Originally Posted by Mulletmanalive
Sorry Drolyt; if you reread the previous post, you'll notice that I don't consider "so-and-so is more powerful" a valid point of argument.
I'll discuss points individually but basing policy around "I can do this if my GM doesn't mind me dictating his game to him" is not something i'm willing to do. And yes, that's how i hear the crux of your previous post.
No, i'm not wrong, just different, old-school and stubborn as hell.
Anyway, I duly await the next evil-tastic iteration of the class. Roll on Sir Chivalry!
Fine, I'll take that arguments like PRC class x is stronger doesn't necessarily imply balance. But how is my argument that straight wizard is stronger not valid? I'm basically saying that I'm pretty sure I could make wizard 20 stronger than wizard 10/disciple of Belial/Fierna 10. I don't see how you could possibly call the class overpowered if that is the case.
Edit: For any class other than wizard the class is in fact clearly inferior. For sorcerers it sucks because you need Knowledge (religion). For clerics and druids it sucks because it gives you worse hit points, attack bonus, and fortitude saves and doesn't advance turn undead/wild shape.