PDA

View Full Version : Potential houserule - all caster PrCs lose one CL. [D&D 3.5]



Ernir
2010-05-16, 01:09 PM
This is the houserule I was thinking about:

Every Prestige Class that advances spells known or spells per day does so at every level, except at first level.

So yes. Green Star Adept would lose one caster level. Incantatrix would lose one caster level. Blackguard is unaffected, as that class has its own spell progression. Horizon Walker is unaffected, as that class has nothing to do with spells at all.

My main question: What is this going to break? How many PrCs are way too strong when they "only" lose one CL?
Secondary: Do you think this would improve the game as it is played at your table?

Kurald Galain
2010-05-16, 01:11 PM
My main question: What is this going to break? How many PrCs are way too strong when they "only" lose one CL?
Rainbow Servant.


Secondary: Do you think this would improve the game as it is played at your table?
I don't think it will make a difference in practice.

Mystic Muse
2010-05-16, 01:11 PM
First, you're making the Green star adept worse. WORSE

Second, it probably won't significantly change anything. Either somebody takes one of the many PRCs that already lose casting at first level or the bonuses you get from the PRC are good enough to warrant a lost level or two.

Amphetryon
2010-05-16, 01:14 PM
I do something like this already.

There are a (very) few full-caster PrCs that are weak enough to consider allowing them to keep a full progression; Green-Star Adept and Alienist are often mentioned in this vein.

Dual-casting PrCs like Mystic Theurge and Arcane Heirophant become extremely unattractive choices under this schema unless exceptions are made for them, since they are already casting at a slower pace.

Ferrin
2010-05-16, 01:17 PM
First, you're making the Green star adept worse. WORSE

Second, it probably won't significantly change anything. Either somebody takes one of the many PRCs that already lose casting at first level or the bonuses you get from the PRC are good enough to warrant a lost level or two.

Getting 4 more caster levels doesn't make the Green Star Adept worse, it just doesn't make it viable yet, fixing the last level a bit might help though, aka living construct(retain con bonus).

I don't agree with this though, it's better to evaluate each PRC individualy. This will make a lot of PRC's to powerfull, while making some not worth it.

Ernir
2010-05-16, 01:27 PM
Rainbow Servant.
But as written, that one doesn't lose any caster levels. :smalltongue:

First, you're making the Green star adept worse. WORSE
You mean that I gave the trap a better-smelling bait?

I do something like this already.

There are a (very) few full-caster PrCs that are weak enough to consider allowing them to keep a full progression; Green-Star Adept and Alienist are often mentioned in this vein.
Indeed.

Finding a PrC that is actually balanced against the chassis of the base classes (e.g. Familiar Progression for Sorcerer and Familiar Progression + 1 feat/5 levels for Wizard) is rare.

Dual-casting PrCs like Mystic Theurge and Arcane Heirophant become extremely unattractive choices under this schema unless exceptions are made for them, since they are already casting at a slower pace.

Ach, forgot to think about those.

Under the assumption that entering such a class requires you to dip another casting class for at least 1 level (not exactly right, but... that's what people usually do outside of TO, as far as I can tell), I'd give all of them full progression.


I don't agree with this though, it's better to evaluate each PRC individualy. This will make a lot of PRC's to powerfull, while making some not worth it.

Lots of PrCs that are barely hanging in "usable" would, of course, fall out of that category (bye bye, Loremaster...).
How many are going to become too powerful, though? Is there really something worse than the crap like Tainted Scholar and Dweomerkeeper out there, which I have never noticed because I don't look twice at PrCs with horrible CL progressions? :smallconfused:

EDIT: And yes, it's better to evaluate each PrC individually. The problem is that that is difficult to do for the 700+ PrCs out there (or as is more likely to happen in a PbP game, the 30 or so PrCs mentioned in character applications). Sweeping rules are easier.
Hell, I don't even like CL loss as a balancing tool for PrCs, I'd much prefer something like the Archmage style. But again, that's difficult.

Tinydwarfman
2010-05-16, 01:29 PM
First, you're making the Green star adept worse. WORSE

Second, it probably won't significantly change anything. Either somebody takes one of the many PRCs that already lose casting at first level or the bonuses you get from the PRC are good enough to warrant a lost level or two.

I am confused, how could gaining 4 levels be considered making GSA worse? The proposed idea is not removing another CL from GSA, it makes it, and every other PrC, only lose 1 CL. This is too good for some, but the majority would probably become more balanced. Of course, some things like Thrallherd get better, but most PrC's that lose levels wouldn't be that spectacular with one level lost.

Amphetryon
2010-05-16, 01:30 PM
Lots of PrCs that are barely hanging in "usable" would, of course, fall out of that category (bye bye, Loremaster...).
How many are going to become too powerful, though? Is there really something worse than the crap like Tainted Scholar and Dweomerkeeper out there, which I have never noticed because I don't look twice at PrCs with horrible CL progressions? Mindbender as a 9/10 caster PrC? Nifty.

Ferrin
2010-05-16, 01:30 PM
But as written, that one doesn't lose any caster levels. :smalltongue:

You mean that I gave the trap a better-smelling bait?

Indeed.

Finding a PrC that is actually balanced against the chassis of the base classes (e.g. Familiar Progression for Sorcerer and Familiar Progression + 1 feat/5 levels for Wizard) is rare.


Ach, forgot to think about those.

Under the assumption that entering such a class requires you to dip another casting class for at least 1 level (not exactly right, but... that's what people usually do outside of TO, as far as I can tell), I'd give all of them full progression.



Lots of PrCs that are barely hanging in "usable" would, of course, fall out of that category (bye bye, Loremaster...).
How many are going to become too powerful, though? Is there really something worse than the crap like Tainted Scholar and Dweomerkeeper out there, which I have never noticed because I don't look twice at PrCs with horrible CL progressions? :smallconfused:

Well, you could just say the 9/10 progression is the default and decide later on if it needs to lose more or less when someone wants to play one.

lsfreak
2010-05-16, 01:38 PM
It really needs to be done on a per-PrC basis. Archmage, Loremaster and the like, that are considered some of the most balanced caster PrC's, drop out to unusable. Ones like Swiftblade suddenly become really powerful. Ones like Incantatrix could stand to lose another 2-3 levels on top of that.

I don't see that it would be an improvement - probably a step to the side, rather than a step forward. Breaks something in an overpowered way, makes a lot of good classes bad, makes a lot of bad classes good. Makes PrC dipping essentially impossible, which I view as bad but others view differently.

cZak
2010-05-16, 01:53 PM
I use something like this as houserule in my games.
Caster PrC's should be better than the base class in a niche. PrC's that duplicate the base class AND provide other benefits (Incantatrix, Initiate of the 7 Veils, etc...) are frowned upon, nerfed to (my) spec or outright banned.

Generally all PrC's default to a 4/5 CL progression with considerations on a case by case basis.
If the prereq's for entering the class nerf CL (Arcane trickster, Eldritch knight) then it follows print; I might even improve CL progression in some cases.

DragoonWraith
2010-05-16, 02:30 PM
I disagree with this fundamentally. No, most Caster PrCs are not worth a lost caster level. Wizard 20 > Wizard X/PrC Y in almost every case with this rule.

The problem is not the PrCs. The problem is the Wizard. "Fixing" this with a stealth self-nerf through hurting PrCs is a terrible plan. It basically penalizes people for doing anything creative with their build, to get any class features more interesting than bonus feats (or nothing, for Sorcerers). No one should have to say "this would be cool, but it's shooting myself in the foot" - that's just not fun. Wizard X = Wizard Y/PrC Z where X=Y+Z is the ideal. That is impossible with this rule for the vast majority of PrCs.

There are exceptions, of course. Rainbow Servant's a poor example, though, as it's only worth lost caster levels to Warmages and pretty much no one else. Maybe Wizards since they get Spells Known so easily, but that depends on how you rule they add the Cleric spells to their book. For a Sorcerer, Rainbow Servant's barely worth 10 levels, much less Caster Levels.

Incantatrix, Iot7V, and Shadowcraft Mage remain too good, most likely, though it helps. Dweormerkeeper could lose quite a bit more and still be broken. Cancer Mage, Tainted Scholar, Planar Shepherd, Illithid Savant, and Beholder Mage are still just blasphemies on paper. Malconvoker, Sand Shaper, Recaster, War Weaver, a few others, remain good enough since they don't get changed. Some that were awful become a little more palatable, though I can think of none that loses multiple spellcasting levels that become worthwhile when losing only one.

And it only gets worse if someone wants to take multiple PrCs. Does someone who wants to go, say, Wizard 5/Spellwarp Sniper 5/Abjurant Champion 5/Archmage 5 deserve to lose 3 caster levels? I don't think so.

Basically, there are better responses. Pre-requisites are usually enough to off-set the better class abilities of PrCs. If not, something along the lines of the Archmage, or banning additional schools, would be alternatives that work quite well (the latter would work better if the schools were balanced better, to be sure).

Mystic Muse
2010-05-16, 02:37 PM
whoops. Missed the every level part. never mind then.

Yeah, this may nerf several classes while making others a lot more attractive.

Godskook
2010-05-16, 03:33 PM
I disagree with this fundamentally. No, most Caster PrCs are not worth a lost caster level. Wizard 20 > Wizard X/PrC Y in almost every case with this rule.

You really overstate this. Its true that lost caster levels are precious, but not to the point that losing caster levels would ruin builds in every case. A wizard with one lost caster level is still at least as powerful as a Sorcerer(assuming practiced apprentice), and between the PrClass features and wizard' versatility, actually moreso. Which means that, worst case, losing a caster level costs a fractional amount of a tier for casters, which, considering that they're 'winning' already, that's not bad. Sure, I disagree with it too, but its not a bad 'nerf'.

Problem really comes when dealing with the hybrid builds, such as the Arcane Rogues or Gishs. To build an effective Arcane Rogue, you need, at a minimum, 2 prestige classes, which translates to at least 1 lost caster level just to qualify. Such builds need full-progression classes in order to make 9ths by L20, honestly. Same with gishes, particularly the Sorcadin, which couldn't exist with this houserule.

Ernir
2010-05-16, 03:35 PM
I disagree with this fundamentally. No, most Caster PrCs are not worth a lost caster level. Wizard 20 > Wizard X/PrC Y in almost every case with this rule.

The problem is not the PrCs. The problem is the Wizard. "Fixing" this with a stealth self-nerf through hurting PrCs is a terrible plan.
This would be a terrible plan for fixing the Wizard. But the intent was not to fix the Wizard. The intent was to change PrC accessibility.

It basically penalizes people for doing anything creative with their build, to get any class features more interesting than bonus feats (or nothing, for Sorcerers). No one should have to say "this would be cool, but it's shooting myself in the foot"
I think Arachnomancers, Fortune's Friends, Entropomancers, and Sanctified Ones would be really cool, but making one is shooting myself in the foot. :smallconfused:
This way, I'd only be shooting off a toe.

It does penalize multi-dipping more than is cool, though, you're right about that. I guess didn't really think of it as a huge problem because it's a rare caster build of mine that multi-dips through PrCs. So yeah. I would personally be more excited about being able to make a Mindbender work than I'd be sad over not being able to effectively go Wizard/MotAO/Master Specialist/Incantatrix/Archmage.

Basically, there are better responses. Pre-requisites are usually enough to off-set the better class abilities of PrCs. If not, something along the lines of the Archmage, or banning additional schools, would be alternatives that work quite well (the latter would work better if the schools were balanced better, to be sure).
Again, that brings the problem of being something that has to be done on a case-by-case basis. =/

ScionoftheVoid
2010-05-16, 04:12 PM
With its "two-monsters-in-one" ability at tenth and Shapechange Master Transmogrifist (could be a bit out on the name, in Complete Arcane) could become rather massively powerful. I like that class, and it's a shame that it's really hard to justify for a Sorcerer (the class that's supposed to enter it most often, in its origional state it loses 4 levels of spell progression, a Sorc can only have one 8th level spell if she takes it (likely PAO, considering the Prestige Class' focus) and forget dipping Sand Shaper for more spells known 'cause that brings her down to 7ths). Irrelevant if the Polymorph stuff is banned, but noone else was suggesting things that became really good with this rule that weren't good before it.

Skaven
2010-05-16, 04:36 PM
I was always annoyed that Sorcerors already have this built into their class.

And then Sorceror PrC's do this usually too.

Which means they've dually lost caster levels. Its silly.

Ormur
2010-05-16, 06:04 PM
Of course the problem with casting prestige classes that you are trying to fix here is that they usually give class features to classes that don't have them and the only easy penalty that matters is to take away CL's which is the only thing they have. It's like a PrC for fighters that gave neither feat equivalents nor a full BAB (a bad analogy because neither is as powerful as CL's).

If we take wizards as an example then a balanced PrC that didn't loose CL's could only be equivalent to a few bonus feats and familiar progression. The Archmage has a different method by exchanging spell slots for features so it works and the Loremaster features aren't that strong combined with the feat tax. But if the PrC looses CL's then the class features will have to be very powerful to compensate without making the wizard even more broken.

It's a very tough balancing act. This method might ruin the few balanced PrC's that don't loose CL's without fixing the fundamentally broken ones others mentioned.

But it might make a few that loose even more CL's better and applied only to them it could be a great fix. I'm going to do this to mindbenders in my campaign now that you suggested it since I've always wanted to use them for more than dips.

Optimystik
2010-05-16, 06:09 PM
I was always annoyed that Sorcerors already have this built into their class.

This :smallannoyed:

AslanCross
2010-05-16, 06:34 PM
It really needs to be done on a per-PrC basis. Archmage, Loremaster and the like, that are considered some of the most balanced caster PrC's, drop out to unusable. Ones like Swiftblade suddenly become really powerful. Ones like Incantatrix could stand to lose another 2-3 levels on top of that.

I don't see that it would be an improvement - probably a step to the side, rather than a step forward. Breaks something in an overpowered way, makes a lot of good classes bad, makes a lot of bad classes good. Makes PrC dipping essentially impossible, which I view as bad but others view differently.

Agreed. There are some PrCs it doesn't affect, some it makes much worse, and some it makes broken.

Escheton
2010-05-16, 06:41 PM
you're better off just disallowing your munchkin player from taking 5 prestigeclasses

PId6
2010-05-16, 06:47 PM
Pretty much agree with the opinion of "individual cases > flat rule." Under this, Swiftblade becomes broken, Jade Phoenix Mage and Ruby Knight Vindicator becomes very good, Incantatrix/Tainted Scholar/et al. are still broken, balanced PrCs like Archmage/Unseen Seer become self-nerfs, and the vast majority of unplayable PrCs are still unplayable, though they're more easily able to bait people into their trap now. Step sideways, not forward.

Ernir
2010-05-16, 07:57 PM
I was always annoyed that Sorcerors already have this built into their class.
Yarly. :smallannoyed:

But that's a different issue.

you're better off just disallowing your munchkin player from taking 5 prestigeclasses
Hell no. That's usually me. :smallbiggrin:


Pretty much agree with the opinion of "individual cases > flat rule." Under this, Swiftblade becomes broken, Jade Phoenix Mage and Ruby Knight Vindicator becomes very good, Incantatrix/Tainted Scholar/et al. are still broken, balanced PrCs like Archmage/Unseen Seer become self-nerfs, and the vast majority of unplayable PrCs are still unplayable, though they're more easily able to bait people into their trap now. Step sideways, not forward.

Well, at least you have convinced me of not trying to choke my players on this blanket rule. :smalltongue:

Swiftblade and Master Transmogrifist. Good call on those. Those get... very good stuff.
I'd be less worried about JPM/RKV. They'd be even better, but they'd still be dual-progressing classes that lose a CL.

DragoonWraith
2010-05-17, 08:00 AM
You really overstate this. Its true that lost caster levels are precious, but not to the point that losing caster levels would ruin builds in every case. A wizard with one lost caster level is still at least as powerful as a Sorcerer(assuming practiced apprentice), and between the PrClass features and wizard' versatility, actually moreso. Which means that, worst case, losing a caster level costs a fractional amount of a tier for casters, which, considering that they're 'winning' already, that's not bad. Sure, I disagree with it too, but its not a bad 'nerf'.
I never said it ruined a character. I said it was awful design. I know Ernir isn't, but a lot of people seem to be fixated on Prestige Classes as the cause of a lot of munchkin issues, or caster power, or I don't know what else, and it's mostly preposterous. You can lose a lot of caster levels and still be as good as some of the weaker classes, but that's still not good design.

And really, if you have a situation where Wizard 20 >> Wizard 10/PrC 10, I think you have a problem. Punishing players for doing something more interesting than just 20 levels of the base class seems just... contrary to the strengths of 3.5. 3.5 has a lot of weaknesses, and a lot of problems, but one thing it does very well is multiclassing and prestige classes. It just seems preposterous to try to limit that.


Problem really comes when dealing with the hybrid builds, such as the Arcane Rogues or Gishs. To build an effective Arcane Rogue, you need, at a minimum, 2 prestige classes, which translates to at least 1 lost caster level just to qualify. Such builds need full-progression classes in order to make 9ths by L20, honestly. Same with gishes, particularly the Sorcadin, which couldn't exist with this houserule.
Yeah, I didn't even bring up the Mystic Theurge, because... yeah.


This would be a terrible plan for fixing the Wizard. But the intent was not to fix the Wizard. The intent was to change PrC accessibility.
Why? What's wrong with it?


I think Arachnomancers, Fortune's Friends, Entropomancers, and Sanctified Ones would be really cool, but making one is shooting myself in the foot. :smallconfused:
This way, I'd only be shooting off a toe.
Not familiar with any. Probably because of the lost CL, I admit. I'm all for shoring up the ones that are weak, that encourages creativity in builds.


It does penalize multi-dipping more than is cool, though, you're right about that. I guess didn't really think of it as a huge problem because it's a rare caster build of mine that multi-dips through PrCs. So yeah. I would personally be more excited about being able to make a Mindbender work than I'd be sad over not being able to effectively go Wizard/MotAO/Master Specialist/Incantatrix/Archmage.
While I sometimes play classes straight, most of the time I much prefer to mix-and-match classes to create something unique, which this rule shafts hard.


Again, that brings the problem of being something that has to be done on a case-by-case basis. =/
Yuuuup. Sadly, that's the only real answer.

Most full-casting PrCs do not offer a caster-level worth of class features. Therefore, I don't like this as a blanket rules. All PrCs lose at most 1 Caster Level is more interesting, as very few PrCs are worth more than 1, but you'd have to make exceptions for things like Swiftblade. And you should probably also make exceptions for, say, Iot7V, Incantatrix, etc... and then you're getting dangerously close to having to go case-by-case anyway. There just isn't a good blanket answer, and I think doing nothing is better than implementing this rule.


you're better off just disallowing your munchkin player from taking 5 prestigeclasses
:smallannoyed: Yes, because that automatically makes a person a munchkin.

I can't think of any situation where the optimal course is to take 5 PrCs anyway. Usually meeting all those pre-reqs just slaughters you. I'd know; I wrote up a build that uses 15 of them (and 5 bases).

Riffington
2010-05-17, 08:21 AM
And really, if you have a situation where Wizard 20 >> Wizard 10/PrC 10, I think you have a problem.

If you have a situation where Wizard 10/PrC 10 >> Wizard 20 you have an even bigger problem.
PrCs should lower your overall power, but increase your power in specialized circumstances.

Not that this fix does that necessarily.

DragoonWraith
2010-05-17, 08:24 AM
While I suppose I agree with that statement, you have to be really careful with how you apply it - overspecialization is a huge nerf in this game. And sometimes being really good at one thing can also break things, because you're too good at that one thing. So while PrCs should be more focused and specific, as compared to base classes, if you think in terms of that saying you're likely to get the balance wrong (either cripplingly specialized or too good at something - or both).

Riffington
2010-05-17, 08:26 AM
While I suppose I agree with that statement, you have to be really careful with how you apply it - overspecialization is a huge nerf in this game. And sometimes being really good at one thing can also break things, because you're too good at that one thing. So while PrCs should be more focused and specific, as compared to base classes, if you think in terms of that saying you're likely to get the balance wrong (either cripplingly specialized or too good at something - or both).

Yes, I agree with that caveat.

Optimystik
2010-05-17, 08:54 AM
I think you can safely drop 2 CL - first and last. Plenty of psionic PrCs do this with very little utility lost, and psionics are already weaker than magic. It allows you to make great capstones, because the player now has to choose between a CL and the most iconic ability of their PrC.

Besides, most casters are strong enough anyway.

Runestar
2010-05-17, 09:35 AM
Malconvoker is probably the only prc which comes to mind, which remains balanced despite losing a caster lv (or perhaps because of it).

I suppose it could be used as a reference point of sorts.

Godskook
2010-05-17, 09:48 AM
I think you can safely drop 2 CL - first and last. Plenty of psionic PrCs do this with very little utility lost, and psionics are already weaker than magic. It allows you to make great capstones, because the player now has to choose between a CL and the most iconic ability of their PrC.

Besides, most casters are strong enough anyway.

And Psionics are a really bad reference point for balancing Vancian prestige classes. A lost manifester level is *NOT* equivalent to a lost caster level. You can lose as many as 7 manifester levels and still have a 9th level power as an Ardent, or 9th level equivalents as any other full-psionicist. Yes, in terms of overall power, a wizard>psion, but there's a lot of things that manifesters do better, and multiclassing is one of them.

Gametime
2010-05-17, 09:48 AM
[i]

3.5 has a lot of weaknesses, and a lot of problems, but one thing it does very well is multiclassing and prestige classes. It just seems preposterous to try to limit that.



To be fair, if you follow all the rules in the book 3.5 doesn't do multiclassing very well at all. :smalltongue:

DragoonWraith
2010-05-17, 08:07 PM
I think you can safely drop 2 CL - first and last. Plenty of psionic PrCs do this with very little utility lost, and psionics are already weaker than magic. It allows you to make great capstones, because the player now has to choose between a CL and the most iconic ability of their PrC.
Name for me, please, a PrC that loses 2 spellcasting levels and is equal to a single-classed Wizard. Hell, name me a PrC that would - there are a few, but the ones named should tell you something.


Besides, most casters are strong enough anyway.
:headdesk:

Private-Prinny
2010-05-17, 08:49 PM
Name for me, please, a PrC that loses 2 spellcasting levels and is equal to a single-classed Wizard.

Swiftblade and Jade Phoenix Mage come to mind. I don't know if they're quite as OMGWTFBBQ powerful as those couple extra 9th level spell slots, but they do make up for the loss quite nicely.

Mystic Muse
2010-05-17, 08:53 PM
OMGWTFBBQ .

What's my fancomic have to do with wizard prestige classes?:smallconfused::smalltongue:

Optimystik
2010-05-17, 10:37 PM
And Psionics are a really bad reference point for balancing Vancian prestige classes. A lost manifester level is *NOT* equivalent to a lost caster level. You can lose as many as 7 manifester levels and still have a 9th level power as an Ardent, or 9th level equivalents as any other full-psionicist. Yes, in terms of overall power, a wizard>psion, but there's a lot of things that manifesters do better, and multiclassing is one of them.

1) 9th-level powers <<<< 9th-level spells.

2) You picked the one class in the entire game that can jump around in its power progression to prove a point about psionics vs. magic in general? Um, what? :smallconfused:


Name for me, please, a PrC that loses 2 spellcasting levels and is equal to a single-classed Wizard.

None. I wasn't aware that equaling Tier 1 is your standard of reasonable play.
Guess what, Johnny Wizard can still break the game wide open with 2 lost CL. Shocking, I know!


:headdesk:

That's my line.

Fitz10019
2010-05-19, 12:36 AM
You could houserule an overall caster level cap, such that any caster is only allowed Caster Level = Character Level - 1 from Character Level ten onwards. With this, a Wiz15 and a Wiz8/PrCX4/PrCY3 both have at most 14 caster levels. The cost of entering a 9/10 progress PrC is comparatively reduced if you are going to lose a caster level in any case; but 5-PrC builds (and dual casting builds) are not additionally penalized.

Hand_of_Vecna
2010-05-19, 04:56 AM
One effect of this rule would be making alot of rarely used gish PrC's more viable. This isn't necessarily a bad thing but, some people are only annoyed that BFC is far more important than mellee but outright hate that a near full caster can out mellee mellee classes several times over.