Talk:Deacon (3.5e Class)

Balance Point

I'm unsure if I agree with this being very high. I know that in general spellcasting automatically places a class in that balance range. However, this class is restrictive enough not to warrant that, especially considering how lackluster most official domains are. In particular I can't imagine this class surpassing, say, a beguiler, which I would consider solidly high level. --TheDarkWad (talk) 22:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps mark it as unquantifiable? Some domains are incredibly strong, while others are incredibly lackluster, meaning that the power of the class is highly variant. --Ghostwheel (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

That would be odd , considering cleric have access to the same stuff and are considered very high. If the Beguiler count as high this class probably does as well, with the potential to be very high with the right optimization. Hmmm... --Leziad (talk) 20:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Sure, but clerics get full spellcasting, and this doesn't. You could just as easily stick it on a non-caster, and lose nothing from the class abilities. --Ghostwheel (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah that why I marked it at VH, while it get weak spellcasting it scale with character level instead of class level. I think it belong in VH for that reason perhaps, a Rogue/Deacon with the Trickery domain would be pretty damn good or a Fighter with Knowledge Domain (and Knowledge Devotion). When I balance things I make the assumption that the PC will take the top 25% better options, so I assume they will get a good domain or a domain that synergize with another aspect of their character very well. --Leziad (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Putting it that way, you're probably right. --Ghostwheel (talk) 23:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)