PDA

View Full Version : Is it OK to change a PrC to fit the Character? <3.5>



LichPrinceAlim
2010-03-26, 07:50 AM
In my group, we have a guy running a Stonehunter Gnome Jester who wants to play Divine Prankster. However, he can't qualify for the class, but he asked me (because I'm THE most knowledgeable member in our group) if he could change it to Arcane instead of Divine. All it does, (at least by my reread) is change the name and spells cast.

Is this okay?

Tinydwarfman
2010-03-26, 07:53 AM
That really depends, if you are changing the spell list it can become quite a bit more powerful, as arcane spell are quite a bit more powerful than divine ones.

2xMachina
2010-03-26, 07:56 AM
Ask DM. DM oks, means you can get anything, including Incantatrix that advances Invocations.

LichPrinceAlim
2010-03-26, 07:56 AM
That really depends, if you are changing the spell list it can become quite a bit more powerful, as arcane spell are quite a bit more powerful than divine ones.

It just adds caster levels to whatever you have.

Basically, it's designed for Divine Bards or Cleric/Bard, but only advances Divine Magic

Ernir
2010-03-26, 08:20 AM
Well, the world won't explode, I can promise you that. So I think it's OK to do it.

Whether it's balanced... there's nothing inherently wrong with changing the Arcane/Divine flavour of a PrC. A few PrCs, though, get absurdly good when allowed to advance the "other" type of spells (War Weaver comes to mind, which was plenty good already). Whether this PrC is like that I don't know. So look over it, and decide.

Geiger Counter
2010-03-26, 09:13 AM
isn't there already an arcane trickster?

Vangor
2010-03-26, 09:23 AM
We were going to do this, but I instead I simply multi-classed; the spell casting progression does not need to be Divine, such as Bard which helps meet requirements easily. However, the Divine Prankster is a heavily flavorful, if quite capable, PrC which to me necessitates following on the faithful side of using the new found powers and previous investments to education through comedy. If the intent means avoiding service to Garl, I would avoid this change.

Also, another change we did was to allow Halflings to use the Divine Prankster by permitting Dallah Thaun worshippers. The end result was a tad more violent, but still taught lessons through trickery if those lessons were only for those who survived.


isn't there already an arcane trickster?

Arcane Trickster is nothing close to the greatness of the Divine Prankster.

Telonius
2010-03-26, 09:59 AM
Unless there's been errata, Divine Prankster does not actually require you to advance Divine spellcasting. (CrystalKeep has an error on that count). It's just "+1 level of existing spellcasting class" not "+1 level of existing divine spellcasting class."

Looking over the class, if you were to make the change and not require 2nd-level diving casting, the "Infuse Figment" ability stops working, since it works on turn attempts. (Yeah, I know there's ways to get them otherwise, but they're counter-intuitive and involve enough costs that you might as well have taken the Cleric levels).

If you want to change that so it's powered by uses of Bardic Music instead of Turn Attempts, I don't see it as being particularly overpowered. If you really want to keep the divine aspect of it, requiring a few ranks of Knowledge (religion) wouldn't be too much to ask. Possibly some fluff requirements as well, such as being an active member of the Church of Garl Glittergold, etc.


Well, the world won't explode, I can promise you that.
I think that depends on whether or not Garl would think it's funny...

DragoonWraith
2010-03-26, 12:20 PM
Is this okay?
Define "okay". Is there RAW for it? Yes and no - nothing in the rules say you can change things around willy-nilly, but the rules do say that the DM can and should adapt things to fit the campaign and the characters. Hell, the Dungeon Master's Guide originally seems to suggest that its Prestige Classes are suggestions and meant as inspiration for the creation of your own. We've moved a bit away from that, but really, the rules were written to encourage the DM doing things like this. But there's also not specific rules for a player to do it.

If, however, you mean "is it balanced?" then yes, yes it is.

LichPrinceAlim
2010-03-26, 12:54 PM
So in truth, not much is gained/lost. It's balanced and can whoop some butt, as much as a Jester can...

erikun
2010-03-26, 01:03 PM
As a DM, I have no problem with re-designing a prestige class to fit with the player's character concept, especially if there isn't an existing prestige class which does so already. In that sense, changing the Divine Prankster into an Arcane Prankster would be perfectly acceptable.

As for how effective it is, I'm not familiar with the class. Telonius made some good points, and if the Infuse Figment is the only thing cleric-related, then I doubt you'll notice the change in gameplay.

LichPrinceAlim
2010-03-26, 01:06 PM
As a DM, I have no problem with re-designing a prestige class to fit with the player's character concept, especially if there isn't an existing prestige class which does so already. In that sense, changing the Divine Prankster into an Arcane Prankster would be perfectly acceptable.

As for how effective it is, I'm not familiar with the class. Telonius made some good points, and if the Infuse Figment is the only thing cleric-related, then I doubt you'll notice the change in gameplay.

we would mod it for Jester's Preformance to work instead of Turning.

And a note: We view Jester's Preformance as Bardic Music for PrC and Feat Usage in the same way Sudden Stike is "interchangable" for Sneak Attack (though worse)