PDA

View Full Version : Are PrCs supposed to be this powerful?



SilverLeaf167
2010-08-31, 12:52 PM
The question is in the title. This especially applies to many caster prestiges, for example Radient Servant of Pelor. While I have gotten the picture that PrCs are meant to sacrifice something, like caster level advancement, for some other special abilities, the Servant keeps advancing ALL the cleric's abilities, including spellcasting and turning undead.

So, is it kind of assumed that most people take PrCs as soon as they meet the requirements? Or are they just a major balance mistake?

EXPLANATION, if unclear: If all people are overpowered, none are; in relation to the others, that is.

NelKor
2010-08-31, 12:55 PM
Clerics don't really have anything outside Spell Casting to advance.. plus Radiant doesn't really offer anything amazingly strong.

Darklord Xavez
2010-08-31, 12:57 PM
Clerics don't really have anything outside Spell Casting to advance.. plus Radiant doesn't really offer anything amazingly strong.

Agreed. It's pretty much the same as taking more levels of cleric.
-Xavez

Keld Denar
2010-08-31, 12:57 PM
Well, RSoP does only have a d6 HD, so you can't say that it gives up NOTHING. Plus, you have to take the Sun domain, which is generally less good than a couple other domains.

Lots of PrCs give something for relatively nothing though. Compare RSoP with Sacred Exorcist. Same BAB, better HD, full casting, full turning, AND a host of special abilities, one of which is a 24/7 active Consecrate aura. Everyone hates on RSoP, but SacEx is enterable 1 level later and is just as good.

Plus, look at the things that RSoP makes you better at. Healing, and to a lesser degree nuking with [Light] spells. Yea, its better than NOTHING, but not really.

The real problem is the failure of most base classes to have interesting features to make them worth staying in.

Duke of URL
2010-08-31, 12:59 PM
In theory, a PrC is supposed to be a trade-off of one set of abilities for another. In practice, this concept is laughable in the 3.5 system.

(Of course, I could start a shameless plug here for a variant system derived from 3.5 that is significantly better in this regard, but I'll let my signature speak for itself.)

ericgrau
2010-08-31, 01:14 PM
<Digs out DMG>: "Prestige classes are purely optional and always under the purview of the DM. We encourage you, as the DM, to tightly limit the prestige classes available in your campaign... The best prestige clases for your campaign are the ones you tailor make yourself."

@ thread title: yes
Has it gotten way out of hand?: Yes
Do splat-books worsen it with power creep?: Yes, but power creep is typical of everything.

Being strictly better than not getting a prestige class has made every decent build include them, which is the exact opposite of their original intent.

Keld Denar
2010-08-31, 01:40 PM
Being strictly better than not getting a prestige class has made every decent build include them, which is the exact opposite of their original intent.

There are plenty of decent builds that don't use any PrCs. Swift Hunter and Daring Outlaw are both considered very good damage builds, and neither of them use ANY PrCs. Straight Warblade, Swordsage, Crusader, Dragonfire Adept, Factotum, Totemist, Druid, and a few other base classes are often as strong or stronger than many PrC alternatives.

Also, not all power is creepy. Complete Arcane contains some crap like Iot7V, Sublime Chord, Fatespinner, and the lauded Mindbender dip, which are WAY stronger than most of the PrCs in CChampion, CMage, or CScoundrel, all of which came later.

Just sayin...your generalizations are kinda...not right.

Telonius
2010-08-31, 01:57 PM
RSoP is a particularly egregious example of Prestige Class not being what it's supposed to be. It's particularly awful because its prerequisites are things most Clerics would probably think about taking anyway. If you're thinking of playing a Cleric of Pelor, I'd be hard-pressed to figure out a single case where you'd rather not take it. A PrC should never be that good. If it is, you haven't made a PrC, you've made a 10-level set of Alternate Class Features.

Sacred Exorcist is along the same lines. I think it doesn't get quite as much bile directed at it because it has a poor Fort save. The cost is a little more substantial than a couple less HPs. Still, it's giving you a lot of goodies for a very low cost.

ericgrau
2010-08-31, 01:58 PM
@ Keld: I'd have a lot less against all those straight classes than PrCs that are strictly better. Those PrCs irk me. The classes you listed don't. Except maybe ToB for personal reasons, but that's an entirely different topic and I can understand why others enjoy ToB.

It's not about "decent", it's about "strictly better". I have nothing against decent builds in general. The game should be full of them. But when PrCs are usually better, the DM must make monsters stronger to provide a real challenge and the PC who only made a "decent build" w/o including PrCs gets gimped. Forcing players to play something or sit around ineffective is out of hand. As for civil groups who keep things in check in spite of this, kudos to them and I am glad those groups are so common.

Diarmuid
2010-08-31, 02:12 PM
So I think a lot of this is also perception based on the sheer amount of people that participate in a forum like these here and the anonymity involved with the internet.

You dont have to look your DM in the eye when you're asking for the half-dragon half-fiendish dire lichborn spellstitched blah blah blah because you know he would laugh you off the table.

I am just as guilty as others are on here. I've made PbP chars I would never have brought to a RL gaming table. I think the amount of games happening and directly related the amount of game turnover also contribute as when you're applying for 10 games in a week you need to look harder to try and find interesting character concepts.

Keld Denar
2010-08-31, 02:14 PM
Ok, how about this? Rogue4/Swashbuckler16 with Daring Outlaw IS STRICTLY BETTER THAN Swashbuckler20. The only thing I can marginally think of is that the Daring Outlaw would have to wait until level 9 to take the 2nd TWFing feat, while the Swash20 could take it at 6, due to his BAB. This evens out at 12 though, since both will have BAB +11 or more at 12. The Daring Outlaw, however, TWFs better due to his massive boatload of bonus damage attached, so that slight delay in progression is more than made up by the bonus damage.

I wouldn't say its strictly better than Rogue20, because of the skill points and Rogue special abilities involved, but it IS strictly better than Swashbuckler20.

Does that make you mad too?

nightwyrm
2010-08-31, 02:14 PM
10% of PrCs are better than the base class(es) you're entering from or are crucial for certain builds.
~10-20% makes you no better or worse than what you're coming from.
The rest are worth less than the paper they're printed on.

ericgrau
2010-08-31, 02:15 PM
Marginally better doesn't count. I thought I was quite clear about being so much better that the DM must use monsters that the other player can't do much against. Or else weaker monsters that the stronger guy must crush.

OTOH the last time I remember that happening WAS with a warblade, but I think the DM's monster selection and the loot she gave the warblade was to blame for that. As I said most groups avoid issues by being fairly civil... which often includes limits on how many PrCs they dip into.

JoshuaZ
2010-08-31, 02:18 PM
Another offender in a similar fashion right in core is the Loremaster. Wizards qualify almost automatically, they get full spell progression. The only major thing they might lose is a single bonus feat but they get an even more flexible version of that as a loremaster option.

ericgrau
2010-08-31, 02:21 PM
Ya but loremaster doesn't give you much, so it's not so bad, and not everyone loads up on item creation / metamagic. And for sorcerers it's a major trade off that probably isn't worth it. I'd say archmage is a lot worse.

Keld Denar
2010-08-31, 02:23 PM
What does RSoP get that is more than marginally better than what a vanillia cleric20 gets? Their strongest class feature is the bonus domain, which is mostly a replacement for having to burn a domain to get into the class in the first place. So, they can greater turn slightly more often than a non-RSoP? Great vs about 6% of the printed bad guys in the game. They get free metamagic on up to 7 spells per day? Wooo... Any [Light] spell they cast is heightened by one level and its area doubled? Thats great for the what, 5 [Light] descripter spells in Core, and 3-4 more outside of Core? Oh, and you get Martial Weapon Proficiency (argueably a typo, still pretty meh otherwise), but you lose a HP per level.

Am I missing anything? Oh yea, a +2 Will save to any allies willing to stand within Cleave range of you. Sounds GREAT!

Yea, there are situations where some of these abilities ARE decent, but on average, they are pretty marginal. You are getting something for nothing, but its like going to the grocery store and trying to fill up on the free samples.

JoshuaZ
2010-08-31, 02:24 PM
Ya but loremaster doesn't give you much, so it's not so bad, and not everyone loads up on item creation / metamagic. And for sorcerers it's a major trade off that probably isn't worth it. I'd say archmage is a lot worse.

Well both are much easier for a wizard to qualify for than a sorcerer. But archmage 1) requires a feat that many aren't going to take (Skill Focus (Spellcraft) ) 2) burns spell slots for its abilities.

I agree that Loremaster isn't as much of a problem as Radiant Servant, but it seems to be in the same category and is worse in that regard than Archmage.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-31, 02:25 PM
10% of PrCs are better than the base class(es) you're entering from or are crucial for certain builds.
~10-20% makes you no better or worse than what you're coming from.
The rest are worth less than the paper they're printed on.

This is about right. The vast majority of PrCs are mostly useless. A good chunk of the remainder are only usable as dips. Of whats left, most are reasonably balanced. A few are broken.

I believe this is more a result of a lack of balance on the part of WoTC than any actual strategy.

Zaydos
2010-08-31, 02:27 PM
Actually by taking 10 levels of loremaster they lose 2 bonus feats, their familiar progression (if it's not already traded away), and have to spend another feat on Skill Focus (any knowledge).

In exchange they get Lore (which a wizard can already duplicate with a wide array of knowledge skills), some divination spell-like abilities (which are meh), a single bonus feat (so they're down 2 feats), and a few miscellaneous bonuses (either +1 to a few saves or extra 1st and 2nd level spells). Oh and 20 extra skill points.

Those 2 feats can hurt (1 feat is what makes humans so good).

herrhauptmann
2010-08-31, 02:28 PM
Ya but loremaster doesn't give you much, so it's not so bad, and not everyone loads up on item creation / metamagic. And for sorcerers it's a major trade off that probably isn't worth it. I'd say archmage is a lot worse.

Sorta feel that people can go mini-archmage to an extent with reserve feats now, so the PrC is less effective than it was.

To silverleaf, I think that the Swiftblade is a great example of what a PrC should be. It's a variant of a regular class, focuses on something that class can do, to the point that the PrC does it very well, but also gives up something (6/10 casting)so that a straight wiz/sorc/whatever is still equally powerful.

Frosty
2010-08-31, 02:30 PM
You know, the Malconvoker is a PrC done RIGHT in my opinion. Loses a caste rlevel up front, and has quite a few interesting and GOOD abilities to make up for it, letting you become great at the area of specialization (summoning, in this case).

IMO, any casting PrC needs to lose a caster level at or before the level where they get the *really good* class features.

ericgrau
2010-08-31, 02:30 PM
There are plenty of prcs that aren't so bad, but plenty of offenders too.

ericgrau
2010-08-31, 02:35 PM
Well both are much easier for a wizard to qualify for than a sorcerer. But archmage 1) requires a feat that many aren't going to take (Skill Focus (Spellcraft) ) 2) burns spell slots for its abilities.

1 feat for access to multiple very good abilities is well worth it, especially at high levels when you can afford it. The spell slots lost are trivial, as they are unlikely to be of the highest spell level you can cast. Yeah, there are worse PrCs but my point was even things like mastery of shaping/elements are game changing and have very little cost. Ya, power creep in splatbooks override that a little but they also provide more offensive PrCs. In the end the only reason for a core player to not take archmage is to be civil or DM limitations b/c it will put him so much ahead of his allies, and this is much more true for splatbook prcs. Archmage is relatively tame.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-31, 02:49 PM
1 feat for access to multiple very good abilities is well worth it, especially at high levels when you can afford it. The spell slots lost are trivial, as they are unlikely to be of the highest spell level you can cast.

Er, they vary from 5th to 9th, depending on ability. When you go into the class, your highest spell level is 7th. That does not match my definition of "trivial".

You also need spell focus in two schools of magic. This is a pita, as this is not generally considered good optimization. You can somewhat avoid this by ducking into master specialist early, but doing that sacrifices a metamagic feat. You can shuffle the cost around, but it remains a cost.


Yeah, there are worse PrCs but my point was even things like mastery of shaping/elements are game changing and have very little cost.

You can replicate this with metamagic feats. The elemental ones are even +0, so...yeah. These abilities are handy, but the cost is in line with other means of acheiving them.


Ya, power creep in splatbooks override that a little but they also provide more offensive PrCs. In the end the only reason for a core player to not take archmage is to be civil or DM limitations b/c it will put him so much ahead of his allies, and this is much more true for splatbook prcs. Archmage is relatively tame.

You must be joking. I routinely pass on archmage, because I enjoy having spell slots. It's the same reason I love specializing. Spell slots are what MAKES a wizard awesome. It's not a bad prc, but I've almost never been in a position where the tradeoff has been worthwhile for me. The only thing that makes me question this is the SLA possibility, with very specific spells.

Project_Mayhem
2010-08-31, 02:55 PM
Doesn't RSoP have some strict roleplaying requirements? I remember hearing that.

Keld Denar
2010-08-31, 02:57 PM
Honestly, I think the CL boost is the strongest feature of Archmage. 5th level is a rather ****ty level of spells (I think a lot of 4th level spells are STRONGER than some of the 5ths listed), and the +1 CL gives you lots of boosts. My level 14 Archmage has a CL of 14 +2 from Archmage + 1 from Craft Magic Tatoo + 1 from Orange IWIN Stone = 18. At 15, he'll be able to hit CL20 GMWs. His spells are already tough to dispel. His EBT Grapple check is rediculous. He overcomes nearly all SR with Arcane Mastery + advanced CL. Unlike Clerics, Wizards don't have NEARLY as many free ways to increase their CL. Archmage is one of them.

Again, I might be missing something here, but I've found that to be certainly one of the more useful High Arcana's in practical use.

liquid150
2010-08-31, 03:19 PM
Red Wizards with time on their hands (or a flowing time demiplane)...that's a good way to boost arcane CL. It's no Greater Consumptive Field, but it's good enough. Toss in a bunch of cheddar and you've got something like over 100 9th level spells, all at CL 40.

Another good way is Earth Spell.

RSoP isn't exactly super powerful. It's nice if you really like being a healbot, but otherwise pretty "meh."

PlzBreakMyCmpAn
2010-08-31, 03:23 PM
Everyone knows the top tier PrC's and this isn't one of them. In fact, I hate this PrC with a passion. It really screwed me over in a campaign

If you have a problem with it say no. The DM is specifically encouraged to in the rules.

Vangor
2010-08-31, 03:27 PM
the Servant keeps advancing ALL the cleric's abilities, including spellcasting and turning undead.

A cleric does not tend to have anything else. Dropping turning is often done with no regard, and advancing turning, plus some nice bonuses to healing, while just maintaining spellcasting progression is good but nothing spectacular beyond the basic cleric. Frankly, extra turning and the sun domain when you do not care about turning are throwaways, and healing is rarely the big issue. The basic cleric should have a couple more features, frankly.


If all people are overpowered, none are; in relation to the others, that is.

Correct. Power is relative. I spent a while trying to explain this to people I was DMing in discussions about optimizing builds. Whatever you make, unless the DM is absolutely rigid, will be challenged. Perhaps I will play the encounters more intelligently, the true foes of the campaign will focus on the biggest threats they've heard about, I'll advance creatures or add them, or you attract the attention of other foes, too.

I do not happen to find a class which focuses primarily on health point healing and basic turning to be terribly overpowered. The cleric is powerful, and I would probably prefer to choose other domains and use a different feat or obviously exploit the feat for other purposes which don't involve me wasting away with the sun domain and worshiping Pelor.

liquid150
2010-08-31, 03:28 PM
Everyone knows the top tier PrC's and this isn't one of them. In fact, I hate this PrC with a passion. It really screwed me over in a campaign

If you have a problem with it say no. The DM is specifically encouraged to in the rules.

That sounds like an entertaining story, but I'm sure you don't want to re-live it.

Kylarra
2010-08-31, 03:32 PM
Archmage is actually one of the better designed PrCs, imo, since it actively trades out things in order to get use of its powers. The specific value of the trades is debatable, but the concept is great.

BobVosh
2010-08-31, 03:40 PM
I look at base classes as just that: something to build upon. Especially as far as the core classes are concerned, none really are all that interesting mechanically speaking. Except for druid, and ranger.

I like classes like dread necromancer, duskblade, beguiler, and other classes that are similar. They have a theme, several neat abilities based around that, and things to do beyond what most of the core classes can do. So yes, I like my PrC more powerful than base classes, although I didn't like the power creep that occurred. Overall I would be happy with short base classes (5-7 levels), and then a lot of options for how the character decides to specialize, in terms of PrCs.

Zaydos
2010-08-31, 03:43 PM
If I wanted to play a heal bot I'd consider Radiant Servant of Pelor (assuming I couldn't get a homebrewed Healer fix approved). Otherwise?

It takes one of my feats (Extra Turning) unless I intend to go DMM. It takes one of my domain choices on a quite frankly weak domain; this is mitigated by it giving me another of two domains I don't like particularly like. It improves my healing (which I do like), but it locks me into a specific alignment as well (I prefer either Lawful or Chaotic aligned characters usually).

All in all it seems like a trade I'm not sure I'd make. From an optimization stand point you can get a stronger character by choosing better domains. From a fluff view point, if I want to play a militant healer of a sun god (which incidentally was the last cleric I played) then it looks like a pretty good class. You have to make sub-optimal choices to take it (Sun domain, Pelor) and it doesn't give you world shaking power. So it lets you focus (healer in the service of a sun god) and makes you better at that but limits you in your options in other directions (no Planning Domain for a free Extend Spell).

Tequila Sunrise
2010-08-31, 04:46 PM
So, is it kind of assumed that most people take PrCs as soon as they meet the requirements? Or are they just a major balance mistake?
It's a glass half full/half empty situation; which way you see it depends on you. I see the glass as a pointless inconvenience; PrCs just aren't necessary. The abilities that PrCs grant could as easily be feats or base class variants, and avoid much of the system mastery that PrCs encourage and require.

Optimator
2010-08-31, 05:00 PM
Yes, quintupling the number of feats in the game and adding hundreds of alternate class features is much more elegant that putting them in thematic packages...

Tequila Sunrise
2010-08-31, 07:09 PM
Yes, quintupling the number of feats in the game and adding hundreds of alternate class features is much more elegant that putting them in thematic packages...
Glad we can see eye to eye! Those packages all too often increase system mastery for no good reason: 1) requiring players to choose specific options, of inconsistent quality, necessitating 20-level build planning from character creation, 2) forcing a rigid series of abilities on your PC, again of inconsistent quality, 3) making the game's math (particularly saves) even more breakable, 4) being redundant. (Do we really need PrCs like holy liberator and blackguard? Aren't the four variant UA paladins enough? Or, even better, why can't I just be a non-LG paladin?)

And to top it off: PrCs aren't any more thematic than feats or class variants. Go figure!

Partysan
2010-08-31, 08:15 PM
There are generally two ways to view PrCs:
1. the important part is the Prestige. A PrC should indeed be more powerful, but hard to qualify for. Kinda like early edition Paladin or Bard. They are rare and have very steep requirements, but are awesome.
In this case there should either be a tradeoff betweeen requirements and power, or they should only be available with special permission.
2. they are possibilities to further individualize a character, since base classes are (supposed to be) fairly generic. They should be more powerful in a smaller niche, since they are essentially specialized classes. This way, many characters will have PrCs and there are a lot of them, each with its own thing to do better/different than the base class.
In that case the requirements should be specific and something a character specializing in that particular niche would take anyway. They'd just take the place of variable talent trees.
Well, that's the theory. Usually, those are mixed.

fryplink
2010-08-31, 09:45 PM
Before my party realized that healing in combat was bad, they alway made anyone with a cleric heal them all the time. So, when I played a cleric, I took this along with the healing domain and the spontaneous domains ACF. Between that and the free meta magic its great running under the assuption that clerics have to be healbots. It made it easier to try to be a decent buffer/controller/Zilla (it was a party with a blaster mage, a sword and board, a paladin and a bard and me who was forced to be the healer. ) Before I took the class (and after) The DM played slightly harder encounters to give the game a grittier feel. So when we started to die, it was healers fault.

After I used RoSP, nothing big changed, but my rounds went from 1) heal 2) heal 3)hit with standard action* 4)heal 5)heal 6)hit again to something more along with 1)heal 2)hit 3)full hit 4)heal 5)hit 6)hit again. I was still the healer, healing far more often than I'd like, but in the end I didn't feel enslaved by being the healer. I had options that could span more than a single round.

*for the sake of this "hit with standard action" means that I took an action after moving. Did not necessarily use a melee attack, usually it was a spell or something.

The point is, RoSP won't change your cleric into something it wasn't before, and if its taken with the wrong type of cleric it will hurt you. It's a decent i PrC, because their ARE reasons you wouldn't take it for an optimal character.

If you believe the purpose of PrC's is to specialize your character then its good because after taking this character you are the healbot, being the healbot is easier. You're not Zilla, you aren't a necromancer, you are the healer. If your PrC's are supposed to change the characters function or to improve all/most of their abilities at a cost (like archmage does) then it won't float your boat because the cost is too low, and it improves only a small portion of cleric spells

Arbane
2010-08-31, 11:19 PM
Glad we can see eye to eye! Those packages all too often increase system mastery for no good reason: 1) requiring players to choose specific options, of inconsistent quality, necessitating 20-level build planning from character creation, 2) forcing a rigid series of abilities on your PC, again of inconsistent quality,

What he said. Having to plan your character from start to finish annoys me.

"Oh, you mis-spent one skill point ten levels ago? Sorry, you character is HOPELESSLY GIMPED FOREVER BWAAHAHAAHAAHAH."

Awnetu
2010-08-31, 11:22 PM
What he said. Having to plan your character from start to finish annoys me.

"Oh, you mis-spent one skill point ten levels ago? Sorry, you character is HOPELESSLY GIMPED FOREVER BWAAHAHAAHAAHAH."

Good thing this isnt a video game, so with some help from the dm, that is fixed quick.

Dr.Epic
2010-08-31, 11:24 PM
Well, not trying to point out the obvious, a prestige class is a class with prestige. It should offer something far better than what one would normally acquire. Not to mention, with requirements to meet before entering a PrC, it should be powerful otherwise you could just multiclass to it whenever.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-31, 11:34 PM
What he said. Having to plan your character from start to finish annoys me.

"Oh, you mis-spent one skill point ten levels ago? Sorry, you character is HOPELESSLY GIMPED FOREVER BWAAHAHAAHAAHAH."

This is why the Phb 2 introduced retraining. Because the average player doesn't really consider prestige classes at level 1...they start thinking about it one, maybe two levels before they want to start it at most, unless they're already quite familiar with D&D.

I definitely support allowing new PCs to retrain to fix their noob mistakes. They're going to uncover things as they go, and the whole point is to teach them the game, not punish them for being new at it.