[3.5] Prestige classes that should be banned?

[ken-do-nim]

What, in your opinion, are the prestige classes that should be banned from the outset because they are too game-breaking? I'm thinking of allowing all the base classes from the books I own, they all seem fine to me (I don't own ToB, and I have no clue what books the Factotum and Archivist are in). But I think it is really important to let the players know what they can and can't strive for, because if someone builds towards a certain class and then I tell them they can't have it, it wouldn't be fair.

My other option is to say that all DMG prestige classes are valid, but anything else must be specifically ok'd by me. However, I don't have the game knowledge you folks do to even give that ok up front.

[root9125]

You can't go wrong with THAT.

There are some ugly ones in splatbooks (and by ugly I mean friggin' awesome), but given that they need your approval, it should be no problem.

Also, if you're allowing Tier 1 classes, you really have nothing much to worry about... That you don't already know. :biggrin:

[ex cathedra]

Incantatrix, Tainted Scholar, Subverted Psion, Planar Shepherd, and Dweomerkeeper, are all very obviously dangerous and very easily abused.

Things like Spelldancer, Cancer Mage, Vermin Lord, Hulking Hurler, and many others take slightly more insight and slightly more work, but can break things just as easily.

[BRC]

Initiate of the sevenfold Veil.

[kamikasei]

(Dungeonscape and Heroes of Horror, respectively.)

What I'd suggest is that players should discuss their build plans with you in advance in every case, and if you're uncertain of the power level of anything, bring it here for discussion. Simple up-front banning of this or that is a crude way to achieve balance - you need to apply a more individually tailored touch.

None of the DMG PrCs are really broken, though some are why-not full-caster PrCs that certainly don't hurt the character who takes them. Once you get in to the Completes, though, you have a mix of a few honestly too good classes (at least, for most games) together with a lot of decidedly sub-par traps.

What are the books you own?

[ex cathedra]

Initiate of the sevenfold Veil.

It may be powerful, but it isn't literally game-breaking. It makes a very defensively sound character, but it takes quite a few levels and Warding only works 4/Day.

It's very good, yes, but not deserving of a ban in my opinion.

[d13]

I second whoever said that you should ask your players their planned build beforehand.

[Cyclocone]

On top of my head:

Illithid Savant
Beholder Mage
Planar Shepherd
Dweomerkeeper
Thrallherd
Tainted Scholar (and it's predecessors)
Cancer Mage

[Zeta Kai]

Incantatrix, Tainted Scholar, Subverted Psion, Planar Shepherd, and Dweomerkeeper, are all very obviously dangerous and very easily abused.

Things like Spelldancer, Cancer Mage, Vermin Lord, Hulking Hurler, and many others take slightly more insight and slightly more work, but can break things just as easily.

That's a good list, & I'll throw in the Ur-Priest as fairly sick.

For the record, the Factotum is from Dungeonscape, & is a great class in a great book. The Archivist is from Heroes of Horror IIRC, & is a Tier 1 class in an YMMV book.

[Blackfang108]

Subverted Psion

What book's this one from?

[Starbuck_II]

I say planar shepard is only real too strong one.

[ex cathedra]

What book's this one from?

Here. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20051125a)

Ur-Priest can do bad things, yeah. It's less the fact that it's an Ur-Priest and more that it will be doing the game-ruining 8th and 9th level spell effects several levels before other classes.

[Blackfang108]

Here. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20051125a)

Ur-Priest can do bad things, yeah. It's less the fact that it's an Ur-Priest and more that it will be doing the game-ruining 8th and 9th level spell effects several levels before other classes.

Of course, Ur-Priest is the easiest to ban.

DM: I'm running a campaign. You can't be Evil. That leaves a grand total of SIX alignments open to you.

There, problem solved.

[ken-do-nim]

(Dungeonscape and Heroes of Horror, respectively.)

What I'd suggest is that players should discuss their build plans with you in advance in every case, and if you're uncertain of the power level of anything, bring it here for discussion. Simple up-front banning of this or that is a crude way to achieve balance - you need to apply a more individually tailored touch.


I agree with you in theory, but in practise I want to play a relaxed, friendly game and I think this might put people off. I suppose I could say something like "If you're really into optimizing, let's discuss your build." without requiring everyone to do it. I'd like to think some players don't even have a plan at the start.



None of the DMG PrCs are really broken, though some are why-not full-caster PrCs that certainly don't hurt the character who takes them. Once you get in to the Completes, though, you have a mix of a few honestly too good classes (at least, for most games) together with a lot of decidedly sub-par traps.

What are the books you own?

I own Complete Warrior, Adventurer, Divine, and Arcane. I also own the Psionics Handbook but I don't plan on using it.

[ken-do-nim]

Of course, Ur-Priest is the easiest to ban.

DM: I'm running a campaign. You can't be Evil. That leaves a grand total of SIX alignments open to you.

There, problem solved.

I have an Ur-Priest as one of my big badguys :) I really think it is an NPC class though - it requires such a detailed backstory I've pretty much written a whole adventure around it.


I say planar shepard is only real too strong one.

What book is that in? So far most of the ones mentioned I don't think I have in my books except Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil.

[Aldizog]

Frenzied Berserker.
Power levels are only one potential problem with a PrC. There are other ways to ruin the game experience for the other players. "I flip out and kill your PC" is one of them.

[ex cathedra]

I have an Ur-Priest as one of my big badguys :) I really think it is an NPC class though - it requires such a detailed backstory I've pretty much written a whole adventure around it.

What book is that in? So far most of the ones mentioned I don't think I have in my books except Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil.

Faiths of Eberron. It's really quite outrageous.

[Oslecamo]

What book is that in? So far most of the ones mentioned I don't think I have in my books except Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil.

Faiths of eberron, a somewhat obscure book filled with druid steroids.

I must point out that planar sheperd goes from bah-broken to "just" stupidly powerfull if you use just the basic cosmology and ban the plane of fire.

Meh, what am I saying? You sacrifice the worthless druid abilities like +2 to random skills, and get to transform into all kind of nasty monsters, full spellcasting and your AC keep growing. I knew that wotc designers liked to smoke stuff while doing their work, but this one must have been during a particulary wild rave.

[Akal Saris]

Frenzied Berserker.
Power levels are only one potential problem with a PrC. There are other ways to ruin the game experience for the other players. "I flip out and kill your PC" is one of them.

Yeah, this is probably a good one to ban.

Instead of banning, you probably should boost or nerf any potential PrCs to the level that you're comfortable with as a group. So Beastmaster might get a boost, and Incantatrix might lose some of its class features, for example.

[Oslecamo]

Instead of banning, you probably should boost or nerf any potential PrCs to the level that you're comfortable with as a group. So Beastmaster might get a boost, and Incantatrix might lose some of its class features, for example.

That's one big problem right there. Just being a wizard is already damn good. When you started tacking abilities over the full spellcasting it will end overpowered.

They should be like the psionic prc, where you ALWAYS lose some caster progression in return for the special abilities.

[Grumman]

The only two that I know I would ban outright are Apostle of Peace and Frenzied Berzerker. Not because they are too powerful, but because I feel that they are PrCs that don't play well with others.

[Zaq]

In addition to the ones that keep popping up (Dweomerkeeper, Incantatrix, Planar Shepherd, whatever), I recommend getting rid of Thrallherd. It's basically Leadership on steroids, and we really don't need that.

[ken-do-nim]

How about Radiant Servant of Pelor? I took a look at it one day, and I remember thinking that it just tacks on many additional abilities for clerics without any downside except the hit die drops from d8 to d6.

[Gnaeus]

I would allow Frenzied Berserker only if one of 2 conditions were met...

1. It was a party that enjoyed occasional PVP action and other characters were at similar power level

or

2. It was a "family friendly" FB build with a really high will save and a couple of available rerolls from items, feats or class features. These builds are OK, but most of the players I have met who want to play an FB really just want an excuse to kill party members, so they aren't interested in this.

[Bagelz]

warshaper
incantrix
any "chosen of"
most psion "caster" types.
anything in vile darkness/ exalted deeds

i don't think initiate of sevenfold veil is bannable.

I think ur preist in combination with any dual caster level classes is broken.
but if you actually follow the rules for prerequisites its very unfriendly already (as in must be evil and steal power from gods) It comes with its own consequences, namely all paladins in the world wanting to kill you.

[AgentPaper]

Alternately, houserule in a +10 circumstance bonus to the FB's will save to not bash in the heads of his closest friends.

[jiriku]

Dweomerkeeper, Incantatrix, and Planar Shepherd are the poster-children for excess for a reason. However, even these classes can fit right in if appropriate to the style of your campaign and if played by players who are mature and motivated to play cooperatively both with you as the DM and with the other players. In other words, Planar Shepherds don't break games; players break games. The prestige class is just a tool to be used for good or ill.

The "best" solution is often to allow players to propose any build, but require them to consult with you during planning. Establish from the outset that you reserve the right to make changes during play if you perceive that you have accidently allowed something inappropriate.

tl;dr: Fear no PrC, because as DM, you are The Boss. And if/when issues arise, don't hesitate, but step right in and be The Boss.

[Optimystik]

They should be like the psionic prc, where you ALWAYS lose some caster progression in return for the special abilities.

Not ALWAYS (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20021122b)

[ken-do-nim]

In other words, Planar Shepherds don't break games; players break games. The prestige class is just a tool to be used for good or ill.


I'm leery of any prestige class that is obviously better than staying in your base class, there should always be something given up to make the switch. Radiant Servant of Pelor is a good example, it stacks with all cleric abilities so you lose nothing except 1 hp per level to go into it.

[Kylarra]

I'm leery of any prestige class that is obviously better than staying in your base class, there should always be something given up to make the switch. Radiant Servant of Pelor is a good example, it stacks with all cleric abilities so you lose nothing except 1 hp per level to go into it.You have to be a cleric of the Burning Hate though, which severely limits your domain choices, not to mention you're required to have Sun to begin with, though that's rather negligible after 5 levels when you get to pick a bonus one anyway.

[Optimystik]

I'm leery of any prestige class that is obviously better than staying in your base class, there should always be something given up to make the switch. Radiant Servant of Pelor is a good example, it stacks with all cleric abilities so you lose nothing except 1 hp per level to go into it.

And if you're a cloistered cleric, you lose nothing at all. There aren't even BAB requirements for entry.

I agree - there should be some tradeoff, and not a negligible one. But RSoP isn't ban-worthy though.

[jmbrown]

I'm leery of any prestige class that is obviously better than staying in your base class, there should always be something given up to make the switch. Radiant Servant of Pelor is a good example, it stacks with all cleric abilities so you lose nothing except 1 hp per level to go into it.

But you also have to be a cleric of pelor and neutral good. To me, alignment and belief restrictions are more heavy than feat requirements. It's usually because the average adventurer tends to lean towards amorous but it's also because my primary DM expects more out of clerics than simple devotion. Pelor wouldn't be happy that his cleric worth 50,000gp can't even tithe 10% of his earnings towards his church.

Few players like handing their hard earned gold away without something tangible in return.

[ken-do-nim]

But you also have to be a cleric of pelor and neutral good. To me, alignment and belief restrictions are more heavy than feat requirements. It's usually because the average adventurer tends to lean towards amorous but it's also because my primary DM expects more out of clerics than simple devotion. Pelor wouldn't be happy that his cleric worth 50,000gp can't even tithe 10% of his earnings towards his church.

Few players like handing their hard earned gold away without something tangible in return.

Tithing; that's a good idea for that one.

[Anonymouswizard]

I agree with just adjusting the power level of those you don't like. If your worrid about Archmage ability abuse, make the best ones sacrifice a level of casting (but that's only if you feel you have to).

However, things like the IotSFV shoul lose caster level(s), if only because you lose bonus feats (oh noes) for cool abilities. For the initiate I suggest either 1 and 5, 1 and 7, or 1 or 7.

[Grumman]

Pelor wouldn't be happy that his cleric worth 50,000gp can't even tithe 10% of his earnings towards his church.
Pelor is a Neutral Good god of helping people and smashing undead. He also possesses an Intelligence of over 10. If the cleric reinvesting 95% of his earnings into improving his ability to do Pelor's will isn't enough to satisfy Pelor, your DM sucks.

[Heliomance]

I would allow Frenzied Berserker only if one of 2 conditions were met...

1. It was a party that enjoyed occasional PVP action and other characters were at similar power level

or

2. It was a "family friendly" FB build with a really high will save and a couple of available rerolls from items, feats or class features. These builds are OK, but most of the players I have met who want to play an FB really just want an excuse to kill party members, so they aren't interested in this.

I would have thought a really low will save build in a party with someone that knows "Hold Person" would also be acceptable.

[jmbrown]

Tithing; that's a good idea for that one.

If tithing was made into a mechanic, it would fare a lot better. A lot of classes in 3E with roleplaying mechanics like the paladin's code of conduct have no mechanics attached to them. When you don't give something clear rules, you leave it open to interpretation which varies from person to person.

Radiant servants should be the most exemplary clerics in pelor's name. DM's should note everything they do outside of adventuring; how many people they seek out to heal, how much they donate, how they help travelers in need, community service, etc. If a radiant servant isn't living up to the tenants of Pelor, they should be visited in a dream warning them that they're straying off the path. If they continue to ignore this and play against their type, Pelor should abandon them pure and simple.

Same goes for every clerical PrC like the thunder lord or whatever that one ridiculous PrC is called. To me, faith based PrCs mean you're the highest honored member of the caste and your deeds should reflect your religions tenants twofold.


Pelor is a Neutral Good god of helping people and smashing undead. He also possesses an Intelligence of over 10. If the cleric reinvesting 95% of his earnings into improving his ability to do Pelor's will isn't enough to satisfy Pelor, your DM sucks.

Pelor also says that constant devotion to destroying evil makes you blind. Good works in the community are more important than slaying undead. A 10th level cleric giving 1,000gp to build a soup kitchen is doing more in Pelor's eyes than raiding a tomb of wraiths.

Of course, this is all roleplaying mechanics vs. rollplaying mechanics. A DM should still encourage that clerics behave as their tenants dictate. Adventurers have down time and if that time isn't spent doing what their deities wish then the deity has no need to honor them.

[Gametime]

But you also have to be a cleric of pelor and neutral good. To me, alignment and belief restrictions are more heavy than feat requirements. It's usually because the average adventurer tends to lean towards amorous but it's also because my primary DM expects more out of clerics than simple devotion. Pelor wouldn't be happy that his cleric worth 50,000gp can't even tithe 10% of his earnings towards his church.

Few players like handing their hard earned gold away without something tangible in return.

Agreed, with the additional note that domain choices are some of the biggest decisions a cleric can make. Not only are the granted abilities sometimes downright awesome, access to spells that aren't on the normal cleric's spell list is phenomenal, and the proper domains open up Domain Feat choices. Radiant Servant limits your choices in a non-negligible way; it's still a good choice for any cleric of Pelor, but it isn't a good choice for any cleric PERIOD, which seems to me to be the difference between "good" and "broken".

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Fun idea. Apostle of Peace in a party with a Frenzied Berserker. The Aura of Peace keeps the Berserker from killing his allies. What other anti-group PrCs could we add in there to boost this abomination?


Edit: A single Wraith can wipe out entire cities. I think raiding a Tomb full of them is more important than starting a soup kitchen.

[Myrmex]

Not ALWAYS (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20021122b)

That's 3.0 material, for a now defunct psionics system.

[Grumman]

Fun idea. Apostle of Peace in a party with a Frenzied Berserker. The Aura of Peace keeps the Berserker from killing his allies. What other anti-group PrCs could we add in there to boost this abomination?
The friendly-fire rogue would also fit well with the Apostle of Peace. The rogue steals from his allies, the Apostle of Peace has the Vow of Poverty and therefore lacks anything worth stealing.

[ken-do-nim]

Agreed, with the additional note that domain choices are some of the biggest decisions a cleric can make. Not only are the granted abilities sometimes downright awesome, access to spells that aren't on the normal cleric's spell list is phenomenal, and the proper domains open up Domain Feat choices. Radiant Servant limits your choices in a non-negligible way; it's still a good choice for any cleric of Pelor, but it isn't a good choice for any cleric PERIOD, which seems to me to be the difference between "good" and "broken".

On the other hand, Radiant Servants are SO nasty against undead that it seems unbalancing. I played in a party that had one. The player knew we'd be up against a lich ultimately and built a character tailor made to take him out. The ending fight of the campaign was predictably easy.

[sonofzeal]

Tier System for PrCs (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5198.0). Enjoy!


...personally I could see banning any of the "Up Two" except those that ride on weak entry classes (Soulbow, arguably Soul Eater for Monk, possibly Warshaper), or those that specialize in something unusual that can't be covered otherwise and aren't powerful aside from that specialty (Legendary Captain especially). Many of them also have non-broken uses and interpretations and are worth allowing with good players (Void Disciple, Hulking Hurler, Shadowcraft Mage, Tainted Scholar).

[Myrmex]

On the other hand, Radiant Servants are SO nasty against undead that it seems unbalancing. I played in a party that had one. The player knew we'd be up against a lich ultimately and built a character tailor made to take him out. The ending fight of the campaign was predictably easy.

I feel like the RSoP advantage vs. one monster type is justified, seeing as how a shadowpouncing rogue is death on two legs to virtually every other creature type.

[ken-do-nim]

Tier System for PrCs (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5198.0). Enjoy!


...personally I could see banning any of the "Up Two" except those that ride on weak entry classes (Soulbow, arguably Soul Eater for Monk, possibly Warshaper), or those that specialize in something unusual that can't be covered otherwise and aren't powerful aside from that specialty (Legendary Captain especially). Many of them also have non-broken uses and interpretations and are worth allowing with good players (Void Disciple, Hulking Hurler, Shadowcraft Mage, Tainted Scholar).

Thank you, thank you Sam I Am. :smallsmile: Exactly what I was looking for.

[jmbrown]

Edit: A single Wraith can wipe out entire cities. I think raiding a Tomb full of them is more important than starting a soup kitchen.

The person you save today may become a devout worshiper tomorrow. Have the wraits left their tomb recently? If so, get to stomping. If not, they probably won't in the fore seeable future. Regardless, if you're not actively adventuring, you better be healing the sick and weak instead of trolling for booty at the tavern with your buddies.

Fantasy religion shouldn't be a matter of give and take with emphasis on the take. Wizards have to spend 100 gold per spell level just to pen a scroll into their book. Clerics do nothing but pray, but they should work hard to earn the blessings of their prayer.

[Zovc]

I'd recommend banning (or adjusting) every class that has 10/10 (X/X) spellcasting progression, except for dual-progression classes (since you have to lose caster levels to qualify for them).

The quickest fix for spellcasting progression is to make sure that any fully-progressing class loses its first level of spellcasting progression.

The problem with full spellcasting progression is that Wizards, Clerics, and Sorcerers get nothing from taking levels in their own classes, aside from spellcasting progression--a lot of prestige classes give them their spellcasting progression AND cool stuff.

Again, you can allow dual-progression classes to have full progressions, and might want to even improve the progression of some classes. (For example, the Spellsword is 5/10, it could easily pass for 8 or 9/10, and it's not like the Abjurant Champion doesn't get 5/5 anyways.) Essentially, my argument is that casters should lose something in order to get cool stuff (they've already got way too much cool stuff).

[Oslecamo]

Not ALWAYS (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20021122b)

Nice try, but that's 3.0, the darkest age of psionics, so not legal anymore. :smallamused:

[LibraryOgre]

Anything that has 1/1 caster level increases. It is double banned if it doesn't require going into anything but 1/1 caster increase classes to enter.

[crazedloon]

Nice try, but that's 3.0, the darkest age of psionics, so not legal anymore. :smallamused:

anything in 3.0 that has not been errated or reprinted is still legal in 3.5

edit: also if you are still not willing to accept that class anarchic initiate from comp psi has 10/10

[Kantolin]

Anything that has 1/1 caster level increases.

Not that I'm disagreeing per se, but would this include classes that have other costs built in? Such as Archmage(Spell slots), or I suppose Red Wizard(Hyper specialize, which may or may not be as much of a cost)?

[Zovc]

Anything that has 1/1 caster level increases. It is double banned if it doesn't require going into anything but 1/1 caster increase classes to enter.

Do you really feel that way about Mystic Theurge (that is considered 1/1, right? Or is 2/1 'worse'? [due to the entry])?

What about Arcane Hierophant? Other dual-progressors?

[Berserk Monk]

warshaper

What? Please Explain.

[Doc Roc]

I don't normally recommend my own work, but I think here you could comfortably just use the ToS 3.5.1 ban list. If you want, I'll proffer a link to a nice clean printable version.

[ken-do-nim]

I don't normally recommend my own work, but I think here you could comfortably just use the ToS 3.5.1 ban list. If you want, I'll proffer a link to a nice clean printable version.

I don't know what ToS stands for, but I'd like to have a look.

[Boci]

Anything that has 1/1 caster level increases. It is double banned if it doesn't require going into anything but 1/1 caster increase classes to enter.

The preq frequnetly limit you feat wise, and if you're a wizard you are giving up bonus feats.

[Doc Roc]

The Test of Spite. It's a proving ground and arena, for which you've almost certainly seen the thread. However, it's primary purpose is serving as a tightly knit fix-authoring community and compiling a comprehensive allow\kill list for 3.5 that creates a more sane play environment. Now, mind, I offer no guarantees and I do not suggest this is a one stop fix. The core elements of 3.5's balance are just supremely broken at the purest conceptual level, but this _will_ provide you with a fairly playable base which you can extend in any way you choose.

[Kelb_Panthera]

As written the war shaper can have nearly infinite natural weapons. When you add that to crit immunity and ability boosts it gets over-powered broken in a hurry.

edit: This was intended as a response to a poster a few posts back asking about why war-shaper is problematic

[Optimystik]

Nice try, but that's 3.0, the darkest age of psionics, so not legal anymore. :smallamused:

No.


anything in 3.0 that has not been errated or reprinted is still legal in 3.5

edit: also if you are still not willing to accept that class anarchic initiate from comp psi has 10/10

Thank you.

[sonofzeal]

anything in 3.0 that has not been errated or reprinted is still legal in 3.5
However, the Psion class has been reprinted, and now no longer qualifies for ArchPsion by my understanding and the books available to me.

[crazedloon]

As written the war shaper can have nearly infinite natural weapons. When you add that to crit immunity and ability boosts it gets over-powered broken in a hurry.

edit: This was intended as a response to a poster a few posts back asking about why war-shaper is problematic

you may only have 1 of each type of natural attack as the ability clearly states if you already have the weapon you only increase the size. The second half could reasonably be read to mean that the increase in size is relative to the weapon not the WS in which case you can get a ridiculously large weapon but that is just poor writing. However one has to admit there are a lot of natural attack types but not infinite but you are giving up 5 levels of casting as the main way to get into the class is druid therefore you loose out on a lot (most notable 9th level spells)

EDIT:

However, the Psion class has been reprinted, and now no longer qualifies for ArchPsion by my understanding and the books available to me.
No they can qualify for it just fine as there powers still have discipline descriptors
and the 0th level powers are ignored

[sonofzeal]

No they can qualify for it just fine as there powers still have discipline descriptors
and the 0th level powers are ignored
How does a 3.5 Psion attain "Psionic Focus in two psionic disciplines"?

[crazedloon]

touche :smallwink: (though one may argue that psionic focus was not reprinted or errataed therefore is still a legal feat to take)

however the point stands on the anarchic initiate

[LibraryOgre]

Do you really feel that way about Mystic Theurge (that is considered 1/1, right? Or is 2/1 'worse'? [due to the entry])?

What about Arcane Hierophant? Other dual-progressors?

I knew that was going to come up. Dual progressors get a bit of a bye, because you have to go into another 1/1 to get into them... but it's not the same 1/1.

[Zeta Kai]

The only two that I know I would ban outright are Apostle of Peace and Frenzied Berzerker. Not because they are too powerful, but because I feel that they are PrCs that don't play well with others.

Assassins don't play well with others, but nobody bans them.

[Optimystik]

Assassins don't play well with others, but nobody bans them.

Their job is to kill things, hence they fit into 99% of adventuring parties.

Apostle of Peace's job is NOT to kill things, therefore...

[SaintRidley]

anything in 3.0 that has not been errated or reprinted is still legal in 3.5

edit: also if you are still not willing to accept that class anarchic initiate from comp psi has 10/10

Does anyone anywhere consider Complete Psionic to be worth anything at any point in its text? It's nigh-incomprehensible, self-contradictory, contradictory to information in other books (Illithid heritage simply is not possible), and more than a few times simply leaves out sizable chunks of rules.

That entire book was nigh-unusable and only served to show what WotC thought of psionics during the 3.x years.

[crazedloon]

Does anyone anywhere consider Complete Psionic to be worth anything at any point in its text? It's nigh-incomprehensible, self-contradictory, contradictory to information in other books (Illithid heritage simply is not possible), and more than a few times simply leaves out sizable chunks of rules.

That entire book was nigh-unusable and only served to show what WotC thought of psionics during the 3.x years.

but that does not negate the fact that it is 100% 3.5 material :smallwink:

[Optimystik]

Does anyone anywhere consider Complete Psionic to be worth anything at any point in its text? It's nigh-incomprehensible, self-contradictory, contradictory to information in other books (Illithid heritage simply is not possible), and more than a few times simply leaves out sizable chunks of rules.

That entire book was nigh-unusable and only served to show what WotC thought of psionics during the 3.x years.

It did give us Soulbow, and Practiced Manifester. And Ardent.
Synad is a nice race.

The rest of the book can be quietly forgotten, though Erudite has potential if we could all just agree on a non-borked wording.

[Kylarra]

Does anyone anywhere consider Complete Psionic to be worth anything at any point in its text? It's nigh-incomprehensible, self-contradictory, contradictory to information in other books (Illithid heritage simply is not possible), and more than a few times simply leaves out sizable chunks of rules.

That entire book was nigh-unusable and only served to show what WotC thought of psionics during the 3.x years.
It has soulbow (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060403a&page=2)! ... though admittedly the fact that it's free and online means I don't need to buy the book.

[arguskos]

(Illithid heritage simply is not possible)
Not to derail, but yes, it technically is. There are cases where ceteromorphisis doesn't fully take, as evidenced by the Half-Illithid template. In theory, a Half-Illithid could father children, which could inherit some illithid traits. Eventually, they'd be mostly distilled to what we now define as illithid heritage.

Just sayin'. Back to your regularly scheduled thread. :smallcool:

[ex cathedra]

Does anyone anywhere consider Complete Psionic to be worth anything at any point in its text? It's nigh-incomprehensible, self-contradictory, contradictory to information in other books (Illithid heritage simply is not possible), and more than a few times simply leaves out sizable chunks of rules.

That entire book was nigh-unusable and only served to show what WotC thought of psionics during the 3.x years.

Soulbow, Synchronicity, Ardent, Practiced Manifester, Anarchic Initiate, Anticipatory Strike, and a few other things are usable. The rest of the book should be trashed, though.

[sonofzeal]

Soulbow, Synchronicity, Ardent, Practiced Manifester, Anarchic Initiate, Anticipatory Strike, and a few other things are usable. The rest of the book should be trashed, though.
I've gotten some mileage out of Divine Mind, and I've always wanted to try a Lurk. In general though, I agree; it has a much lower percentage of useful stuff than most, and has a few really stupid nerfs. *grumblegrumbleAstralConstructgrumble*

[DragoonWraith]

Commentary on full-caster PrCs/losing caster levels/etc.: Yes, these are PrCs that give "something for nothing" in that they advance the most important aspects of the primary casters (the spellcasting), while giving additional class features, at best in place of familiar progression and bonus feats (for a Wizard). This is an obvious problem.

However, in many cases, the class features are minor, and the pre-requisites (in terms of feats, skills, etc) can be burdensome - not all such PrCs are truly free, even though they don't lose spellcasting. Loremaster is pretty trivial for a Wizard (Scribe Scroll is free, Quicken Spell is desirable for almost anyone, leaving only a single Item Creation or Metamagic feat required, plus Skill Focus which it buys back with a bonus feat), but for a Sorcerer, its bonuses are just not worth what it costs to get in (Seven Divination spells? Uhh...). Others, well, are more than worth it.

But very few are worth even a single level of spellcasting for a primary spellcaster. Of those that do lose that one level, there's maybe a handful of worthy ones (Malconvoker, Recaster, probably War Weaver, maybe Swiftblade for a gish, Sand Shaper for spontaneous casters; maybe a few more). Of those that don't but "should", how many would still be worth taking? Incantatrix, sure, Iot7V, probably, Shadowcraft Mage... uh, possibly more than one. Planar Sherpherd? Almost certainly.

But a Loremaster? Absolutely not. Archmage? Nope, none of those abilities are worth a spellcasting level, even if you waive the spell slot loss and the fairly significant feat requirements. I mean, the vast majority of spellcasting PrCs are pretty minor. If you gave them all at least one spellcasting level lost, then all but very few are not going to be worth it.

The comparison to Psionics is invalid because of Augmentation and Practiced Manifester. You can afford to lose manifesting progression, because Augmentation means you can still manifest powers of an equivalent level just by Augmenting. You can't do that with spells, because they don't work that way. It's a large part of the reason that Psionics is the better system, but that's just how it is; you'll not simply change spellcasting to work the same way.

And this matters. For some people (myself included), going Anything 20 is boring. I'm willing to sacrifice quite a bit of power just so I can do something interesting with the build. For example, I've done a Sorcerer/Loremaster - which really meant Sorcerer/Human Paragon/Loremaster to get the skills I needed, losing a caster level and three feats for a class that really isn't so hot. Because Sorcerer 20, like Wizard 20 and Cleric 20 (and Fighter 20 and Rogue 20 and Monk 20 and Paladin 20 and anything else 20, excepting maybe Druid 20) is boring - in my opinion. I realize not everyone feels that way, but I'm also certainly not alone. But I also don't think that just because I want to have a more varied and interesting build, I should be forced to sacrifice a great deal of power - sometimes it's appropriate; I didn't mind losing a spellcasting level in a group of unoptimized players, but in another group I might have - and frankly, it's frustrating. I agree that a lot of spellcasting PrCs are too "free", but losing a spellcasting level is too much a swing in the other direction.

A lot of the problem is the granularity of the system. If you don't lose a spellcasting level, you have a problem. If you do, you have the opposite problem, and quite possibly worse.

So, my suggestion is not to lose spellcasting levels, except in the cases of the most powerful PrCs. Instead, try adding tougher entry requirements - though be careful with feat requirements, they can get very burdensome very quickly; spellcasters often don't get very many feats. Or take a page out of the Archmage's book - an excellent PrC for balance, I think - and have features cost spell slots. Maybe make some features function like Reserve Feats, and require you to have a slot prepared with a specific spell to "power" them. Whatever. There are options other than losing spellcasting levels, and in most cases they are far more appropriate.

[jmbrown]

Spellcasters can also pad the spell levels lost with the feat practiced spellcaster (I believe that's the name) which counts them as being 4 levels higher for the purposes of spell casting (not to exceed your actual class level). A wizard 1/fighter 5 is considered a 5th level wizard with that feat.

That's pretty damn good for a single feat, IMO.

[ex cathedra]

The comparison to Psionics is invalid because of Augmentation and Practiced Manifester. You can afford to lose manifesting progression, because Augmentation means you can still manifest powers of an equivalent level just by Augmenting. You can't do that with spells, because they don't work that way. It's a large part of the reason that Psionics is the better system, but that's just how it is; you'll not simply change spellcasting to work the same way.

Hm? You still need to keep manifesting levels so that you get new powers on time. More often than not, augmenting isn't an advantage of psionics but a limiting factor. When you lose manifesting progression, you become less effective at augmenting, anyways; remember, you may only spend a number of power points less than or equal to your ML on augmenting a power. Spells, indeed, DON'T work that way. They don't need augmenting. A CL10 wizard casts a 10d6 fireball with a third level spell slot. A ML10 psion manifests the equivalent, by way of augmenting, for the equivalent of a fifth level slot.

Psionics is a better system because it's better balanced, more intuitive, and in my opinion more enjoyable, not because it's more powerful. Your last two sentences suggest that you believe otherwise.

Edit:

Spellcasters can also pad the spell levels lost with the feat practiced spellcaster (I believe that's the name) which counts them as being 4 levels higher for the purposes of spell casting (not to exceed your actual class level). A wizard 1/fighter 5 is considered a 5th level wizard with that feat.

That's pretty damn good for a single feat, IMO.

Only for the purposes of caster level. That wizard can only cast the 6 or so first level spells that it knows. An actual fifth level wizard has the same CL but can cast and learn third level spells.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Spellcasters can also pad the spell levels lost with the feat practiced spellcaster (I believe that's the name) which counts them as being 4 levels higher for the purposes of spell casting (not to exceed your actual class level). A wizard 1/fighter 5 is considered a 5th level wizard with that feat.

That's pretty damn good for a single feat, IMO.PRACTICED SPELLCASTER DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY! GOODNIGHT!

[jmbrown]

PRACTICED SPELLCASTER DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY! GOODNIGHT!

I've never used the feat and I don't have the book open before me so explain away.

Edit


This feat does not affect your spells per day or spells known. It increases your caster level only, which would help you penetrate spell resistance and increase the duration and other effects of your spells.

Uh-huh. So, for the purposes of pre-requisites and caster level, you're still a caster 4 levels higher than you normally were. I was right.

[MichielHagen]

I've never used the feat and I don't have the book open before me so explain away.

Uh-huh. So, for the purposes of pre-requisites and caster level, you're still a caster 4 levels higher than you normally were. I was right.

You do not gain the spells of a 5th level Wizard, you can still only cast 1st level spells you know.
They are cast as if you were a 5th level Wizard however, which modifies damage done or duration depending on the spell.
It is the spells you can cast that makes a wizard powerfull.
Level 3 spells >>>> level 1 spells...

On topic, i see no reason to ban classes. I am building a Incantatrix right now, but i do not make it broken. I do not optimize it with all the cheese, then it is fine....imho

[elonin]

Why all the hate of full casting progression prc's? For example (since someone mentioned it) the Arch mage is a full progression prc that 1 is a late level prc, 2 requires some not particularly useful feats, and 3 you give up slots to buy the abilities of the class. 4th though of only slight concern the familiar level doesn't improve.

The statements made in this thread are not to the point of "let's tweak the prc abilities" which is what one would expect if you had problems with the prc but rather full caster level which seems more to indicate you hate the power of the full caster level classes. My main question would be, do you hate them because they are more powerful than a fighter?

[satorian]

+1 to everything Dragoonwraith said.

Additionally, for some classes, removing class features aside from spellcasting is more palatable, and still prevents the breaking of the class. This obviously won't work for a sorceror, who has no class features (a problem in itself and an excellent argument for borrowing from Pathfinder), but for druid it can be a great fix.

With that in mind, you seem like the kind of DM who wants to give as many options as possible without your game falling apart. Thus, it might be better to warn the players that some of the overpowered PrCs have been altered in your game, and tell them how. This will even work for Planar Shepherd. Here's one way how:

A PS loses some of his connection to the natural world of the prime. As such, hi animal companion leaves him, and he may not ever summon another, even after taking only 1 level of this prestige class.

His shapechange ability is now limited to a limited set of beings from the plane he has connected to, and their strength is limited by his PS level (not total druid level). You could even make a hard list of possible forms. He may no longer shapechange into animals from the Prime.

The planar bubble is limited to an intended cosmology that will not overpower it, and all effects are halved on the prime, since this is a gateway. No time more than double. Flames from a fire plane will do half damage. Any more, while possible, will create a rent in the fabric of reality and thus the PS will lose all of his PS abilities since he is acting contrary to the goals of planar shepherds everywhere.

When a PS summons a creature using PS powers, the PS is counted as that creature for spell effects, though spells with the (self) descriptor will still not affect him. This should prevent genies from wishing for him, and should have few other effects. This is not the case for creatures summoned using normal spellcasting.

Spellcasting remains 1/1, since the planar shepherd draws great power from both worlds to achieve his balancing and protective goals.

[The Glyphstone]

Ps improves your caster level by 4, but only for the purposes of level-dependent variables. For example, mass charm person allows 1 target/caster level, Fireball does 1d6 damage/caster level, Magic Missile has a range of 100ft+10ft./caster level.

What it does not do is improve what spells you have access to or can cast.

EDIT: Ninjaed, and to no avail. Sigh.

[CockroachTeaParty]

Practiced Spellcaster improves your caster level by 4, to a maximum of your HD. It does not advance a casting class's actual advancement of spells, etc. A Wiz 1/Fighter 4 with Practiced Manifester would still only have the spells per day of a 1st level Wizard, but his CL would be 5 (so his Magic Missile would shoot out 3 missiles, for instance, or Burning Hands would deal 5d4 damage).

Practiced Manifester does the same thing for Manifester level, capping at the character's HD. However, this is better for the psionic character, since they can now augment their powers as if they never gave up levels in the first place. The only downside is they lose out on more powers known, as well as higher level powers, but really, few powers beyond 5th level are really worth it compared to augmented lower level powers, barring things like Globes of Invulnerability, etc., or SR/PR.

And heck, if you're an Ardent, you might actually get to skip lower level powers.

Edit: Mega Ninja'd. SHINOBI!!

[PurinaDragonCho]

I think the word "banned" should be banned.

OOPS! *I* said it!

[DragoonWraith]

Hm? You still need to keep manifesting levels so that you get new powers on time. More often than not, augmenting isn't an advantage of psionics but a limiting factor. When you lose manifesting progression, you become less effective at augmenting, anyways; remember, you may only spend a number of power points less than or equal to your ML on augmenting a power. Spells, indeed, DON'T work that way. They don't need augmenting. A CL10 wizard casts a 10d6 fireball with a third level spell slot. A ML10 psion manifests the equivalent, by way of augmenting, for the equivalent of a fifth level slot.

Psionics is a better system because it's better balanced, more intuitive, and in my opinion more enjoyable, not because it's more powerful. Your last two sentences suggest that you believe otherwise.
No, you misunderstand. Yes, Augmentation is generally a weakness. And yes, Psionics are generally less powerful. But! For the purposes of discussing PrCs, it's an advantage of the system, because it allows you to lose a manifester level more easily. It simply doesn't hurt as much, because as long as you lose no more than four, Practiced Manifester keeps your Manifester Level up and allows you to manifest spells that are about equivalent to the power level you would otherwise have access to. Spellcasters have no such option, so losing a spellcasting level is very all-or-none for them. Which is why Psionics is better for this. Not because it's more powerful, but because, essentially, the granularity of the system is finer, allowing them to lose "some" but not "all" of the features of manifesting progression. That makes non-progression levels less painful than for spellcasters.

[Kantolin]

It simply doesn't hurt as much, because as long as you lose no more than four, Practiced Manifester keeps your Manifester Level up and allows you to manifest spells that are about equivalent to the power level you would otherwise have access to. Spellcasters have no such option, so losing a spellcasting level is very all-or-none for them.

I am confused here.

Level 1 Psion / Level 4 Fighter takes practiced manifester. Psion can augment his energy ray to do 5d6 damage, costing him an additional 4pp he wasn't getting.

Level 1 Wizard / Level 4 Fighter takes practiced spellcaster. Wizard can now just use shocking grasp to do 5d6 damage, costing him the first level slot he had already and not anything extra.

Practiced manifester means you lose out on PP and new powers - it simply repairs your 'manifester level', which lets you spend pp to make your powers up to your ML.

Practiced spellcaster means you lose out on new spells - it simply repairs your 'caster level', allowing your powers to be up to your CL without spending anything.

Why is Practiced Manifester considered better than Practiced Spellcaster? O_o It seems strictly worse.

[DragoonWraith]

Because augmented powers often work better than low-level spells at high caster level? Energy Ray, perhaps not, but others, yes. You need fewer powers than spells, so missing out on a few extra powers means less.

Though maybe I underestimated how much augmentation gains you. I have not played with a lot of Psionics; I thought augmented lower level powers were generally somewhat better than spells of the same level and caster level.

[Kantolin]

Hrm. There's still the problem, however, that psionic powers don't auto-scale.

I suppose you are right in that you can still augment where you can't metamagic with the improved manifester level, but the fact that you're not getting any more power points makes that an increasingly poor idea. I mean, the aformentioned level 1 psion only /has/ four power points (if he has an 18 intelligence).

Edit: Thus I can imagine certain powers would work out better for the psion, but the vast majority seem to be 'wizard wins' in this scenario.

[elonin]

My first point that you all seem to hate full casting classes was completely ignored.

Loosing higher spells is more of a problem than manifester levels (at least within 4 levels). In psionics augmenting a spell 4 levels higher is just as good as using that higher level power. This is a bit of a stretch of 4 level difference but everyone would rather be able to cast a disintegrate rather than a fireball adjusted up to that same level, just being much more useful.

[tyckspoon]

Practiced spellcaster means you lose out on new spells - it simply repairs your 'caster level', allowing your powers to be up to your CL without spending anything.

Why is Practiced Manifester considered better than Practiced Spellcaster? O_o It seems strictly worse.

Direct damage abilities tend not to show psionics in the best light compared to arcane spellcasting- they're one of the places where normal casters most benefit from auto-scaling. The augmenting mechanic best shines in situations where the psionic version of the spell scales by extra PP but the arcane version doesn't; compare Psionic Charm to Charm Person. Practiced Manifester allows your example Psion to affect..

animal, fey, giant, magical beast, or monstrous humanoid...aberration, dragon, elemental, or outsider
at +2 DC, as if it were a 3rd-level power. Caster level 5 Charm Person still only affects humanoids with the save DC of a 1st level spell. The only benefit the mage gets from Practiced Spellcaster here is extended duration.

[Kantolin]

everyone would rather be able to cast a disintegrate rather than a fireball adjusted up to that same level, just being much more useful.

But Augmenting a fireball 4 levels higher (with practiced spellcaster/manifester) is something the wizard gets for free, while the psion has to spend more power points on it. Plus, practiced manifester also means the psion doesn't get the additional power points with which to augment.

I mean, the level 5 wizard / Level 5 psion:
- Takes practiced manifester, and can spend additional power points (That he doesn't get with the feat) to have his energy vortex do 9d6

- Takes practiced spellcaster, and just /can/ do 9d6 with his fireball without spending anything more.

There are indeed exceptions, but frequently augmenting just shores up a penalty rather than actually causes an improvement. With practiced, it also cuts deeper into your pp pool, making you that much less long-lasting.

Edit: As I note the ninja post above, that's true too - there are exceptions, but there's also the fact that you don't get more power points, eating into your pool that much more, especially when compared to spells that do scale.

[erikun]

Augmenting psionic powers increases both the damage and DC, along with side effects, as Tyckspoon pointed out. The reason a Wizard's Fireball is worse than a Cone of Cold is because it will more likely be saved against, thus resucing the damage. Higher level illusions and enchantments, even if just through Heighten Spell, are less likely to be resisted. (Please note that the Wizard cannot Heighten their Fireball to 5th level, even with Practiced Spellcaster.)

On the other hand, a Psion's Energy Bolt augmented to 9 PP deals the same damage as, say, Baleful Teleport and has the same save DC. Psionic Charm augmented with enough PP is as hard to resist as Psionic Dominate, without the need of a feat or metapsionics. For that matter, the Psion 5/Wizard 5 with Practiced Manifester can spend up to 9 PP, equal to a 5th level power, where the Wizard cannot.

As such, Practiced Manifester is more useful than Practiced Spellcaster. Not because psionics are stronger, but because a Psion can get much more use out of that +4 ML, even without learning new powers. A Wizard who has +4 CL is still lacking both higher level spells and higher level spell slots, thus not allowing him the same flexibility.

Which is probably why psionic prestige classes with lost manifester levels are a lot more acceptable, and why simply dropping caster levels from arcane/divine prestige classes would not be an equal change.

[ken-do-nim]

I think the word "banned" should be banned.

OOPS! *I* said it!

In an ideal world, I could take the time to nerf each of the classes listed as +2 in the link provided earlier instead of ban them, as a previous poster did with the Planar Shepherd. In reality, I want to focus all my attention on the campaign details and the adventures. It's just easier to ban a half-dozen prestige classes and not worry about it.

One other thing. I hear what a previous poster said about playing anything up to 20 except maybe druid is boring. That's really quite an indictment of the system. Feats, optional class abilities, and substitution levels should provide enough variation without always having to multi-class.

[DragoonWraith]

One other thing. I hear what a previous poster said about playing anything up to 20 except maybe druid is boring. That's really quite an indictment of the system. Feats, optional class abilities, and substitution levels should provide enough variation without always having to multi-class.
I said boring for me. But basically - yes. I don't like playing WotC's characters, I like playing my own. For me, that means a unique backstory, and unique mechanics, which is usually easiest to achieve through multiclassing. I have homebrewed several classes because I wanted to play something unique, but usually it is easier for both player and DM to just play a multiclass character. Characters don't get enough Feats to really differentiate them, nor are there enough classes with options or substitution levels to always work for what I want.

D&D 3.5 is easily the most adaptable class-based system I have ever seen, solely due to multiclassing. This is the primary reason I like it so much. And I like to take advantage of that.

[KellKheraptis]

Not ALWAYS (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20021122b)

Don't forget the Anarchic Initiate either. And as for Ur-Priests, don't forget they don't even need to be evil if they use the adaptation. About the only class I'm ever even really leery of as a DM is Planar Shepherd, and even that monster can be mitigated. FB's are easy to work around, and really, any archmage build won't be any more broken than a core 20 wizard is capable of being. The poster who said that it's players that break games is right. I'm planning on running an augmented master spellthief build in my next high level game that's packing a CL of 110 naked by level 20 due to wonky interactions between Ur-Priest and Sublime Chord with Master Spellthief, but he won't be brutally pillaging the game world. He just won't take the kid gloves off unless it's about to be a TPK (in which case it's time to utter a few holy words and maybe if need be commit some blasphemy to lay the dictum on some unruly miscreants, lest they hear some real words of chaos and get a wings of flurry ray in the gut).

[ken-do-nim]

I took the time to look through the link provided on page 2 to the tier system for prestige classes and here are the +2's in the books I own. They are:

Complete Arcane
Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil* +2
Sublime Chord +2

Complete Divine
Dweomerkeeper +2
Rainbow Servant (Warmage entry) +2
Sacred Exorcist (non-Cleric entry) +2
Ur-Priest +2
Void Disciple +2

Complete Warrior
Hulking Hurler +2
Warshaper (non-casting entry) +2

Miniatures Handbook
War Hulk +2

*Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil apparently drops to a +1 if anti-magic can penetrate it, so that's an easy nerf.

[ex cathedra]

You don't need to nerf every +2; the adjustments are based on the base class. Warhulk being a +2? Not as big of a deal as Warmage Rainbow Servant.

I would make Rainbow Servant 8/10 or something.
Limit Void Sense and don't let Void Disciples grant epic feats.
I don't have a problem with Ur-Priest, Warhulk, or Sublime Chord.
Don't let Hulking Hurlers abuse weight rules for damage.
Limit the amount of things that a Warshaper can grow.
Don't let Dweomerkeepers abuse (Su).

[tyckspoon]

You don't need to nerf every +2; the adjustments are based on the base class. Warhulk being a +2? Not as big of a deal as Warmage Rainbow Servant.

I would make Rainbow Servant 8/10 or something.
Limit Void Sense and don't let Void Disciples grant epic feats.
I don't have a problem with Ur-Priest, Warhulk, or Sublime Chord.
Don't let Ur-Priests abuse weight rules for damage.
Limit the amount of things that a Warshaper can grow.
Don't let Dweomerkeepers abuse (Su).

Rainbow Servant is 6/10 if you want to run it that way. Might actually need buffing for some classes (and if using that progression, it's not a big deal even for a Warmage or similar 'knows all spells' class- comes out similar to going into Mystic Theurge, spellswise.) I'm pretty sure you meant Hulking Hurler re: weight rules.

[ken-do-nim]

You don't need to nerf every +2; the adjustments are based on the base class. Warhulk being a +2? Not as big of a deal as Warmage Rainbow Servant.


Agreed.



Don't let Ur-Priests abuse weight rules for damage.


Whacha talkin' about? Edit: ah, hulking hurler.



Don't let Dweomerkeepers abuse (Su).

Speaking of which ... my copy of Complete Divine doesn't seem to HAVE a Dweomerkeeper class. Anybody else missing it?

[KellKheraptis]

Rainbow Servant is 6/10 if you want to run it that way. Might actually need buffing for some classes (and if using that progression, it's not a big deal even for a Warmage or similar 'knows all spells' class- comes out similar to going into Mystic Theurge, spellswise.) I'm pretty sure you meant Hulking Hurler re: weight rules.

Yeah, give the Warmages their one decent 10/10 spell booster. Without it they're a gimped sorcerer.

[ex cathedra]

Dweomerkeeper is from the Web Enhancement. If you don't use online resources, don't worry about it.

Yeah, I meant Hulking Hurler. Sorry.

Rainbow Servant is, as printed, 10/10 since Text Trumps Table. 6/10 (the incorrect table printing) really isn't that useful at all, whereas 8/10 seems rather fair to me.

[DragoonWraith]

Actually, the text is almost certainly the error, not the table. Every translation of the class (printed after the English version) has used 6/10 in the text. Why they didn't Errata it... well, there's lots of things you can ask that about. Sandstorm claims that Scorpion Whips do 1d43 damage. At 6/10, it's not worth it. At 8/10, it probably is. At 10/10, it's too good. Spells Known are a precious, precious commodity for spontaneous casters, which is because WotC made them so rare, though honestly I think more PrCs should give them. Regardless, giving all Cleric spells is insane, especially without losing any spellcasting levels, that might even be worth two spellcasting levels (at 1st and 10th, probably).

Sublime Chord is a +2 over the sort of weak-ish Bard, especially a Bard who focuses on spells, so rather than being overpowered, it's awesome. Don't ban that.

Sacred Exorcist just needs a bit of a tougher entry requirement, since (IIRC) all it really does is give non-Clerics Turn Attempts for use with Divine feats. It's just too easy to get into for that purpose. But give it some weak feat requirement, and maybe force non-Clerics to take a few levels in order to get the Turn Attempts, and it should be reasonable. If Divine feats are not available, it doesn't really add much, and is probably not even +1.

Ur-Priest.... I love the Ur-Priest for making non-early-entry theurges reasonable. Getting 9th level spells by 15 is too good, but I disagree with whoever specifically called them out when used with dual-progression classes. A Wizard losing 2 spellcasting levels for the ability to cast a very few Cleric spells per day, even when they're high level? Not too unlike what the recommendation for Rainbow Servant has been - and notice that the Ur-Priest uses Wis, which no Arcane caster uses, so they're getting dual ability dependence where the Rainbow Servant casts them as Arcane spells, using their normal spell slots and spellcasting modifier. Also, the Ur-Priest's flavor, original or adaptation, is excellent.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

The Portuguese translation of Rainbow Servant, IIRC, was no lost casting.

[DragoonWraith]

OK, then I've been misinformed. Very certain I've seen it said, but as I don't know any language that the book has been translated into (nor copies of the translated books), I don't know first-hand.