[3.5e] Dragonfire Adept- Overpowered?

[Lemmingboy]

Hi there. All I want to know from anyone who is familiar with the Dragonfire Adept base class is whether they think it's overpowered (in and out of combat) in relation to other base classes (PHB ones for simplicity). I'm hoping to play one in an upcoming campaign over the summer, but might reign it back if the response are notably profound. I was thinking of taking Beguiling Influence and then Aquatic Adaptation as my invocations over the first few levels.

Any replies are welcome, so thanks in advance .

[Tam_OConnor]

With regards to the rogue (usually listed as middle of the pack in tier listings), it's about equal, maybe a little more powerful. It's more or less exactly the same as a warlock, albeit with a rather different flavor. As always, pick your invocations with care. Fun to play, certainly. Overpowered? Only in very specific circumstances. You'll do very well in endurance runs, but you can't really nova. When your invocations are useful, you're golden. Otherwise, you're a glorified AoE spammer.

[Dr_Horrible]

Not even slightly. It's pretty average.

[Bluebeard]

With Entangling Exhalation (RotD), DFA is about the best-balanced battlefield controller at a Rogue/Binder/Totemist power level.

Without Entangling Exhalation, it's pretty crummy all around.

[Sinfire Titan]

The most broken thing they can do is Entangling Exhalation+Maximize Breath+Clinging Breath+Fivefold Breath of Tiamat to do about 5 times their Breath weapon's normal damage (roughly 45d6). The bad news about that? 18d6 of that damage is Acid, 9d6 is Fire, 9d6 is cold, and 9d6 is Eletricity. Immunity to two of those 4 energy types cuts the power drastically, and makes the Entangling Exhalation+Clinging Breath weaker.


45d6 maximized is 270 damage. That's rather pitiful, considering a single attack from a charging barbarian is doing upwards of 400 points of damage (and they even have Pounce).

[Keld Denar]

Really, the best low level invocation is Endure Exposure. This lets you ignore friendly fire cases and gives you the best versitility at all levels. Its useful, and pretty much worth taking for any DFI.

As far as OPness, they fall below a wizard in terms of battlefield control and blasting, but above nearly all non-caster classes. I'd place them in the "perfectly balanced" catagory, being good and worthwhile, but not OP or showstealing. Great class, and fun to play.

[streakster]

The most broken thing they can do is Entangling Exhalation+Maximize Breath+Clinging Breath+Fivefold Breath of Tiamat to do about 5 times their Breath weapon's normal damage (roughly 45d6). The bad news about that? 18d6 of that damage is Acid, 9d6 is Fire, 9d6 is cold, and 9d6 is Eletricity. Immunity to two of those 4 energy types cuts the power drastically, and makes the Entangling Exhalation+Clinging Breath weaker.


45d6 maximized is 270 damage. That's rather pitiful, considering a single attack from a charging barbarian is doing upwards of 400 points of damage (and they even have Pounce).

Not to mention that Tiamat will punch you in the face whenever you use this power.

Adding my voice to the balanced side. They are not overpowered in anyway, and every group loves to have a DFA. Free identifies, free sneak attack (thanks, entangling exhalation!) - what's not to love?

[sonofzeal]

They're a solid middle-of-the-road PrC, similar to the Warlock but with better feat options and a Con focus. Good at Battlefield Control, decent utility, quite survivable, nice flavour, fun to play. As previously mentioned there's a few fairly easy to get some potentially broken stuff out of them (for varying standards of "broken"), but same is true for anything. There's "broken" tricks for the CW Samurai, for crying out loud! As far as "Extended Core" classes go, I'd put DFA on the same level as Barbarian and PsyWar.

[Thurbane]

I wouldn't say the DA is overpowered, but my main beef with them is the overlap with existing classes. As soon as I saw the sneak peak for them at the WotC website, my first thought was "Oh, looks like someone wanted to play a Dragon Shaman/Warlock without gestalt or multiclassing".

Not really a problem, just something I have a personal issue with. As much as 3.5 is my fave edition, and the one I still play, I feel that there were way too many base classes, and that many of those overlapped too far with each other. I mean, you couldn't play a scout (i.e. Ranger/Rogue) without someone introducing a Scout class? Throw feats and PrCs into the mix, and there is a LOT of redundancy among base classes. As always, YMMV.

[side note]A 1st level DA can get unlmited Identify wihtout the long casting time or costly material component. I always thought it would be amusing for them to get a "friendly warning" from the Wizard's guild about undercutting their Indentify fees. [/side note]

[sonofzeal]

I wouldn't say the DA is overpowered, but my main beef with them is the overlap with existing classes. As soon as I saw the sneak peak for them at the WotC website, my first thought was "Oh, looks like someone wanted to play a Dragon Shaman/Warlock without gestalt or multiclassing".

Not really a problem, just something I have a personal issue with. As much as 3.5 is my fave edition, and the one I still play, I feel that there were way too many base classes, and that many of those overlapped too far with each other. I mean, you couldn't play a scout (i.e. Ranger/Rogue) without someone introducing a Scout class? Throw feats and PrCs into the mix, and there is a LOT of redundancy among base classes. As always, YMMV.

[side note]A 1st level DA can get unlmited Identify wihtout the long casting time or costly material component. I always thought it would be amusing for them to get a "friendly warning" from the Wizard's guild about undercutting their Indentify fees. [/side note]

Well... I dunno. I think a non-demonic compliment to the Warlock is a good thing; I dislike it when they introduce an entire new mechanic (in this case, Invocations) but then only use it once. That said, you're right that there don't need to be two Dragon-themed base classes. I'd rather cut Dragon Shaman though, as it's pretty useless in most contexts.

How many base classes do you think there should be?

[Thurbane]

Well... I dunno. I think a non-demonic compliment to the Warlock is a good thing; I dislike it when they introduce an entire new mechanic (in this case, Invocations) but then only use it once. That said, you're right that there don't need to be two Dragon-themed base classes. I'd rather cut Dragon Shaman though, as it's pretty useless in most contexts.

I tend to agree, although I have a guilty confession - I'm playing a Dragon Shaman at the moment, and I'm really enjoying it.

How many base classes do you think there should be?

Good question - one I'll need to give some thought to before I give you a proper answer. I guess there's the "big four" roles (tank/melee, blaster/arcanist, healer/divine caster and the stealth/skill monkey) - the real question is how many subdivisions of those 4 roles do you need, and how many classes you need that either fill a new role entirely, or cross over between 2 (or more) of those roles?

Take Beguiler, for example. IMHO, it steps far too much on the toes of the Rogue. And it also gets full arcane casting progression. Effectively, it's almost a gestalt Rogue/Sorcerer...OK, it has a pretty restricted breadth of spells, but hey, when you can instantly cast every spell on your list for a given level. Also, the Factotum - there's little denying it's far better at being the skillmonkey/lockpicker/trapfinder than the humble Rogue.

On the other hand is the Binder - a class I really like. Leaving aside the fact it's probably below par on the power scale of some other classes, it uses a fresh new mechanic, and doesn't step squarely on the toes of any other existing class. I would probably put Warlock, Dragon Shaman and Marshal in this same category.

...the short answer to your question would be that in my ideal world, you'd have the base classes from the PHB, plus additional classes from other books that don't A.) step on the toes of a core class or B.) aren't better (or equally well) represented by a feat chain or PrC tacked onto a core class.

[Tempest Fennac]

I like the fact that there's a lot of class variety to be honest (I know there is some overlap in a lot of cases, but the differences are often worth it in my opinion). I've been thinking about playing as a DFA as well. How good are they in solo games if you want to focus on Invocations which don't have saving throws?

[Kaiyanwang]

Ehr... backing on DA, I'm sure he can take entangling exhalation, but not maximize breath. Most Breath weapon feats need the d4 rounds time recharge, IIRC...

[Waspinator]

About free identifies: a Warlock can pull that off too. Artificer's Monocle (Magic Item Compendium) plus 5 ranks in Knowledge (arcana). Then all you need is your Detect Magic ability and you're good to go.

[Bluebeard]

Ehr... backing on DA, I'm sure he can take entangling exhalation, but not maximize breath. Most Breath weapon feats need the d4 rounds time recharge, IIRC...

Metabreath feats* don't specify that they only work with the breath weapon used to meet their prerequisites.
Qualify with a Dragonborn Breath weapon. Apply effects to either.

*who named those? stupid words... at least "Metamagic" makes sense

[sonofzeal]

Good question - one I'll need to give some thought to before I give you a proper answer. I guess there's the "big four" roles (tank/melee, blaster/arcanist, healer/divine caster and the stealth/skill monkey) - the real question is how many subdivisions of those 4 roles do you need, and how many classes you need that either fill a new role entirely, or cross over between 2 (or more) of those roles?

Take Beguiler, for example. IMHO, it steps far too much on the toes of the Rogue. And it also gets full arcane casting progression. Effectively, it's almost a gestalt Rogue/Sorcerer...OK, it has a pretty restricted breadth of spells, but hey, when you can instantly cast every spell on your list for a given level. Also, the Factotum - there's little denying it's far better at being the skillmonkey/lockpicker/trapfinder than the humble Rogue.

On the other hand is the Binder - a class I really like. Leaving aside the fact it's probably below par on the power scale of some other classes, it uses a fresh new mechanic, and doesn't step squarely on the toes of any other existing class. I would probably put Warlock, Dragon Shaman and Marshal in this same category.

...the short answer to your question would be that in my ideal world, you'd have the base classes from the PHB, plus additional classes from other books that don't A.) step on the toes of a core class or B.) aren't better (or equally well) represented by a feat chain or PrC tacked onto a core class.

Good analysis. I'd play it slightly differently, and go by merit rather than seniority. For example, out of the base set I'd consider tossing Monk, Rogue, Ranger, Paladin, and Bard. In exchange, I'd add in ToB, Scout, Factotum, Beguiler, Knight, Archivist, and Marshal.

I think we need to look at what's reproduceable in terms of other classes.

Ranger: decent power and flavour , and can go in a few different directions for group role. I'd split it between Barbarian, Scout, and Druid. Between those three, you've got just about everything the Ranger has to offer. All three follow the same nature-warrior archetype, all have decent power, and you're covering melee, ranged, and spellcasting with much more focus. Multiclass all three (or either of the first two with Druid), and you've basically got your Ranger back, plus you have the option to focus on whichever side you choose.

Bard: granted the flavour is unique, but the power is really lacking short of serious cheese; I've never seen a Bard that wasn't either nigh-useless or overpowered. I'm sure they exist, but unless your group's so unoptimized it doesn't matter, or you walk a very delicate line, it makes for generally inferior gameplay. In exchange, I'd have Beguiler, Marshal, Factotum and Archivist as "core" options. Beguiler handles social magic, Archivist handles random knowledge, Factotum handles the generalist theme with far more aplomb than the Bard ever did, and Marshal handles the whole "group buffing from the front lines" thing. As with Ranger, mix and match to taste or pureclass in whichever suits you best. Take Perform if you miss the music aspect.

...etc. Rogue becomes Factotum/Beguiler/Swordage, Monk becomes pure Unarmed Swordage, and Paladin becomes Crusader/Knight. Fighter could go too, but I see it as a pretty central workhorse for a lot of martial builds that aren't easily handled otherwise, so I'll leave it. And Rogue vs Factotum is a fair call either way, but I like having it in there as a nod to the "generalist" role that we're losing in the Bard. And, I know not all of these combinations work as straight multiclassing, but that's fine, I'm sure people will manage.

Oh, and for non-core classes removed, I'd include CW Samurai (Fighter/Crusader), Swashbuckler (Fighter/Swordsage), Favoured Soul (Crusader/Cleric), Dragon Shaman (Dragonfire Adept/Marshal), Wu Jen (Wizard), Shadowcaster (Beguiler), Truenamer (Wizard), etc...

[Thurbane]

Nice analysis yourself. While I disagree on discarding some of core PHB classes, your logic is very solid.

Anyway, back to discussion of the DFA - if anyone wants to continue this side discussion, we should probably start a different thread.

[nightwyrm]

Everything you'll ever want to know about the DFA:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=780301

[Lemmingboy]

Thanks for all the responses! I didn't expect more than two or three . Of course, any more views are welcome...

[Kris Strife]

I'm currently playing a DFA/Warmage gestalt, and I'm loving it. Took entangling exhalation and endure exposure. We havent had a combat encounter yet, other than me harpooning some squid, but I'm enjoying the class, both utility and flavor.

[monty]

I bet the flavor of the squid will be pretty good, too.

[Draz74]

The only thing overpowered about the Dragonfire Adept is a couple of its Invocations that are based on broken spells. Specifically the self-polymorphing Invocation, and to a lesser extent the Charm-like Invocations if you know how to use them (too) well.

If you steer clear of those Invocations, and pick up Entangling Exhalation like you should, it seems to be a very nicely-balanced class.

[Xenogears]

Metabreath feats* don't specify that they only work with the breath weapon used to meet their prerequisites.
Qualify with a Dragonborn Breath weapon. Apply effects to either.

*who named those? stupid words... at least "Metamagic" makes sense

Meta in the original greek meant after. Metaphysics was named such because it was the book (by aristotle) that came after his book on physics.

The meaning was horribly garbled because of this and now we use it to mean all sorts of things that have nothing to do with its actual Etymology. So really none of them make any sense (After-magic? After-breath actually makes more sense as a word but neither work well for what the feats do)

[monty]

Meta in the original greek meant after. Metaphysics was named such because it was the book (by aristotle) that came after his book on physics.

The meaning was horribly garbled because of this and now we use it to mean all sorts of things that have nothing to do with its actual Etymology. So really none of them make any sense (After-magic? After-breath actually makes more sense as a word but neither work well for what the feats do)

Well, in epistemology, meta- means something that deals with its own category (for example, metaknowledge is knowledge of what you know). So, in that sense, metamagic is magic that affects magic, which makes sense. Metabreath still doesn't, though.

Remember, what it means in Greek isn't always the same as what it means in English.

[Starbuck_II]

Well, in epistemology, meta- means something that deals with its own category (for example, metaknowledge is knowledge of what you know). So, in that sense, metamagic is magic that affects magic, which makes sense. Metabreath still doesn't, though.

Remember, what it means in Greek isn't always the same as what it means in English.

Couldn't meta breath be magic that affect breaths or meta breath is breath-magic that affects breaths?

[DragoonWraith]

Generally English is using the "beyond" meaning of μετά, not so much "after". Yes, the historical reality has influenced this - but Mετάφυσικά was not a word that Aristotle applied to his own work, but it is what others called it, and yes, it had to do with the fact that they were written after Φυσικά, which is probably why we use "meta-" to mean what we mean, but it is nonetheless a fairly appropriate word to use for the meaning.

Typically the "meta-" prefix is taken as "beyond", as I said. So "metaphysics" is beyond physics - looking at questions of existence and reality themselves, rather than the particular laws of this particular reality. In the same way, where "magic" would be concerned with how to cast spells, "metamagic" would be more concerned with the system itself - less how to cast specific spells, more on how magic works as a whole. You're "beyond" spellcasting at that point, you're manipulating the magic directly. The Ultimate Magus fluff talks about this a lot, though they don't get nearly the kind of metamagic skills that you might expect for their fluff (I haven't read the fluff for Incantatrix, but it would not be inappropriate for it to read much like the Ultimate Magus's, considering their abilities).

So if "breath" refers to the act of attacking with a specially powered exhalation, "metabreath" would be about manipulating that beyond the simply magi-physical act of exhaling while empowering it.