Talk:Gun Mage (3.5e Prestige Class)

Prereq Comment

The prereq. "Ability to cast 1st level spell" isn't needed. The "Craft magic arms and armor" feat requires "Caster level 5th" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.131.115.197 (talk • contribs) 19:53, January 18, 2009 (MST). Please sign your posts.

Actually, warlocks and artificers can Craft Magic Arms and Armor, and they cannot cast any spells at all. Atypicaloracle 10:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Rating

Power - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because, while this class can easily be taken by a level 8 wizard, it is actually balanced. This is considering that, in a campaign where guns are being used, this class doesn't offer much more than a fighter based class could achive, and what it does offer, it has an equally high price. → Rith ^(talk) 23:52, 19 April 2009 (MDT)

Wording - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because, while the grammar gets a little choppy in some of the special features, it is understandable. → Rith ^(talk) 23:52, 19 April 2009 (MDT)

Formatting - 4.5/5 I give this class a 4.5 out of 5 because only one section is blank, though, interwiki linking is slightly lacking. → Rith ^(talk) 23:52, 19 April 2009 (MDT)

Flavor - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because arcane guns are cool. → Rith ^(talk) 23:52, 19 April 2009 (MDT)

A little much, methinks.

I want to say that I don't mean to rip your class a new asshole, just that I think the previous rating was too high and done prematurely, perhaps, which may have contributed to my feeling it was off-base. -- Jota 15:08, 20 April 2009 (MDT)

Rating

Power - 5/5 I give this class a 1.5 out of 5 because:

1. This class gains spell like it a normal wizard, with the BAB progression of a fighter, better saves than either a fighter or a wizard, a huge selection of skills, many which don't seem relevant, and Evasion.
2. It gains (for free) a weapon (Magic Pistol) that is the equivalent of a ranged greatsword with the potential for an enhancement bonus equivalent to an artifact.
3. Channel Spell Power. It is already relatively easy to hit because of all of the properties of the Magic Gun yet this essentially tacks on damage like a sneak attack for a relatively small price, especially if it can be used multiple times per round.
4. With mana potential you don't even have to sacrifice spellcasting to deal massive damage (with a wizard's spell progression this adds up to an extra 90d6 damage per day assuming everything connects, all for no cost).
5. Spell Critical isn't so broken by itself, but by combining Channel Spell Power, Spell Critical, and Critical Shot, assuming you're an epic character now, you can sacrifice multiple (read 3) 9^th deal 2d8+18d6 x 5 damage on a weapon that has a critical threat range of 10-20. That's about 360 damage, which is probably more than enough to kill anything that moves.
6. Even if provisions are made to restrict the combination described above, you have mana beam. Now, it is worded poorly ["suffers 2d6 (per level of each spell slot expended) + the Gun Mages level per spell slot expended"], and it does grant Reflex saves from creatures with Evasion (and therefore presumably Reflex saves for half for normal people), but even with this at full power an 18^th level wizard is looking at 147d6 at full power + 10 (gun mage level) * 147 (spell slots expended). Now, I think you meant to word this differently, so I'll throw out that last 1,470 damage, but even the first part averages out to about 515 damage. It may not be used at full power too often, but I feel it is just too much.
7. If you have corrections to be made in the wording that provide balance then the rating here might improve at the expense of the wording rating, but as it is I see potential for rampant abuse. I used to be a munchkin game, I can think like one, and I would go to town on red dragons everywhere with this class. -- Jota 15:03, 20 April 2009 (MDT)

For my defence I might designed the class around the Abjurant Champion of Complete Mage. The abjurant champion is also much better than this class too. It was designed, similarly to the champion for gishy wizards.

1. Mana Beam have to be clarified, you can only expend one spell slot. And it pretty much the same ting for everything else.

I try to redesign problematic abilities, stay tunes. --Lord Dhazriel 03:43, 18 July 2009 (MDT)

I actually agreed, mana beam was stupidly designed. Let see if other abilities are retarded. --Lord Dhazriel 03:48, 18 July 2009 (MDT)

Just hit me up with another MoI when you're satisfied with what you have (unless that's what the most recent one meant). At a quick glance, I would also say that Channel Spell Power needs to say whether it is an attack or standard action. I don't know if you changed it, but I'm having trouble figuring out exactly how many spell slots Mana Potential is supposed to be giving. Also, as an attack action, mana beam still seems a little strong. I mean, supposing bard as the entry class: with a full-attack action you get three ranged touch attacks, expend a 5, 5, and a 4, and you get 168 pretty easily. Comparable abilities (1d6/level at will) from other classes deal 16d6 based for the bard described above, which comes out to 56 on average. If you were a fighter 2/wizard 5 you'd have the same thing, although as a wizard you could do an 8 and two 7th level spells for 264. Granted it isn't limitless (the next step down for each would be three 3rd levels spells or three 6th levels - 108 and 216, respectively), but perhaps a standard action would be better? -- Jota 10:19, 18 July 2009 (MDT)

I fixed the description of mana potential and channel spell power. And Mana Beam do not match spells of 6th or higher in term of power, because HP damages isn't as effective as a save or die. It is however a good way to get rid of lower spell slot. But check spell like disintegrate (6th level I think) inflicting 2d6 damages per caster level. It damage potential as a spell is almost higher than a mana beam full-attack burning 9th level slot. Mana Potential is here so you don't have to burn the much useful higher level spells to throw a damaging mana beam. And really what is more awesome than overkilling the BBEG in te final encounter (wherehe lose his plot armor) with a barrage of highly powered mana beams? --Lord Dhazriel 16:40, 18 July 2009 (MDT)

That's true, both the save or die and disintegrate parts, but the ability to do either save or die or massive damage overload is rather powerful. I've got a few other things to rate before I get around to it, but I will re-evaluate shortly. -- Jota 19:39, 18 July 2009 (MDT)

Okay, here's what I'm thinking now:

1. I still have a bit of a problem with the entirety of the core package (evasion, superior BAB, decent skill selection, no caster levels given up).
2. I'm more concerned about Imbue Bullets now than Channel Spell Power. Channel Spell Power gives some okay damage, but it's a standard action, so it's ultimately not that powerful. Imbue Bullets would let you put an anti-magic sphere on a bullet and shoot someone with it, canceling their magic while your modified fighter-type tears them a new asshole. I don't know if there are any other spells with the same potential for abuse, but seeing as antimagic sphere offers no save and you could theoretically take out an opposing spellcaster simply by winning initiative, I just don't know.
3. I'm still not sure how many extra spell levels you are trying to give with mana potential. It seems like, at fourth level (assuming access to sixth level spells: one first, one second, one third, and so on to sixth, and then at eighth level two of each. Now I think this is what you meant, but it's still a little confusing.
4. Mana Beam. An attack action implies I could use it once for each attack I have with a full attack action, although the description reads more akin to channel spell power. If it is an attack action: three ranged touch attacks, 324 damage; eh, considering the benefits you could get out of time stop or something similar it's probably fine, I just think it should be clarified in the wording whether it is an attack action or a standard action.

So as it stands, I guess imbue bullets and the general positives (BAB, saves, skills, full spellcasting--that's the big one, really) are my only reservations as far as power is concerned. -- Jota 11:26, 8 August 2009 (MDT)

Imbue bullet is like Arcane Archer's Imbue arrow. As stated by the rules, it only allow you to use the gun range instead of the spell range. Yes you could throw an anti-magic field but it would still be static and all would be wasted in one sad turn. Imbue bullet is a very useful ability but it not a planar-shepherdish ability. And btw, now the class got mid bab, many other classes have mid bab and full spellcasting (like the Divine Oracle). --Dhazriel 13:16, 8 August 2009 (MDT)

I was thinking the bullet would be lodged in the target, and significantly harder to remove than an arrow, but I guess that's semantics, in a way. The BAB itself wasn't such a huge deal, merely the BAB in combination with the skills, abilities, and whatnot. Most of the arcane prestige classes that offer unique and potent abilities such as this one do not get full spellcasting, and those that receive full spellcasting usually have smaller power boosts and a continuation of the wizard's poor BAB and one good save (usually Will, too), such as the Mage of the Arcane Order. Even classes that have (relatively) nice abilities, such as the Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil, just build on the wizard's core statistics. -- Jota 13:28, 8 August 2009 (MDT)

The Incantatrix and the IotSV cannot be compared to this class, they are much much much much much much much much much much much much stronger. The mage of the arcane order is also better, and really the abilities aren't that good. I mean a gun mage get one or two tricks in it sleeve, more than other spellcasters anyway. Against stronger spells their class features wanes, I mean why waste many spell slots for mana beam when you can kill em all with a simple save or die (such as wail of the banshee). The IotSV grant immunity to magic, the Incantatrix grant the ability to persist any spells (such as time stop) and the abjurant champion (The class I based myself on, with the much poorer arcane archer) simply give awesome things. --Dhazriel 20:06, 8 August 2009 (MDT)

←Reverted indentation to one colon

I'll bump my rating up to a 4. I still think losing a few (probably two) levels of spellcasting would be balancing, but I'll look up the Incantrix and Abjurant Champion and get back to you. For comparison's sake, I thought my latest class (peacock sage) gave up two levels for what I thought were relatively nice abilities, although perhaps a bit nicer than your in terms of abilities. I'm trying to take a step back and this is what I've got: your core is still spells, although the gun and various gun-related abilities makes you an okay, if not great, melee combatant. Evasion and superior Reflex saves adds some very nice elements of survivability, and the skills add some out of combat versatility.

Alright, scratch what I just said: I've been mulling over this entire post-thingie for about half an hour and I looked up the abjurant champion. I don't know about the incantrix, but once you clarify that mana is a standard action (I'm still pretty sure that's what you mean, as an attack action I think it's a little unwieldy) I'll boost it to 5. -- Jota 20:58, 8 August 2009 (MDT)

Wording - 3.5/5 I give this class a 3.5 out of 5 because it's mostly solid and overall good without being great, but it is also lacking in certain areas that affect both mechanics and flavor (Mana Beam, NPC Reactions, to give two example). -- Jota 15:03, 20 April 2009 (MDT)

Formatting - 3.5/5 I give this class a 3.5 out of 5 because it is lacking in inter-Wiki linking and is missing or very skimpy on portions of the pre-load. -- Jota 15:03, 20 April 2009 (MDT)

Flavor - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because while it is hardly original it is not without merit and would certainly be an interesting and probably fun class to play, but I think it really struggles with balance. -- Jota 15:03, 20 April 2009 (MDT)

Rating 18/20

Power - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because I believe the class is sound. It gives some nice abilities without being to overwhelming and overpowered. -Sarrow 19:21, 25 July 2009 (MDT)

Wording - 4/5 I give this class 4 out of 5 because there are minor spell issues and a few things are little unclear:

1. Magic Gun, do you actually have to craft it or do you get one automatically. If you have to craft it then you should provide the craft DC and any other relevant information.
2. Spell Critical, what is the critical range and multiplier normally. Is it a 20/x2 cause if so you should mention that. Personally I think it should be 20/x3 or a 19-20/x2.
3. Arcane Blaster, this one is listed on the table but is not detailed below. It is epic so it is not as much of a worry as the others above it, but I would like to know what this does.
4. Also you don't tell what levels they gain the bonus feats for being epic level. Or the feats that they can take. -Sarrow 19:21, 25 July 2009 (MDT)

Formatting - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because though it is missing some information it is still really easy to read and the formating is done rather well. -Sarrow 19:21, 25 July 2009 (MDT)

Flavor - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because the information provided is good and the class is interesting and intriguing, but it isn't fully fleshed out. (But don't worry I have trouble doing that myself, and this has more than most of my classes) I would like to see example encounters and NPCs with this PrC. -Sarrow 19:21, 25 July 2009 (MDT)

Rating

Power - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because it's very powerful. I'd even tone it down a notch by giving Imbue Bullet limited uses per day, much like the Duskblade's, Spellsword's and Enlightened Fist's abilities of similar effect, because it's even more powerful, dealing weapon damage plus spell damage at a range of up to 60ft. while preserving the spell's area of effect. Also, I'd add "Ability to cast at least one arcane spell of any level" as a prerequestite, because, as it is, this class can be taken Warlocks or other classes who can meet the prerquestites. Other that these minor issues, the class is very powerful and well balanced. And fun to play :) --93.184.84.222 10:18, 8 March 2011 (MST)

Wording - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because it is worded clearly and well, with little or no typos and little room for misinterpretation. --93.184.84.222 10:18, 8 March 2011 (MST)

Formatting - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because the formatting seems in order. The Epic section could have been more clearly set apart, but it's not really an issue. --93.184.84.222 10:18, 8 March 2011 (MST)

Flavor - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because the measure of flavour is good - it's not to short or too long in most cases. The quotes and the intro text are excellent. However, it does seem to be missing a certain touch of epicness. I've been having this problem with some of my classes. The flavour text gets better with each class you make. --93.184.84.222 10:18, 8 March 2011 (MST)

Rating

Balance - 4/5 I give this class a X out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> --166.147.104.37 01:47, 6 July 2013 (MDT)

Wording - 4/5 I give this class a X out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> --166.147.104.37 01:47, 6 July 2013 (MDT)

Formatting - 5/5 I give this class a X out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> --166.147.104.37 01:47, 6 July 2013 (MDT)

Flavor - 5/5 I give this class a X out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> --166.147.104.37 01:47, 6 July 2013 (MDT)

Rating

Balance - 5/5 I give this class a X out of 5 because --201.89.72.6 19:51, 23 November 2013 (MST)

Wording - 4/5 I give this class a X out of 5 because --201.89.72.6 19:51, 23 November 2013 (MST)

Flavor - 5/5 I give this class a X out of 5 because --201.89.72.6 19:51, 23 November 2013 (MST)

Image

This image wants to propose to the page image. So awesome. --Salasay Δ 18:15, 16 October 2014 (MDT)