Talk:True Aegis (3.5e Prestige Class)
From D&D Wiki
Abilities[edit]
Think this 5-level class gets enough of them? Shield Bonus is broken,at level 6 you will be reflecting nearly any spell targeting back at the caster. Your AC is out of control, but it doesn't matter because you probably have a near 70% miss off the top with concealing shield. Shield of the heart is OP, +8 and + at least 15 from con to all saves. If this is ready for rating, please be prepared for 0.1 in power.--Ganre (talk) 11:29, 14 November 2012 (MST)
Rating[edit]
Balance – 0.1/5 I give this class a 0. 1 out of 5 because: Shield Bonus is completely broken. +25 to your AC from your shield at level 5 is going too far.
True Reflection makes you pretty much immune to most targeted spells.
Concealing shield: This means that to even have a chance of beating your completely absurd AC, a person must first deal with your (extremely high) miss chance.
Shield Fighting: the first part of this ability isn’t bad, but giving them improved uncanny dodge is.
Strong Arm: Oh look, more AC3x your CON mod, you could just make an ability that says they can’t be hit with attacks, you know.
Shield Stance: Moar AC!
True Spellresistance: 10+ con + character level + Caster Level = NEVER BEING SUBJECT TO A SPELL THAT ALLOWS SR.
Tower Charge: Not bad, I kind like it
Impact Shield: Stacking debuff, no save. Not balanced at all.
Elemental Immunity: very powerful, not inherently broken, though.
Shield of the Heart: Shield now provides touch AC, insight bonus to saves, and 3x con to all saves. You now will never fail a save unless you roll a 1, and your DM says that fails, and never again be hit in combat, even by a touch attack.
Evasion: well, you never fail a save, so why not completely avoid all damage…
Immediate Cover: Certainly not as broken as the rest of the class.
Six Ways of the Aegis: Like you needed 6*25 more AC, or the DR, also, the shield’s can perform ANY action? That is an abuse-prone word. --Ganre (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2014 (MST)
Wording - 3/5 I give this class a 3 out of 5 because there are a few spelling grammatical errors, and several abilities are unclear. --Ganre (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2014 (MST)
Formatting - 3/5 I give this class a 3 out of 5 because tables are used, but they are crowded, and could be better formatted.--Ganre (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2014 (MST)
Flavor - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because it sounds fun to play(as an archetype, not with the rules as written), and would integrate rather well into most games. --Ganre (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2014 (MST)
