Talk:Knowledge Mage (3.5e Class)

Balance

With things like Lesser Xanatos Roulette being around, wouldn't this be better rated at "Unquantifiable", just because of how similar it is to leadership? (For example, if a character "summoned" an artificer, they'd make short work of most encounters. On the other hand, if a monk came up, the ability would be fairly worthless.) --Ghostwheel 03:16, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

At best, Lesser Xanatos Roulette lets you win one encounter per week for free. Also, presumably, if you are playing in a Rogue-level campaign, there won't be very many Wizard-level characters in it. --Foxwarrior 03:23, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Oberoni fallacy much? Something isn't balanced because "the DM can say it doesn't work" or because of assumptions for specific campaigns. And you don't need to win necessarily--you could have the malconvoker you summoned planar bind you a balor to work for you for the next year at higher levels. --Ghostwheel 03:31, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

This is not a summoning ability. You do not control the characters you summon. It says nothing about them being under your control, or even that they have to be your allies. --Foxwarrior 04:06, April 11, 2010 (UTC)--Foxwarrior 04:06, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Effectively it's summoning; either that, or it can easily become useless if a DM decides at whim that the person you brought is hostile or w/e. Its breadth and range of characters one can bring out is near limitless, and I'm pretty sure it's there to help you (I've never heard of a class ability that only hurt you), so (at least that class ability) is really unquantifiable. --Ghostwheel 04:26, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

You name who is arriving, so it seems unlikely to me that you would purposefully choose to call forth a character who wanted to kill you unless you had a good reason. I admit that this ability is less quantifiable than most abilities one finds, but then, this entire game is situational. --Foxwarrior 04:36, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Which makes it even more unquantifiable IMO; why not change it so that it's less unquantifiable? As it is, it's one of the bigger class abilities that the class gets at lower levels, and completely changes the way the class balances from that level on compared to its abilities beforehand. (Sure, only one encounter per week, but why not make it both something that's more quantifiable, and usable more often? It's kinda hard to keep track of "per-week" abilities in D&D...) --Ghostwheel 04:45, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Its true this ability makes this class albet impossible to get it "okay'd" by any DM. But,.. I freakin love it. "Ah ha! But you forgotten about... Chuck Norris!" = Epic Win. Should this ability be ironed-out, it would make for a overall uber fun class to play. Nice work. --Jay Freedman 06:33, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

The Encounter Level of the character(s) is limited by your Class level. Chuck Norris is a higher level than you, and thus cannot be called forth. Also, Chuck Norris is not really your safest ally. --Foxwarrior 08:46, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Knowledge Thingies

Personally, I'm a bit surprised that no one has complained about the fact that you get all the really good weapon proficiencies by putting six ranks in Knowledge (Local). Other than that, this class seems like it would be really fun to play!76.1.129.153 21:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Getting all exotic weapon proficiencies is only worth a fighter-level feat or two, since you're unlikely to use more than one or two of those weapons. Also, the class itself has very minimal synergy with weapon use, so it's not really worth the 3 level dip for a martial character, and it's unlikely to matter very much for a pure Knowledge Mage. --Foxwarrior 21:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Got a question about the wording of Applied Knowledge. For the rebuking ability, it says "total level." Does that mean character level or class level? --Ichai 19:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Fixed --Foxwarrior 20:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)