with spells (including stuff like paladin and ranger), any class that gives more than 8 spell like abilities(including active supernatural abilities),any psionic, any binder, any class with invocations , shadowcaster , truenamers (provided you bring enough truenaming enabled cheese), any class but with the knowledge of how to use magic items(if you have a fighter but that you know which magic items to buy for being at the same power as the casters of the group it is fine and those items can just be a greatsword +5 if the casters in the group only knows how to blast) , any class provided you use templates giving you the right abilities , classes with less than 8 slas/active surs but with those slas polyvalent enough for making them relevant(stuff like shapechange), those classes who gives an array of powers including breath attacks and flight.

Most of your examples of relevant "non casters" counts as casters in my chart.

[Cosi]

There are more warrior-types than just the fighter, but my statement was not "Everyone should play fighters" it was "people who want to play martial characters should be allowed to do so."

But what you actually said was:


They shouldn't be forced to play a caster just to satisfy your supposed "superior options"

Which sounds an awful lot like the rhetoric people use when they talk about how casters have to be nerfed because mundanes suck. Maybe you didn't mean that, but you should be clearer about what you're saying. If your argument is about preference, sure, people can play what they want. But that preference isn't a mechanical argument.


When someone plays a spellcaster, then says they want to play a martial character instead and enjoys doing that more, and you immediately go into a spiel about why doing so was a terribly idea that can't possibly be fun you're trying to force them to play a caster.

Yes, and when someone says "I want to play a cyborg cop from cyberpunk New York" you tell them they can't do that. Games have restrictions on what things are in them. Some of those are conceptual (e.g. no Incantatrixes because this is an Eberron campaign) some of those are mechanical (e.g. no Monks because they suck). Saying "no martials" isn't "forcing you to build a caster", any more than playing D&D instead of Exallted is "forcing you not to play a Lunar".


Playing a warrior isn't about the mechanics at this point I think, it's about the heroic fantasy, and for some that means not having any spell slots

I flatly do not believe that people's heroic fantasy is "does not have this specific mechanical construct". Does that mean that those people would totally play casters in Shadowrun: 1050 AD (where mages would use Drain)? Do you consider Warlocks martkials? Why is a Warblade using mountain hammer to hit people better definitely a martial, but a Swiftblade using wraithstrike to do the same definitely not?


You actually are trying to paint a narrative that is completely separate from what I was talking about. When someone is switching from being a full-caster to a martial class and actually enjoying the game more, it's pretty clear they are playing exactly what they want,

Alright, then the people who like non-casters shouldn't care if casters are better, right? Except they totally do care, and they post a whole bunch about how you have to inflict bizarre and ineffectual nerfs on casters because they can't imagine a martial character who matters in a high level environment.


And your post admits that a person who is skilled at playing the game is capable of being better than even the casters

That's not true (at least, not if you assume competence on the part of the casters), and I also didn't say that.


Case-in-point, in my first campaign, our longest-surviving character was my Dragon Shaman (ain't that a kick in your vaunted "Tiers").

Once again, the tiers are dumb and bad and I don't care about your attempts to "gotcha" me with them. But "this guy survived for a very long time" is not really a useful datapoint. If monsters intelligently target the casters preferentially because they are more effective, casters will face higher mortality rates. If caster's players take larger risks, casters will die more. That doesn't make them worse, and it doesn't even necessarily make them less effective.

[PhantasyPen]

Also I do count the following(but not only those) as casters and as probably relevant in play most of the time: any initiator, any class with spells (including stuff like paladin and ranger), any class that gives more than 8 spell like abilities(including active supernatural abilities),any psionic, any binder, any class with invocations , shadowcaster , truenamers (provided you bring enough truenaming enabled cheese), any class but with the knowledge of how to use magic items(if you have a fighter but that you know which magic items to buy for being at the same power as the casters of the group it is fine and those items can just be a greatsword +5 if the casters in the group only knows how to blast) , any class provided you use templates giving you the right abilities , classes with less than 8 slas/active surs but with those slas polyvalent enough for making them relevant(stuff like shapechange), those classes who gives an array of powers including breath attacks and flight.

Most of your examples of relevant "non casters" counts as casters in my chart.

Okay, so to you basically everything except a low-op Fighter is a caster. o.0 I can't say I agree with that assessment but I think I'll give you points for consistency? It's either that or you're moving the goalposts.


But what you actually said was:
Which sounds an awful lot like the rhetoric people use when they talk about how casters have to be nerfed because mundanes suck. Maybe you didn't mean that, but you should be clearer about what you're saying. If your argument is about preference, sure, people can play what they want. But that preference isn't a mechanical argument.

Yes, and when someone says "I want to play a cyborg cop from cyberpunk New York" you tell them they can't do that. Games have restrictions on what things are in them. Some of those are conceptual (e.g. no Incantatrixes because this is an Eberron campaign) some of those are mechanical (e.g. no Monks because they suck). Saying "no martials" isn't "forcing you to build a caster", any more than playing D&D instead of Exallted is "forcing you not to play a Lunar".

I have not once in this thread said casters need to be nerfed, sand I'd like to think that my efforts outside of this thread lean much more heavily into buffing martials.

That's quite the extreme example you're bringing up here, these slopes are looking awfully slippery today. However I will concede that you might have a bit of a point and say that no, saying "no martials" isn't forcing someone to play a caster, right up until you bring in a non-caster character (psionics, incarnum) and the DM says "No you can't play that, be a wizard or GTFO"



I flatly do not believe that people's heroic fantasy is "does not have this specific mechanical construct". Does that mean that those people would totally play casters in Shadowrun: 1050 AD (where mages would use Drain)? Do you consider Warlocks martials? Why is a Warblade using mountain hammer to hit people better definitely a martial, but a Swiftblade using wraithstrike to do the same definitely not?

Alright, then the people who like non-casters shouldn't care if casters are better, right? Except they totally do care, and they post a whole bunch about how you have to inflict bizarre and ineffectual nerfs on casters because they can't imagine a martial character who matters in a high level environment.

Why are you bringing up shadowrun? I didn't realize we were in the shadowrun forum. Honestly I can't speak for that because it's a game I've never personally played or seen played, however, I can address the rest of your paragraph: No, the warlock is not a martial, it's a heavily-gimped pseudocaster. These two things are different because Mountain Hammer is a specific technique/maneuver, while wraithstrike is a spell. Games have a tendency to model these things in the same manner, but in terms of practical application and narrative they are very often completely different. (Although the idea of a setting where spells are just mystical martial arts sounds kind of fun now, I'll look more into that later.)



That's not true (at least, not if you assume competence on the part of the casters), and I also didn't say that.

Once again, the tiers are dumb and bad and I don't care about your attempts to "gotcha" me with them. But "this guy survived for a very long time" is not really a useful datapoint. If monsters intelligently target the casters preferentially because they are more effective, casters will face higher mortality rates. If caster's players take larger risks, casters will die more. That doesn't make them worse, and it doesn't even necessarily make them less effective.

I wasn't necessarily directing the tiers part to you specifically, but that was poor wording on my end. And is
"this character was the only one who survived three otherwise-TPK's despite being played as being all-but-suicidal" help refine the data?

And isn't it demonstrably provable that a well-played barbarian/fighter will contribute more to the party than a poorly-played wizard or cleric? Because I've got another example of that if you're interested.