Arcane Devotee vs Exalted Arcanist

Remove all ads!

Hi, I am playing a sorcerer in our current D&D campaign (3.5, Faerun Setting), and I was wondering how to develop him. Eventually, I would like to go towards the archmage prestige class, but I wanted to pick up a medium-level PrC along the way. The sorceror is now almost lvl 3, human, very spell-oriented (8 str, 18 cha), with spell focus: illusion (I planned on going more towards illusions and light-based evocations). By level 10 I planned on having taken 1 level of bard (a bit of appraise, speak languages, perform and the usual skills - knowledge, spellcraft etc), probably also wondrous item creation, possibly leadership and the Nymph's kiss feat from exalted deeds (if the DM lets it pass, it is quite powerful). Initially, I wanted to take the arcane devotee class (from Guide to Faerun, probably A.D. of Mystra) but I was worried about the high requirement (8 ranks in knowledge religion... ouch). Then I saw the exalted arcanist in BoED and... well, it takes 2 strange metamagic feats and sacrifices one level of spellcasting... but unless I have totally misunderstood it, it simply showers the character with extra spells (and the extra skill pts don't hurt either). My bio seems compatible with either, and my char. is CG with no intention to go neutral (on the good-evil axis, at least). The one problem is that I am the only arcane caster in the group (not the only caster, though - there is a druid and cleric, neither intends to MC). So right now I can't decide and I would like to ask for feedback... Have you tried either and what do you prefer?

 

First look at what your character would most likely become. If he has a serious interest in the dogma of some church, he might become an Arcane Devotee. If he's not, you should rollplay him that way. It's silly to rollplay an active member of a church if he's not particularly interested in some dogma or such.
An Exalted Arcanist seems to be more powerful, but tougher to play. An Exalted character is not simply good, it's much more than that. You can't turn the blind eye to some neutral who commits an evil act, for instance.

The ExArc's extra spells are fine, but the best part, imo, is the faster consecrate and faster purify (if you are part of a good aligned group, at least)
I would go for an Exalted Arcanist, even when it's tougher to play.

If you are going to play an Arcane Devotee, it's IMO more fun to become one for a non-magical oriented church. The church of Mystra is full of spellcasters. So why not become an Arcane Devotee for, let's say, Mielikki (if your character has any interest in that church, of course, which I doubt) and protect the forest by deluding it's attackers with your illusions, iso all other churchmembers who defend it with arrows and scimitars? You make your character much more valuable for such a church than for one like Mystra.
Just an idea...

 

Well, my character was initially a believer of Mielikki (actually, first of Ehlonna), but, well, I thought it might be more likely that he move forward unless something big happens in the campaign. Actually, I thought about going for Tymora, but the spell selection which I intend to pursue (heavy on illusions and light evocations, as I said) seems to be more feasible for Mystra... or possibly that mist deity that no one is sure whether still exists. Still, I would prefer my char. to be good. For the moment, both paths seem to be open for my character, or I may just decide to simply go for the archmage (the extra required feats hurt...). The character is still only lvl 2 but I want to plan things out if it's possible.
As for playing exalted, well to me the difference doesn't seem to be good as it is simply a harder version of what good is supposed to mean. The BoED seems to be a guideline of what "good" should be, instead of offering a "new" alignment scale. The problem is, would my character be able to follow such a narrow path? So far he is having a bit of a problem (like asking if there would be rewards before going on a mission), but I will see how things go. Looking at the concept I had when creating the idea, he is good enough, although a bit young and unsure.
Mechanic-wise, I wanted to include several features - leadership and craft wondrous items, and, if possible, the Nymph's kiss from BoED. Right now I need 2 feats for archmage (1 spell focus and 1 skill focus for spellcraft) and two others for Ex. Arc (1 for Arc. Dev.). I may have to abandon some of my ideas, unfortunately... Most prestige classes for sorcerers seem to be very light on bonus feats or item creation feats (I am looking for full or almost-full spellcasting progression). By the way, does spell focus (good) count for the requirements of two spell foci for archmages?
By the way, I was using the 3.0 edition for the Arc. Devotee, are there any differences in 3.5?

 

Nymph's Kiss is very powerful and not very easy to get. It's an exalted feat, which means it's supernatural. You need to be intimate with a good fey, which are usually secluded. But since you're probably a handsome human (might be, with 18 charisma), you got a chance, I guess.
Only Exalted Characters can get exalted feats, though, and you get an Aura of Good equal to your character level. Tough to play.
Besides that, you need approval of your GM. If I was him, I wouldn't let someone gain a powerful feat like Nymph's Kiss unless it perfectly fits his character and roleplaying.

Arcane Devotee is different in 3.5, but I can't remember in what way. I can't check it either. I can't find the DVD on which the information is, because I recently moved and if I could find it, I wouldn't have the hardware to read it.

Leadership and Create Wonderous Items would fit nicely with the Arcane Devotee, btw, seeing the role of the Devotees for their churches.

I'm quite interested. I usually like religious focussed characters and the Arcane Devotee is one of the PrC's I wanted to play at some time.

Edit: You can always ask your GM if he's willing to adjust the prerequisites of PrC's. If the prereqs make sense and weigh as heavily, it shouldn't be a problem, I suppose.

[ April 06, 2006, 16:30: Message edited by: Master of Nuhn ]

 

I am not a very big fan of Prestige Classes, and do not allow any "premade" Prestige classes in any games i have run. But i follow that quote closelly by letting any palyer that wants to make hes own Prestige Class (and let me control check it afterwards).

So what I am trying to say in my usual long winded way is: People take the PRestige Classes way to "literal" from the books, talk with your DM and alter and fix to your hearts content.

(I am still trying to figure why Dwarven Defender have "dodge" as a required feat for example. The Prestige class is described as a "movable wall", and it needs Dodge ?)

 

I just saw the 3.5 faerun guide, and, well, there are a few notable changes. The devotee loses the bonus feat and gets maximized magic from the clerics of the deity... nah, I preferred the older version more. The incantatrix is a simply incredible class, and my char's development so far does not preclude going in that direction. Certainly, if magic springs within you, instead of being available through formulas as in the case of the wizard, being interested in mastering its variations is only natural.

The problem with the Arcane Devotee is the high requirement for knowledge (religion) - 8 ranks is a lot, especially given the requirements of the other "religious" PrCs. Divine disciple, which is imo cleric extraordinaire, requires 8 - and for clerics knowledge (religion) is not only a class skill, but it basically defines who they are and what they fight for. Seekers and champions need 3 ranks. Devotees, apparently, need to be as good at it as the clerics, despite being "auxiliaries", so to say. For a bard or mage it is not a problem (more SPs and a class skill), but a sorcerer has only 2 SP/level and there is only so much you can do with that and not having the skill as a class skill. Not to mention that the 4 "religious" PrCs generally require lvl 7 or so (+7 BAB / 4th level spells/10 ranks in MS), but a sorcerer can't take that before lvl 13 (ok, less with educated, but it's still a huge problem). Actually, that was perhaps the biggest appeal of the nymph's kiss - the extra skill point (though I have no idea where it comes from). That is my biggest problem with the class as such, and if there is one thing I'd like from my DM, it's that. So far, he's been against the idea, as he doesn't want to fiddle with the book.

As for exalted characters, I didn't get this... when does your character switch from "good" to "exalted", and are you sure about the aura? For me it was simply that the character must be good, period. Of course, the book itself discussed that being good is more than killing just the chromatic dragons, etc.

Anyway, raptor, I agree to a point but I intend to select a prestige class for my character as the sorcerer is perhaps the one class where the core version gets nothing after lvl 1 as additional abilities. Come on, they could think of so much for the monk or druid, but the sorcerer gets zilch. The only thing s/he sacrifices for a prestige class are a few more abilities for the familiar. Had they developed it in a way similar to the warlock (which in concept is 99.5% indistinguishable from a demonic/fey sorcerer, the way he is described), I would have thought twice - at least detect magic at will and imbue item sound very close to the idea the sorcerer was created with. But as it is now, the class doesn't even get the mage bonus feats. Well, if the vanilla sorcerer has such good possibilities and concepts and delivers so little, I suppose it's left to the players The DM running our game is promising, but very inexperienced (it's his first time, so we're being gentle on him ), therefore I suppose he would be a little hesitant when it comes to tweaking. Well, I speak with him, of course, the DM is still the DM .

Oh, and on the "nymph's kiss" issue, my DM's response about it was: "Well, you have to find a nymph. I will think whether I give you one or not, so be nice in the future." There's only so much 18 charisma can do for you

[ April 07, 2006, 16:44: Message edited by: The Shaman ]

 

Well, to be honest, I don't really know the difference between good and exalted, but I have the idea that good people are willing to make a sacrifice to help others if they see someone in need, while exalted characters actively seek for such situations. But that's just what I have in mind.

About the Aura of Good, yes, I'm quite sure about that. You can find it at p.39 of the BoED.

I agree that 8 ranks in Knowledge (Religion) is very much. Nice arguments, btw.
IMO they could drop the prereq to 5 or 4. An other option is that you would have to take the Arcane Disciple feat from Complete Divine.
You still need 4 ranks in Know:Reli for that, but at least you compensate for the 4 you don't need. Feats hurt more than skill points, especially for a Sorcerer, I know. But the Arcane Disciple feat suits the Arcane Devotee perfect and it's nice for a Sorcerer as well. (You get Domain Spells as known spells, basicly)

Edit: Ooh, wait. You don't add the spells to your known spells, but add them to your class list of arcane spells. Seems you have no extra spells, but only a slightly bigger variation to choose from.
Meh...

 

Difference between good and exalted, is that while good strives to do good and all that, they're allowed a slip every now and then. Take out the evil baron with a nasty poison instead of justice, because he caused the death of one of your fellow partymembers for example. With good, a slip like that has little consequences.

If you're exalted, that means you are a paragon of virtue. You are the epitome of righteousness and all that is good. You know no vengeance, etcetera and all that.

I'd suggest reading up on it in the Book of Exalted Deeds, but to be honest that book is a crock of ****e, so... *shrug*

 

I browsed through the BoED, but I didn't really go that deep... Oh well.
BTW, YES! Apparently there was an errata file about the Player's guide to Faerun that sinks the Knowledge (Religion) requirement for the Devotee to 5. Now all that's left is to persuade the DM...

 

Regarding the "no class abilities after level 1" Thingy, that is becose sorcerer have what is considered the most powerfull spellcasting in the game. They would have had to nerf hes spellcasting to dare give him more abilities. Same thing with Cleric, who already has great combat stats compared to all other spellcasters, and is the prime divine spellcaster, naturally giving him more would tip him over the attempt at balancing the game. Heh druids have to amny abilities in my opinion, simple becose they are stil good enough without several of them. Monk is just flawed, he have so many weird abilities that does not work very well together.

I am also of the opinion that classes should "represent the characters personality", and as such most prestige classes make no sence. I usually form the general idea of the character o race and alignment first, and then beign making the background story and class at the same time. A prestige class usually includes a heavy ideology or dogma to the character, that in most cases will be a direct "change of personality" to most characters.

All in all, I prefer class-less systems, where you do not get stereotyped, or locked in with abilities you do not need or want, or fit your character all the time. So I am looking more into alternative systems to D&D latelly.

 

@ Master of Nunh: Arcane disciple? Where did THAT come from?

@ Raptor: I think prestige classes are a way to further customize your character, just as, to give another example for sorcerers, selection of spells known - a sorcerer technically could select spells without an overarching theme to them, but given that magic is an innate ability to them, it makes some sense to specialize in a given branch of magic. The one I'm playing, for example, is strongly oriented towards illusions and, eventually, light evocation. I would not select a prestige class that does not tie conceptually with the idea that I had as a character.

As for "who is better in spellcasting", this has been a topic for discussion in so many threads (check out the WotC boards, they have 5 threads on Wiz/Sorcs every week!). Sure, a sorcerer is a spontaneous caster, but they know very few spells, receive new spell levels slower, and have their spellcasting tied to an attribute that, in my opinion, allows them less options. Sure, charisma is great for a leader, and the PHB goes on about how charismatic sorcerers are, but so are Wisdom and Intelligence, and a leader should have diplomacy and sense motive, among other skills. The sorcerers, in most cases, simply don't have the skill points for that. The extra features are, imo, the way WotC tried to "flesh out", as it were, the various classes and give them some unique appeal. In some cases, like wizards and fighters, they either didn't want to bother or thought the concept of the class is so diverse it should be left to the players - hence the bonus feats. Clerics and sorcerers get nothing after level 1, but for clerics the domains are more than enough of a feature - they get one extra spell slot per level and an additional power (and of course there is turning, and spellcasting without any restrictions to weapon and armor... hello, mr tank-with-full-spellcasting). Sorcerers get a familiar.

Anyway, I do think that it wouldn't be imbalanced for sorcerers to get some extras. There was recently a thread at the WotC boards that proposed giving them bonus spell known feats at levels 5,10,15, and 20, but valid for every spell level they know, and imo it makes sense - not only do they know a few spell known, but why shouldn't they know curative spells, for example, if they have a celestial bloodline? Other ideas are either a d6 or 4 SPs/level, to reflect that sorcerers are normally not as cloistered as wizards are (same reason they have their simple weapon proficiencies).

By the way, raptor, have you checked out White Wolf's World of Darkness? I think it definately has a lot of appeal, and it may be just what you are looking for.


Sorry, got carried away here .

[ April 08, 2006, 12:51: Message edited by: The Shaman ]

 

@Raptor: The sorcerer is not that powerful. Druid an cleric are much worse.

The sorcerer is very boring, though. Additional abilities would help to further at least my motivation to play it single class. And I'm not the only one.

Just look at the sorcerer here. It is much, much better, even if the class gets 2nd level spells at third and not at fourth level.

On the whole, the class variants on this page are better than the original ones.

 

Shaman, the Arcame Diciple is described in my favorite book, Complete Divine. If you wish, I could give you some info on it, but it's seemingly less interesting than I expected.

If I think some prerequisites or abilities don't make sense, I try to find one that might. And since I am mostly interested in religious characters, I often end up in Complete Divine.

 

Oh yeah, I saw it... but the extra spells have wisdom as their casting attribute, so my poor naive sorcerer won't benefit much (at least not right now). Sounds really great... It's just that wisdom was one attribute I never considered so necessary for a sorcerer

 

A bit of bad wording from my side/misunderstanding, I did not say that "sorcerer have the best magic".

Compare wizard and sorcerer. The wizard get feats in adition to he's spellcasting, and only lacks the rather trivial "all simple weapons proficiency" that sorcerer have. If you look at this that each class was ment to be more or less "equal" in the end. Does it not look like they valued the sorcerers spellcasting as beeing a tiny bit more "worth/value" than the wizards ?

For example, when they playtested the game they might have thought the sorcerer dominated alittle bit over the wizard in combat, and thought that the wizard needed alittle edge, this might be entirelly wrong but in the end the small bonuses wizard gets shows that they think a wizards spellcasting is slightly "weaker" than a sorcerers.

Personally i disagree, i would take a wizard any day. but that is irrelevant.

I think a sorcerer could be made more interesting in other ways, like for example more skills, they might have a weird bloodline manifesting at some point in their age, but they probablly have picked up stuff before that. But its irrelevant what i think etc about it.

I entirelly agree that it's a bit boring not getting abilities etc, but i guess i would have picked a different class, sorcerer is supposed ot be a "specialist" character.

That useless rant aside...

Regarding the Prestige Classes beeing a way to expand the characters, i see them more as rigid reminders of how anoying it is with a "class system" in the first place. 3E's multiclass rules makes it posible to make any kinda character really, but the Prestige Classes really stereotype things. So as said, I would never allow a "premade" Prestige Class in any game i DM'ed, but i would let anyone make their own Prestige class, becose guess what ? That is the most "free" way of expanding your character in any way you want to.

(going to be very judgemental and rude here now)

I think any DM that do not want to allow you to customise a Prestige Class or even make a new one is limiting the characters/players, and do not give them posibility enough to expand their roles/characters. I can understand it if one is new (in which case i would have said no PRC at all to avoid powegaming).

(Yup, I'm so going to get trashed for this one.)

Bleeh, I guess im just "different".

Oh yeah, and I am not a fan of the Vampire games or ruleset. I do not like the setting, even if the rules did seem to allow for alot of customisation (And the people i have met thus far that plays it worry me... hehehe).

 

Well, I might have agreed but it would feel a little... boring as I only get new spells/level and the druid next door gets a bucketload of new abilities.
Honestly, disguise self at will - doesn't hold a candle to some of the rest, but I'd kill for that one I suppose I'm just a bit irked on the inside that with such impressive flavor text on sorcerers there are no special abilities per se. I saw once an idea to give them a free minor bloodline (from unearthed arcana - basically you get some extra stuff depending on what bloodline it is but you have to sacrifice 1,2 or 3 levels to continue progressing in it past some point), but it's a bit unfair to the DM to pester him with requests about so much stuff, half of which would also be retroactive.
By the way, on systems again: some German friends of mine play one that is popular here, called Schwarze Auge (Black/Dark Eye), which seems to be closer to the WoD mechanically. I have no idea if it's translated into English, but you could try.

[ April 12, 2006, 22:53: Message edited by: The Shaman ]

 

Hey Fabius it is widely considered on the boards of the WotC website that the druid and cleric are numbers 1 and 3 respectfully on the most powerful classes scale. If you want to know why read the boards the druid is so nasty it is incredible. Think about it you transform into a mouse hide in a hole (or a hawk and fly really high up) and ambush a group of enemies in the wild. Because of a feat that EVERY druid should get at 6th level you can cast in your wild shape so sstart casting. When the fire storm hits (or whatever spell you like) the enemies will start looking for some spellcaster but will never expect the mouse in a hole to be the one casting spells (unless they get lucky or meta-game). If the druid is found he can keep casting spells while holding on to his smaller form or he can buff himself and go nuts in a nasty wild shape such as legendary ape.

A cleric with the right spell selection and lack of caring over healing can become temporarilly the best warrior in the game and can still cast 9th level spells so that he is maby not quite as good as a wizard but hey 9th level casting is still 9th level casting. If the cleric has persistant spell it gets uglier as now he can stay buffed for the entire day! The biggest gripe against clerics is that they get stuck doing the healing. If that is the problem in your campaign let everybody know that you are no longer going to heal so often but instead you are going to be a champion of your god and smite everything.

Lastly these classes are considered so nasty they are reffered to as CoDzilla (Cleric or Druid godzilla).

Because of this I agree that sorcerers need more class features as the divine caster that casts like a sorcerer is the Favored Soul and he get more class features than the cleric.

 

While that is true, the Favoured Soul's spellcasting depends on charisma and wisdom. For some people, this is a mighty blow, statwise.

Still, I think the Sorcerer is slightly underpowered compared to some other classes.
I'd be happy to see the sorcerer gets a few more skill points. That would be enough.
Perhaps a feat like spell focus, cause I tend to think that once a beginning sorcerer has mastered his first spell, he might be eager to explore that type of magic a bit further.

In stead of giving more abilities to underpowered classes, we could of course also cut down on some of the overpowered classes abilities...

[ April 17, 2006, 20:57: Message edited by: Master of Nuhn ]

 

Hmm, i did not think of that, excellent idea. I just might houserule in spell focus and skill points 4 for any future games to give sorcerer more interest (for example spell focus on level 5,10,15,20 where mage get bonus feats).

Indeed, druid, monk and ranger are prime examples, all have to many abilities, and in the case of monk and ranger to many of them dont works well enough together in "most" cases, so they basically gets "more crap". Well lotsa crap doesnt make it good.

I have worked a bit on trying to divide all class abilities into a sort of value to rate them myself (in an attempt at sort of making a sort of "customisable class" that you can build up yourself) and druid and cleric does indeed seem to shine with alot of features, saves, hitpoints, abilities, and mayor spellcasters to boot. the 3rd sinner was ranger, becose he is considered weak, they buffed him up even more in 3.5, and he is still not powerfull enough to rival the others in most. So its not all about abilities.

Out of curiosity, what was the 2nd most powerfull ? I am making a guess at Wizard.

(oh, thank you all, i love this discussion.)

 

1: Druid and Cleric. Pretty much a tie.
2: Wizard. No question about it.

After that, it becomes a matter of munchkinism.