Heiromphant vs. ARchmage (3.5)

[Particle_Man]

In comparing 2 prestige classes, it seems that the archmage and the heiromphant (pardom my spelling) get sort of the same kinds of goodies, except that the archmage also gets to advance in arcane spell-caster levels, while the heiromphant doesn't advance in divine caster levels (and the flavour text says that they explicitly delay gaining more divine spells).

Is there something I am missing that explains what seems to me to be an imbalance between the two prestige classes in the 3.5 DMG?

 

[Sejs]

Nope, you're not missing anything. Hierophant is crap. The abilities it offers are not worth losing 5 levels of spellcaster progression over.

 

[Heretic Apostate]

I don't know if it changed in 3.5, but doesn't the archmage, while gaining in spellcasting levels, have to actually sacrifice some high-level spell slots to gain those nifty powers?

Anyway, I think this question belongs in the D&D Rules forum. I'll just slide it over there...

Oh, that's right, I'm not a mod. Never mind.

 

[Anabstercorian]

Don't forget that the Heirophant, if it so desires, can hit 20th level with caster level 25. They don't advance in spells per day, but they DO advance in caster level, and combining that with spell power can render them mighty fearsome, especially for striking through the spell resistance of outsiders.

 

[Pbartender]

I don't know if it changed in 3.5, but doesn't the archmage, while gaining in spellcasting levels, have to actually sacrifice some high-level spell slots to gain those nifty powers?

That is correct. The Archmage sacrifices spell slots, while the Heirophant sacrifices levels of spells per day.

 

[Darkness]

Don't forget that the Heirophant, if it so desires, can hit 20th level with caster level 25.

So can the Archmage. *shrug* Just take Spell Power 5 times. It'll cost you 5 5th-level slots (substitute some 6th-level slots if you don't have enough 5th-), sure, but that's nothing compared to what the Hierophant loses.

 

[seankreynolds]

Compare the prereqs. Hierophant's are very simple, archmage's are extensive.

 

[ForceUser]

Re: Re: Heiromphant vs. ARchmage (3.5)

Compare the prereqs. Hierophant's are very simple, archmage's are extensive.

Additionally, the mage classes already have crappy hit die, crappy saves, crappy armor, while the priest classes have twice as many base hit points, two good saves, and very good armor. Surely that was a balancing factor. For the record, I play a high level cleric and I'm seriously considering taking a level of hierophant for divine reach; harm and heal at range? Yeah, that's worth a spell level.

 

[Sejs]

It seems designed to be worth taking at most three levels of the class. If you finish the progression for Hierophant, you deny yourself access to 9th level spells until you're epic. The abilities may be neat, but they're not worth holding yourself back from Miracle and True Ressurection if you're a cleric, or Shapechange if you're a druid.


Frankly, I would have been tickled pink to see the class have a few more requirements, and maybe 3 levels of caster progression.

 

[Sejs]

For the record, I play a high level cleric and I'm seriously considering taking a level of hierophant for divine reach; harm and heal at range? Yeah, that's worth a spell level.

That's exactly my point - it's worth a spell level. But 5 of the abilities arn't worth your last 5 caster levels.