[3.5] Archmage Prestige Class - How can you break it?

[FelineArchmage]

Hello!

The other week, I made a post where I was looking for suggestions for a prestige class to take for our evil campaign.
Everyone came up with great ideas, and I finally decided on either Escalation Mage/Primal Scholar or Archmage/Primal Scholar.

When I mentioned my gameplan to my DM, he mentioned offhand that there are ways you can break the Archmage class, bringing us to the point of this thread.

How can you break and use/abuse the Archmage prestige class? I've only played 3.5 seriously for about a year, so I don't have the necessary knowledge and experience to make game-breaking builds without help. I am familiar with the Archmage class overall, since I am playing an Archmage in a high level campaign, but that campaign is very strictly "by the book".

Thank you!

[Genoin]

Does your DM usually use XP costs? I know a lot DMs think its a headache and prefer not to, but if he doesn't then the Spell Like Ability High Arcana can become very stupid if you select a spell that has a costly material component. Either way, if he thinks that prestige class can be broken, there is probably a 95% chance it has to do with the Spell Like Ability High Arcana.

[FelineArchmage]

Does your DM usually use XP costs? I know a lot DMs think its a headache and prefer not to, but if he doesn't then the Spell Like Ability High Arcana can become very stupid if you select a spell that has a costly material component. Either way, if he thinks that prestige class can be broken, there is probably a 95% chance it has to do with the Spell Like Ability High Arcana.

I'm not sure - we haven't been playing with him long enough (<1 year) to get to a point where we would use XP-using spells in-game. The description of Archmage is fairly straight-forward and seemed unbreakable, so I was wondering how you could break it.

He might have mentioned that I could break it in-game because my character can get experience by crushing the souls of others, so that might be it - use the XP from them to fuel Spell-Like Ability.

[Anthrowhale]

The +5 caster level boost in combination with other caster level boosts and holy word (via arcane disciple[Good] for example) can give you a powerful no-save-just-die effect that immediately ends encounters.

[InterstellarPro]

I am not a big fan of the archmage class. It is decent for a core campaign, but it sounds like you have access to a lot of additional sources. However, from the other thread you posted, it looks like you have a ton of casting classes. That +1 bonus from Spell Power (take Spell Power at every level for a +5 bonus total) says it is to your effective caster level. It does not say it is the effective caster level with the class you chose to advance. Just make sure to level up each of your casting classes for archmage at least once. So, for each 5th level spell slot you give up, you gain an additional +1 to all of your caster levels. And since you are using some cheese with spellthief and Master Spellthief, that is what, +5 caster level for each level you take of Archmage?

[RoboEmperor]

I think it has to do with Mastery of Shaping to create an anti-magic field that affects everyone but the guy it's centered around.

Also possibly using Arcane Reach to persist touch spells?

And Mastery of Elements to making everything do the unresisted sonic damage.

[FelineArchmage]

The +5 caster level boost in combination with other caster level boosts and holy word (via arcane disciple[Good] for example) can give you a powerful no-save-just-die effect that immediately ends encounters.

That isn't a bad idea, but I don't really need the +5 CL boost in order to do it (see below in my answer to InterstellarPro).

And thankfully I don't need Arcane Disciple - Urpriests aren't restricted by alignment spells, and my DM is allowing me to take Alternate Spell Source from Dragon Magazine.

I am not a big fan of the archmage class. It is decent for a core campaign, but it sounds like you have access to a lot of additional sources. However, from the other thread you posted, it looks like you have a ton of casting classes. That +1 bonus from Spell Power (take Spell Power at every level for a +5 bonus total) says it is to your effective caster level. It does not say it is the effective caster level with the class you chose to advance. Just make sure to level up each of your casting classes for archmage at least once. So, for each 5th level spell slot you give up, you gain an additional +1 to all of your caster levels. And since you are using some cheese with spellthief and Master Spellthief, that is what, +5 caster level for each level you take of Archmage?

The problem is, I don't know if the +5 CL is worth it? I've done the math and worked out my CL all the way up through 20th level - it ends up being in the low to mid 40s. A +40 to any CL check, plus whatever I roll on the die, should be more than enough. If I do decide to go with Archmage, I would take some of the other powers - I am very partial to Arcane Reach and Mastery of Elements.

And the Master Spellthief feat doesn't work with caster levels in terms of stacking - it's actual levels you've gained in the class.

[InterstellarPro]

That isn't a bad idea, but I don't really need the +5 CL boost in order to do it (see below in my answer to InterstellarPro).

And thankfully I don't need Arcane Disciple - Urpriests aren't restricted by alignment spells, and my DM is allowing me to take Alternate Spell Source from Dragon Magazine.



The problem is, I don't know if the +5 CL is worth it? I've done the math and worked out my CL all the way up through 20th level - it ends up being in the low to mid 40s. A +40 to any CL check, plus whatever I roll on the die, should be more than enough. If I do decide to go with Archmage, I would take some of the other powers - I am very partial to Arcane Reach and Mastery of Elements.

And the Master Spellthief feat doesn't work with caster levels in terms of stacking - it's actual levels you've gained in the class.

The wording is, "Your spellthief and arcane spellcaster levels also stack when determining your caster level for all arcane spells." It does not say levels taken in arcane spellcasting classes. It says your arcane spellcaster level, referring to your caster level in those classes. So, tricks with Practiced Spellcaster should apply, along with any other caster level boosts (like from Archmage).

[Eldariel]

The most powerful things the class does are:
- Mastery of Shaping. This can be used to e.g. create an Antimagic Field that excludes your own square. However, that's mostly a powerful defense against melee types and something you can use with move actions against other casters so it isn't all that.
- Arcane Reach. This is really strong (e.g. Otto's Irresistible Dance at range) but it's not broken. All the options available offer other defenses (Mind Blank and Spell Resistance in the case of Irresistible Dance) and somewhat equal options exist without the ability.
- Spell Power. As Anthrowhale said, pumping your caster level can have a drastic effect on certain spells. That said, whether the same ability is considered the same source or not (I tend to rule it as being the same source and thus overlapping) affects whether you can get +5 or +1 over the class. Either way, it's not really broken but it's kinda neat for e.g. Shapechange, Gate or the mentioned Holy Word-line.
- Spell-Like Ability. This would be the most breakable but it has stringent requirements. It allows you to bypass other components though so you can do some stupid RAW stuff with things that lack price as you can skip irrelevant components.

[Cosi]

Spell-like Ability is very powerful with spells that have long casting times. Casting planar binding in combat time is very powerful (provided you can trust the called creature to behave the way you want). major creation would allow you to create a cage made of adamantine and full of lava/poison/acid around your target (with no save). If you're willing to blow a feat, you can (arguably) use Supernatural Transformation to turn your SLAs into SU abilities.

[InterstellarPro]

Spell-like Ability is very powerful with spells that have long casting times. Casting planar binding in combat time is very powerful (provided you can trust the called creature to behave the way you want). major creation would allow you to create a cage made of adamantine and full of lava/poison/acid around your target (with no save). If you're willing to blow a feat, you can (arguably) use Supernatural Transformation to turn your SLAs into SU abilities.

According to the SRD:

A spell-like ability takes the same amount of time to complete as the spell that it mimics (usually 1 standard action) unless otherwise stated.

And nothing in the Archmage entry seems to imply that it is "otherwise stated".

[FelineArchmage]

The wording is, "Your spellthief and arcane spellcaster levels also stack when determining your caster level for all arcane spells." It does not say levels taken in arcane spellcasting classes. It says your arcane spellcaster level, referring to your caster level in those classes. So, tricks with Practiced Spellcaster should apply, along with any other caster level boosts (like from Archmage).

I believe the disconnect between the two of us in this is that I am taking the wording as "Your spellthief [class] and [arcane spellcaster class] levels stack" and you're taking it as caster levels stack. With the example it gives in the description of the feat, I will stick with my interpretation.

Regardless, I already have an insanely high CL, and I don't think that my biggest benefit from Archmage would be from Spell Power.

[Cosi]

And nothing in the Archmage entry seems to imply that it is "otherwise stated".

That is not what it says here. In any case, Supernatural Transformation would make the ability a Standard Action regardless.

[InterstellarPro]

That is not what it says here. In any case, Supernatural Transformation would make the ability a Standard Action regardless.

You can rule it however you want. The SRD makes it pretty clear that you use the casting time of the spell being mimicked. The Rules of the Game article you just posted does not contradict that. It says, if the ability says otherwise (and the Spell-Like Ability rules I just posted do indeed say otherwise), it uses those rules.

In the SRD, the rules for Supernatural Ability say, "Using a Supernatural Ability is a standard action unless noted otherwise". Having a casting time equal to the spell being mimicked is stating otherwise. It is just not a statement that you seem to want to acknowledge. So, again, rule however you want, but it seems pretty clear in the rules that the casting time is unchanged when a spell becomes a SLA or a Su.

[Cosi]

You can rule it however you want. The SRD makes it pretty clear that you use the casting time of the spell being mimicked. The Rules of the Game article you just posted does not contradict that. It says, if the ability says otherwise (and the Spell-Like Ability rules I just posted do indeed say otherwise), it uses those rules.

Wat.

However, [a spell-like ability is] a standard action unless the ability description specifically says otherwise.

"The ability description" here is the Archmage's class feature. Here is the full text of that ability:

An archmage who selects this type of high arcana can use one of her arcane spell slots (other than a slot expended to learn this or any other type of high arcana) to permanently prepare one of her arcane spells as a spell-like ability that can be used twice per day. The archmage does not use any components when casting the spell, although a spell that costs XP to cast still does so and a spell with a costly material component instead costs her 10 times that amount in XP. This ability costs one 5th-level spell slot.

The spell-like ability normally uses a spell slot of the spell’s level, although the archmage can choose to make a spell modified by a metamagic feat into a spell-like ability at the appropriate spell level.

The archmage may use an available higher-level spell slot in order to use the spell-like ability more often. Using a slot three levels higher than the chosen spell allows her to use the spell-like ability four times per day, and a slot six levels higher lets her use it six times per day.

If spell-like ability is selected more than one time as a high arcana choice, this ability can apply to the same spell chosen the first time (increasing the number of times per day it can be used) or to a different spell.

Can you point out where that ability states that the activation of the SLA is something other than a standard action? Because I can't see anywhere it does.

In the SRD, the rules for Supernatural Ability say, "Using a Supernatural Ability is a standard action unless noted otherwise". Having a casting time equal to the spell being mimicked is stating otherwise. It is just not a statement that you seem to want to acknowledge. So, again, rule however you want, but it seems pretty clear in the rules that the casting time is unchanged when a spell becomes a SLA or a Su.

Again, the description of the Supernatural Ability is determined by Supernatural Transformation, which never outlines a preservation of action type.

[InterstellarPro]

Wat.



"The ability description" here is the Archmage's class feature. Here is the full text of that ability:



Can you point out where that ability states that the activation of the SLA is something other than a standard action? Because I can't see anywhere it does.

The Archmage does not make any statement about the casting time for Spell-Like Abilities, so you must view the actual description of a Spell-Like Ability which states, quite clearly, that it uses the casting time of the spell it mimics. The Archmage class feature does not override that. So, it works as given in the SRD. The Rules of the Game article does not overrule the SRD. It agrees with it.

Again, the description of the Supernatural Ability is determined by Supernatural Transformation, which never outlines a preservation of action type.

No, the Supernatural Ability is determined by the Spell-like Ability you are using to create it. No where in the text of Supernatural Transformation does it state the amount of time required to use the supernatural ability, so by the rules, you would default to the casting time of the spell-like ability, which is the same as the casting time of the original spell. This is further enforced since the text of Supernatural Ability in the SRD says that the amount of time required to activate it is a standard action, unless otherwise stated. The longer casting time of the original spell, which corresponds to the longer casting time of the Spell-Like Ability, does state otherwise. So, when it becomes a supernatural ability, you would use that text, which is a longer casting time. Alternately, you can read it exactly as you stated. I am saying that the rules for Supernatural Ability are not as clear as you are trying to make it out. It is extremely ambiguous. You should use the rules you feel most comfortable with as a DM. As much as you do not seem to want to hear it, it seems equally likely that the rules could be saying that the Supernatural Ability would be a standard action as it would be the original spell's casting time.

[Cosi]

The Archmage does not make any statement about the casting time for Spell-Like Abilities, so you must view the actual description of a Spell-Like Ability which states, quite clearly, that it uses the casting time of the spell it mimics. The Archmage class feature does not override that. So, it works as given in the SRD. The Rules of the Game article does not overrule the SRD. It agrees with it.

The Rules of the Game article says that a SLA has a standard action casting time unless specified otherwise in "the ability description". "The ability description" refers to the Archmage's SLA ability (because that is the ability we are discussing). Since that ability does not specify a different action type than Standard for the SLA it provides, the action type of the SLA it provides is standard.

Your position is only coherent if we believe "the ability description" means "the rules for SLAs". That's obviously and bafflingly insane, because it leaves no possibility for different SLAs of the same spell to have different action types.

No, the Supernatural Ability is determined by the Spell-like Ability you are using to create it. No where in the text of Supernatural Transformation does it state the amount of time required to use the supernatural ability, so by the rules, you would default to the casting time of the spell-like ability

No, it doesn't. There are rules for the default action type of a Supernatural ability. Specifically, that action type is "standard unless specified by the ability". Your position is literally that the Supernatural ability created by Supernatural Transformation does not use the default action type for Supernatural abilities unless it explicitly says it does which is, in case you didn't know what "default" means, the exact opposite of what default means.

[InterstellarPro]

The Rules of the Game article says that a SLA has a standard action casting time unless specified otherwise in "the ability description". "The ability description" refers to the Archmage's SLA ability (because that is the ability we are discussing). Since that ability does not specify a different action type than Standard for the SLA it provides, the action type of the SLA it provides is standard.

Your position is only coherent if we believe "the ability description" means "the rules for SLAs". That's obviously and bafflingly insane, because it leaves no possibility for different SLAs of the same spell to have different action types.



No, it doesn't. There are rules for the default action type of a Supernatural ability. Specifically, that action type is "standard unless specified by the ability". Your position is literally that the Supernatural ability created by Supernatural Transformation does not use the default action type for Supernatural abilities unless it explicitly says it does which is, in case you didn't know what "default" means, the exact opposite of what default means.

We can continue arguing if you like. I can point out how you are being deliberately obtuse to try to win your argument. The truth of the matter is that the rules are ambiguously worded for Supernatural Abilities, quite well-defined and worded exactly as I state for spell-like abilities, and you will continue to argue the way you want them to work regardless. The Rules of the Game article does not overrule what a spell-like ability is. So, when determining the nature of a spell-like ability, you check the class first. It says you gain a spell-like ability (and offers no additional insight). So, next, we go to the definition of a spell-like ability. It tells us that the casting time is equal to the casting time of the spell it mimics. Now, you are saying that the rules of the game article bypasses the definition of a spell-like ability because you say it does. That is not how the rules work, and it is obviously and bafflingly insane that you would argue otherwise. A definition is the same for all SLAs because it is a definition for SLAs. That is what a definition is. That is what a definition does.

Now, if you want to rule the spell-like abilities use the Rules of the Game article and ignore their definition from the SRD, that is all well and good. That is not how rules work, though. Good luck to you. I am done arguing this. And rule however you want for supernatural abilities. Again, we are not going to agree.

[Cosi]

Now, you are saying that the rules of the game article bypasses the definition of a spell-like ability because you say it does.

No, it bypasses those rules because it says it does.

The bottom line is that the Rules of the Game article says that the action type of a SLA is one of two things:

1. Standard.
2. Defined by the ability itself.

The Archmage's SLA ability does not define its action type. Therefore, its action type is standard. That is what the article says. It does not ever tell you to check the rules for SLAs, because it is saying what those rules do.

You can say that the article conflicts with the rules for SLAs.* I think that's the claim you're trying to make. But that claim is wrong. Because the relevant text is:

A spell-like ability takes the same amount of time to complete as the spell that it mimics (usually 1 standard action) unless otherwise stated.

The Rules of the Game article is otherwise stating. It says that for all SLAs, they take standard actions, or the action type defined by the ability. The citation chain looks like this:

1. Look up rules for SLAs. Those rules say that the action type of a SLA is the action of the spell, unless something states otherwise. So we look for things that state otherwise.
2. The Rules of the Game states that the action type of a SLA is standard, or defined by this ability. Since this is a different definition from the one given by SLA, it is "stating otherwise", and therefor by the text you cited overrides the rules for SLAs. It tells us to check for an action type specified by the ability, or use standard if none is.
3. The Archmage's SLA does not define an action type, so we fall back to the default given by the Rules of the Game article -- standard.

You're doing your lookup backwards. You're supposed to start with the most general rule (SLAs), then move to more precise rules (Rules of the Game, then Archmage). You're trying to start from the most specific and become progressively more general, but that's exactly how inheritance doesn't work in D&D.

*: Note that even if you make this claim, you are still wrong, because what you have a conflict. Two things are making contradictory statements about the action type, and neither would be in the other's inheritance chain. Then we would have to debate whether to resolve the citation to the SLA rules or the Rules of the Game article. But we don't have to do that, because the SLA rules call the Rules of the Game article.

[InterstellarPro]

No, it bypasses those rules because it says it does.

The bottom line is that the Rules of the Game article says that the action type of a SLA is one of two things:

1. Standard.
2. Defined by the ability itself.

The Archmage's SLA ability does not define its action type. Therefore, its action type is standard. That is what the article says. It does not ever tell you to check the rules for SLAs, because it is saying what those rules do.

You can say that the article conflicts with the rules for SLAs.* I think that's the claim you're trying to make. But that claim is wrong. Because the relevant text is:



The Rules of the Game article is otherwise stating. It says that for all SLAs, they take standard actions, or the action type defined by the ability. The citation chain looks like this:

1. Look up rules for SLAs. Those rules say that the action type of a SLA is the action of the spell, unless something states otherwise. So we look for things that state otherwise.
2. The Rules of the Game states that the action type of a SLA is standard, or defined by this ability. Since this is a different definition from the one given by SLA, it is "stating otherwise", and therefor by the text you cited overrides the rules for SLAs. It tells us to check for an action type specified by the ability, or use standard if none is.
3. The Archmage's SLA does not define an action type, so we fall back to the default given by the Rules of the Game article -- standard.

You're doing your lookup backwards. You're supposed to start with the most general rule (SLAs), then move to more precise rules (Rules of the Game, then Archmage). You're trying to start from the most specific and become progressively more general, but that's exactly how inheritance doesn't work in D&D.

*: Note that even if you make this claim, you are still wrong, because what you have a conflict. Two things are making contradictory statements about the action type, and neither would be in the other's inheritance chain. Then we would have to debate whether to resolve the citation to the SLA rules or the Rules of the Game article. But we don't have to do that, because the SLA rules call the Rules of the Game article.

You can continue trying to bend and twist the rules to fit the ruling you want, but that does not change the way the rules actually work, which is as I described.

[Cosi]

You can continue trying to bend and twist the rules to fit the ruling you want, but that does not change the way the rules actually work, which is as I described.

So, why exactly does this line:

unless otherwise stated.

Not allow the Rules of the Game article (which states something other than what the SLA passage does) to modify the activation time of SLAs? With specifics please, not just "you are wrong and dumb and I am right and smart and the rules are so obvious it's not worth explaining".

[InterstellarPro]

So, why exactly does this line:



Not allow the Rules of the Game article (which states something other than what the SLA passage does) to modify the activation time of SLAs? With specifics please, not just "you are wrong and dumb and I am right and smart and the rules are so obvious it's not worth explaining".

It is not worth explaining because it is ok that you and I disagree. I steadfastly believe that the rules work the way I stated. I stated my case for it already. You can read it if you desire, but it is really not worthwhile. I will continue believing as I do. You will continue believing as you do. In my games, I guarantee you that I am right. In your games, I guarantee you that you are right. So, what use is any further discussion about this?

[Cosi]

I stated my case for it already.

It's interesting that you replied four different times, then stopped when I asked you a question. Let me repeat that question in case you misheard the first time:

The rules for SLAs say that a SLA has the same casting time as the spell it is based on "unless otherwise stated". The cited Rules of the Game article states that SLAs have a casting time of one standard action unless the ability says otherwise. Why do those rules not qualify is something "otherwise stated" and therefore modify the casting time of a SLA?

[emeraldstreak]

Archmage is a minor but key ingredient to a very powerful build. Maybe your DM is aware of it.

[InterstellarPro]

It's interesting that you replied four different times, then stopped when I asked you a question. Let me repeat that question in case you misheard the first time:

The rules for SLAs say that a SLA has the same casting time as the spell it is based on "unless otherwise stated". The cited Rules of the Game article states that SLAs have a casting time of one standard action unless the ability says otherwise. Why do those rules not qualify is something "otherwise stated" and therefore modify the casting time of a SLA?

You are taking "Ability" to mean the statement in Archmage that says that you get a spell-like ability. I am taking Ability to be the particular spell that defines the Ability. The Rules of the Game was not overriding the rule from the SRD. The two sources are saying the exact same thing. Since there is no disagreement between sources, we start with a casting time equal to the spell being mimicked. We add the Rules of the Game which says it is a standard action unless the ability (the spell being granted) states otherwise. The ability (the spell being granted) does, indeed, state otherwise. So, the Rules of the Game article is stating exactly what was already stated in the SRD. No discrepancy at all. It is not a "new ruling". It is the exact same ruling as before. You want to believe it is a different ruling. So, for your games, it is. Congrats. Why are you still arguing this? You have already won your argument in every game you run. You have already lost your argument in every game I run.

[Cosi]

You are taking "Ability" to mean the statement in Archmage that says that you get a spell-like ability. I am taking Ability to be the particular spell that defines the Ability.

So your contention is that, when the rules for spell like abilities say "the ability", they in fact mean the spell that ability is based off of? That ... does not make any sense at all.

[FelineArchmage]

So your contention is that, when the rules for spell like abilities say "the ability", they in fact mean the spell that ability is based off of? That ... does not make any sense at all.

Cosi

InterstellarPro already went the "agree to disagree" route. I originally made the thread to have the above question in the title answered, not for members to argue about how SLA is handled. The original topic has been derailed.

[TallerSpine]

As FelineArchmage's DM, I can attest that I did, in fact, refer to what someonenoone11 suggested.

[Zanos]

As FelineArchmage's DM, I can attest that I did, in fact, refer to what someonenoone11 suggested.

While mastery of shaping with antimagic field is a good trick, there's no problem with casting through an antimagic field, so they can still be attacked with magic just fine if they're excluding their own square.

IMO the prime Archmage cheese is Supernatural Transformation on the SLA, probably for free Wishes.

Archmage is a minor but key ingredient to a very powerful build. Maybe your DM is aware of it.

Oh? Care to elaborate?

[RoboEmperor]

While mastery of shaping with antimagic field is a good trick, there's no problem with casting through an antimagic field, so they can still be attacked with magic just fine if they're excluding their own square.

I think you're wrong here. Consider a summoned creature charging to the target. The moment it enters the anti-magic field it winks out. It's momentum doesn't let it move in the anti-magic field once it winks out. So likewise any spell that has a projectile like a ray will be stopped by the anti-magic field. You might have a case for spells that don't have a projectile though.

IMO the prime Archmage cheese is Supernatural Transformation on the SLA, probably for free Wishes.

Amazing! I didn't know such a trick existed! No longer must I rely on the webcontent dweomerkeeper for free wishes! Not that I care about free wishes.