Talk:Battle Wizard (3.5e Class)
From D&D Wiki
Can I help?
So I really like your class, I love battle mages, and I want to help you with your class. But frankly, its overpowered. Like way way way overpowered. Do you mind if I mess with the numbers. I wont touch class features, just the numbers they throw around.
Post#2: Why not just take the Template for the Battle Sorcerer Variant(Unearthed Arcana) and just apply it to the wizard instead? I'm actually surprised that it is not listed that you can do that. It would basically be the Wizard, with Cleric's BAB progression, proficient in light armor(with no spell failure) and all martial weapons, Hit Die = d8, and for each spell level, subract 1 to total known spells(to minimum of 1 per level) and subract 1 to how many spells you can cast per day per level(to minimum of 1 at each level). Basically, the main difference would be that you would cast much fewer spells than a sorc could, but you progress with the levels of spells you can use by an increase of 1 level faster than a sorc. The feats the wizard gains would also be nice, making it slightly more like a Fighter-hybrid class, which is what the class is going for anyways IMO. And I guess Wizards dont have spells that they know per level, so whatever to that... Also charisma is lame, Int is so much cooler :)
Power - 0/5 I give this class a 0 out of 5 because it's overpowered like crazy. -- Shepperd.321st
- Justify. -- Jota 19:09, 11 July 2009 (MDT)
Power - 1/5 I give this class a 1 out of 5 because it is too powerful. The class' features and bonuses, especially concerning the Favored Weapon, need to be reevaluated. --220.127.116.11 10:07, 5 July 2009 (MDT)
Wording - 3/5 I give this class a 3 out of 5 because wording is a little rough here and there, but I was able to get a basic idea on the premise of the class and it's abilities. --18.104.22.168 10:07, 5 July 2009 (MDT)
Flavor - 0/5 I give this class a 0 out of 5 because while the intent might have been to make a good battle mage, the result more closely resembles a bad Mary Sue character on a power high. The character lacks depth or any discernible weaknesses. --22.214.171.124 10:07, 5 July 2009 (MDT)
Power - 0/5 I give this class a 0 out of 5 because its abilities are extremely overpowered. --Klomag 18:56, 11 July 2009 (MDT)
- Justify. -- Jota 19:09, 11 July 2009 (MDT)
Wording - 3/5 I give this class a 2 out of 5 because there are many obvious grammar and spelling mistakes. --Klomag 18:56, 11 July 2009 (MDT)
- And that is a bad thing?, I thought consistancy is what makes clear setup classes...--Crashpilot 09:19, 24 February 2011 (MST)
Flavor - 1/5 I give this class a 1 out of 5 because there was an attempt at flavor, however poor. It is incomplete and barely more than admitting that the class is overpowered. Additionally, the warmage in Complete Arcane fits the role this class is meant to be in a much more balanced way. --Klomag 18:56, 11 July 2009 (MDT)
Rating (removed by me, no information on decissions, while being excessively negative in points and full of formatting mistakes)
Removed by--Crashpilot 09:15, 24 February 2011 (MST)
(edited) already needed to adjust, I failed to see one disadvantage in the spells per day (it is shifted, 0.5 extra points). As a first note, ratings are relative and are personal perceptions as DM's or player on how well a class will perform in normal gameplay. Often a class is never meant to be used in normal gameplay but in powerplay and unless specifically mentioned I assume normal gameplay is in order.
Power - 2.5/5 I give this class a 2.5 out of 5 because, I only see major advantages while there is no real consession made. As most Dm's will do in order to decide if a class may be balanced you look at the disadvantages it takes from getting one form of trait while looking at the advantages it gets from that trait, in this situation it is melee. So let's cut it down:
'Higher BaB', clearly an advantage but to be expected for a battle mage.
'Higher Hit dice', also a advantage, also to be expected from a clothy that goes personal with his enemies.
'Able to wear heavier armor while reducing it's AC and arcane spell failure', it fits, it builds up, neglectable advantage.
'Free, reasonably powerfull spells per week', it is simalar to a fireball, a bit weaker and hurtst friendlies, very hard to save from, eats thrugh all reductions and armor, a definite advantage.
'Increased attack bonus and damage', two fighter only feats for free, a advantage.
'Even more attack bonus, melee damage + attack bonus, +damage and atleast 1 AC (from dex).' Wow, nice!, definite advantage!
'Casting at free will' Woooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow! Eat 5 fireballs in one turn b*tch, massive advantage
(where are those disadvantages?)
'More free spells from the sword now' Advantage.
'Extra spells from different book', Fun! more options more mechanics, but still extra spells, advantage.
'Spells per day', Disadvantage, it is shifted one level, it limits the number of spells a bit but no loss in spell levels available.
'Limited selection of spells' Hey! a major disadvantage.
Ok lets award points, Advantages: 1+1+0+1+1+1+2+3+1+1+0 = 12
Disadvanteges: i'll be fair -4 for limited spell selection, -2 for decreased spells = -6
Result +6 in advantages on a already basically strong class, my verdict as DM: No-Go (in normal gameplay, in power gameplay sure)--Crashpilot 09:03, 24 February 2011 (MST) Anything that goes around +2, maybe +3 if the skills are more inclined towards roleplay and non combat would float for me. Someone taking the effort and time to create classes may become a bit favourable in my campaigns, this class is too much of the good stuff ^^.--Crashpilot 09:03, 24 February 2011 (MST)
What would I do to make it work?: First off it's a fighter AND wizard combined not both classes at the same time. Either loose the massive increases in attack and melee damage or further cut on the spells per day table and lose the extra spells per week, some spontanious casting system where he or she may convert any spell into a lightning spell or other ability is ok, just getting them for free is very powerfull. A wizard that just became stronger in number of spells per day and gains decent melee combat while casting a potential unlimited number of spells in one round that also gets the majority of the good fighter feats AND one that is far better then a fighter feat, would never float for most DM's especially while wizards are already quite strong on their own. Then again who am I to tell someone how they should play? Please remeber this is a personal view on matters not some form of rule.
Wording - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because it is well worded and clear enough to understand --Crashpilot 09:03, 24 February 2011 (MST)
Flavor - 4/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because it has fluffyness and a lot of designers do not do that, you did. --Crashpilot 09:03, 24 February 2011 (MST)
Power - 3/5 I give this class a 3 out of 5 because its overpowered, but not as overpowered as a Wizard because you lose access to most of your good spells such as: Grease, Enlarge Person, Protection from X, Ray of Enfeeblement, Silent Image, Alter Self, Levitate, Web, Glitterdust, Invisibility, Polymorph, Shapechange, Dispel Magic, Mind Blank, Haste, Slow, Fly, Reverse Gravity, Statue, Polymorph Any Object, Time Stop, Sleet Storm, Phantom Steed, Evard’s Black Tentacles, Dimension Door, Solid Fog, Lesser Planar Binding, Teleport, Wall of Stone, Planar Binding, Greater Planar Binding, Shadow Conjuration, Shadow Evocation, Greater Shadow Evocation, Enervation, Magic Jar, Waves of Exhaustion etc. and that's just from the PHB. And in exchange for all of those spells, you become better a melee. So, its weaker than Wizard but still OP. --126.96.36.199 09:52, 30 December 2012 (MST)
Wording - 4/5 I give this class a <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>> out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> --188.8.131.52 09:52, 30 December 2012 (MST)
Flavor - 1/5 I give this class a <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>> out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> --184.108.40.206 09:52, 30 December 2012 (MST)