There are several facets of
"Wizard" that I do not like in Edition 3.5. What do you mean you're
not surprised? Razzberry!
Take for example the prefix
"arch." Any dictionary of today will tell you that the "obsolete"
meaning is "preeminent, chief." That's why so many today have no idea
what the Bible is talking about when it says; "the (as in one and only)
archangel."
I dislike people who desire to
change the meaning of words just because they, or the people around them,
cannot speak proper English. "Arch" is not English. It's one of those
words/prefixes that we have incorporated into the English language. Translated
into English, it means "preeminent, chief" and has had that meaning
for thousands of years. Yes, thousands of years, meaning that, since you and I did not "invent" the word, we don't get to decide what it means. No, we don't.
So I don't agree that 15th
level Wizards are "Archmages." No, they're not. They can't cast 9th
level spells. There's nothing "preeminent" about them. There's no 17
level Wizard worthy of his abilities going to acknowledge a 15th
level Wizard as "chief" among his contemporaries. Sorry, not going to
happen.
So, that tells you what I think of
"Archmage" as a Prestige Class. Razzberry!
And I still prefer the Spell
Progression chart of the AD&D Player's Handbook, page 26. The chart takes
you all the way to 29th level. From there, anyone who can do simple
math can fill in the rest – though I seriously doubt anyone plays a character
beyond that level. Certainly not very often anyway. If you don't continue to
gain in the number of spells you can cast, why bother continuing to progress?
For another Skill Point? Razzberry!
For me, this spell progression
includes Cantrips, that is, 0 level spells. Why can a Wizard continue to
progress in 1st and 2nd level spells, but not Cantrips?
Again, there is no logical reason for this. These "abilities" are
what make an Archmage an . . . Archmage! And they're what make him such a
formidable opponent.
Well, just my two coppers pieces, as
usual. Some of you will agree, some of you will disagree. Without disagreement,
there is no conversation, so . . .