Seriously, though, why does Heirophant not progress casting?

[Quorothorn]

I saw some folks on this board earlier talking about how there's a PrC in the DMG that is for divine casters, yet does not properly advance spellcasting. So, when I was reading my copy of said book earlier today, I flipped to the Prestige Class section to see just how weird the Heirophant was. As it turns out...really weird. The class is clearly "supposed" to be the divine equivalent of the Archmage--7th-level spells required for entry, five-level class, provides a different selectable special ability at each including "converting" a spell slot to SLAs or making Touch spells have 30-foot range, etc. The only real differences besides the divine/arcane thing are that the pre-requisites are a little "easier" than the Archmage...and that it does not progress spellcasting on even one of those levels.

It even advances caster level as a raw number, but...nothing to the actual spellcasting.

I'm not just bemoaning the decision here (I'd be inclined to simply houserule it to work the same as the Archmage anyway, advancing casting properly, with slightly sterner pre-reqs and sacrificing spell slots for each special ability), I am honestly confused as to why the designers chose to make that class that way. (It looks like it was the same way in 3.0.) Anybody in the Playground have any potential insight into why this choice might have been made beyond "they just didn't think this through"? I'd be inclined to assume it was just not thinking "right", but the fact that it so closely resembles the Archmage makes it all the more puzzling to me, personally.

[Answerer]

Presumably, the designers underestimated the importance of each successive spell level, and overestimated the potency of the Hierophant's class features.

But ultimately, this is just speculation. No one knows, and no one is going to be able to do any more than just speculate. Unless the author happens to see this thread (and happens to even remember his thinking at the time).

[Psyren]

Just use it with Ur-Priest, Blighter or AoP. That way you still get 9ths plus all the Hierophant archmagey goodies.

[Quorothorn]

Just use it with Ur-Priest, Blighter or AoP. That way you still get 9ths plus all the Hierophant archmagey goodies.

Well, sure, one could look at it that way... :smallbiggrin:


Presumably, the designers underestimated the importance of each successive spell level, and overestimated the potency of the Hierophant's class features.

But ultimately, this is just speculation. No one knows, and no one is going to be able to do any more than just speculate. Unless the author happens to see this thread (and happens to even remember his thinking at the time).

Ah well, then. I simply don't "get" how they could blatantly underestimate spell level importance with the Heirophant whilst acknowledging it in its arcane equivalent/twin, I guess.

[Answerer]

Wizards saw arcanists as "all about the spells" and the Archmage's abilities modify spellcasting. Divine classes were more about leadership and such, hence Hierophant's focus. Magic was, I think, considered secondary.

[lsfreak]

Ah well, then. I simply don't "get" how they could blatantly underestimate spell level importance with the Heirophant whilst acknowledging it in its arcane equivalent/twin, I guess.

Considering they made a 1st level druid better than two 1st level fighters, valued full BAB as nearly the same as 9th level spells, and thinking +1 AC to one target is balanced versus Quicken Spell, I don't think it should come as much of a surprise.

[JoshuaZ]

Ah well, then. I simply don't "get" how they could blatantly underestimate spell level importance with the Heirophant whilst acknowledging it in its arcane equivalent/twin, I guess.

Part of that has already been discussed is just the mindset of what was important to the classes. But there's another issue. A lot of people look at imbalance issues in 3.0/3.5 and ask "how could they not see that?" While some of the issues are serious and extreme, a lot of this probably comes down to some variation of hindsight bias and (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias) the illusion of transparency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusion_of_transparency) the upshot is that once you know a fact it seems a lot more obvious than when you don't know it and there's a natural bias to assume that the chain of reasoning involved is in fact easy even when it might not be.

[Answerer]

D&D 3.x/Pathfinder has what I'd call "image-based design" – the designers focus far more on trying to make the class's mechanics "look like" what they imagine someone with that class should do. Very little regard is given for the relative efficacy of options or even how well it actually succeeds at doing what it's supposed to look like it does.

[Phelix-Mu]

D&D 3.x/Pathfinder has what I'd call "image-based design" – the designers focus far more on trying to make the class's mechanics "look like" what they imagine someone with that class should do. Very little regard is given for the relative efficacy of options or even how well it actually succeeds at doing what it's supposed to look like it does.

This is a very cogent point. Well said, and the places where this approach to design is apparent are legion.

But, thankfully, no system is perfect, and the flaws of 3e make it evident (if it wasn't already) that the DM is the final and best arbiter of how to interpret/use specific rules in a given campaign/setting. Houserule away! (Although the system of retrospectively fixing things is also terribly flawed, and lack of completeness and consistency are shortcomings that will irk many a gamer.)

[Psyren]

D&D 3.x/Pathfinder has what I'd call "image-based design" – the designers focus far more on trying to make the class's mechanics "look like" what they imagine someone with that class should do. Very little regard is given for the relative efficacy of options or even how well it actually succeeds at doing what it's supposed to look like it does.

I would argue that this was WotC's design philosophy (at least for 3e), and Pathfinder was so focused on trying to win over their players that they either inadvertently or intentionally implemented it in their own work. It's not like Paizo invented the concept that a party should be fighter-blaster mage-healbot cleric-flanking thief after all.

In short, you can make the point that Paizo missed a golden opportunity to make a 3.5 with ToB standards of design from the very start, and you'd be right. But what you can't say for certain is whether Pathfinder would have been as successful as it is now had they done that. Never forget that the folks who go online and talk about "tiers" and "optimization" are actually the minority, just a vocal one.

But anyway, this probably belongs in that other PF thread.

[IamL]

I think it's because of the fact that Archmage was intended to be a class that almost every wizard would take, while Heirophant was deliberately imbalanced.

[Answerer]

I would argue that this was WotC's design philosophy (at least for 3e), and Pathfinder was so focused on trying to win over their players that they either inadvertently or intentionally implemented it in their own work. It's not like Paizo invented the concept that a party should be fighter-blaster mage-healbot cleric-flanking thief after all.
Why do you think it matters why Paizo chose to follow that design philosophy? This reads like a defense of Paizo when no attack was really made, and it doesn't really make sense as a defense since the points made don't really offer any kind of "excuse." It's not WotC's "fault" that Paizo chose the same design philosophy, if we do assume that it's a faulty philosophy.

[123456789blaaa]

Why do you think it matters why Paizo chose to follow that design philosophy? This reads like a defense of Paizo when no attack was really made, and it doesn't really make sense as a defense since the points made don't really offer any kind of "excuse." It's not WotC's "fault" that Paizo chose the same design philosophy, if we do assume that it's a faulty philosophy.

It doesn't seem like a defense at all to me. How is being so focused on pandering to the fans that you screw up a good thing?

[IamL]

I still think that it was because Heirophant was supposed to be a choice, while WotC thought that archmage should be a class that everybody would take.

[Urpriest]

I still think that it was because Heirophant was supposed to be a choice, while WotC thought that archmage should be a class that everybody would take.

Why though? What about Hierophant makes it more of a choice?

[Psyren]

Why do you think it matters why Paizo chose to follow that design philosophy?

Because we have no way of knowing the benefits of that choice, only the drawbacks (which are a bigger deal to some people than others.)

As for no attack being made - Pathfinder has neither a Hierophant nor an Archmage class, so clearly that philosophy (if it is true) has nothing to do with these PrCs or this thread. Even if you accept the premise that Hierophant's design was based on what WotC thought a high level divine caster should be doing vs. a high level arcane one, it still has nothing to do with PF.

[Philistine]

I find myself wondering whether this - as with some other mind-boggling design choices - wasn't a holdover from AD&D rules (where there were no 8th- and 9th-level Divine spells). IIRC, Druid advancement beyond a certain point specifically involved becoming a "Hierophant" with various funky powers instead of additional spells.

[T.G. Oskar]

I think it's more because they were still thinking in AD&D 2e terms when they did that.

Note the difference: a Druid could turn into a Hierophant after serving for 1 year as The Great Druid, which was the only way a Druid could get more spells. Clerics on earlier editions, as well as Druids, rarely advanced spellcasting past spell level 6-7, when they got their best spells. The Druid had a bizarre progression, where you had to take the position of higher standing druids in order to advance in level (same thing with Monks). The Great Druid was the leader of all druids, and because of its important position, it could learn extra spells above and beyond all other druids. Once they served, they turned into hierophant Druids, where they essentially lost all their Druid levels but progressed real fast, kept their HP and stuff (basically, they took a PrC...notice where I'm going?), and gained new abilities, but they lost their bonus spells for their position.

The 3rd Edition Druid dispensed with the Hierophant Druid's benefits, and decided to grant all the abilities it provided as class features at 15th level and higher (which is where you get A Thousand Faces, the ability to summon elementals, etc.), but they kept the idea of the Hierophant and expanded it to all primary divine casters (essentially, the Cleric). In that case, as Clerics and Druids now had the ability to cast 9th level spells but the devs still thought on 2e terms (and also 1e terms; the reason why Paladins progressed their spellcasting effectively every 2 levels whereas 1e and 2e treated them as Clerics of a third of their level, Monks have all the non-synergistic qualities, etc) they thought they could still do well without their spells, and thus the Hierophant provided no spellcasting potential.

There's also another "balancing point": Archmages sacrifice permanent spell slots for their power, whereas Hierophants gain their abilities without sacrificing anything. Note that both Archmages and Hierophants get [Divine/Arcane] Reach, Spell Power and Spell-like Abilities, but Archmages require sacrificing spell slots whereas Hierophants get them without trouble. However, even if the cost of getting powers via the Archmage hurts (you're losing spell slots), they overshot the idea that sacrificing spell slots to get powers was the equivalent of sacrificing ALL spell progression to get powers without other costs. Had the Hierophant advance spell progression, it would have been more powerful than the Archmage because it didn't sacrifice spell slots, but only in the case of reach, spell power and SLAs. The rest...consider the relative power between Blast Infidel and Arcane Fire, or Faith Healing to Mastery of Shaping, and other such examples.

[Psyren]

Definitely didn't know that bit about 2e Druids/Clerics, so that sheds a lot of light on this crazy class. Thanks TGO!

[Venger]

There's also another "balancing point": Archmages sacrifice permanent spell slots for their power, whereas Hierophants gain their abilities without sacrificing anything..

they sacrifice 5 levels of spellcasting in exchange for those abilities. that's not free, that's paying an extremely steep cost versus what archmage gets for his powers

[Zubrowka74]

Considering a lot of people are whinning and moaning about the überness of tier one classes, why is it that when you stumble a class or prestige class designed to cripple the druid casting it leads to more whinning and moaning ? Seriously.

[Philistine]

Because that's also not balance.

Anyway, it's really not the case that the PrC was "designed to cripple the druid casting." In fact, it's merely yet another example of something that was ported in from AD&D with zero thought as to how it would actually work in 3E given the changes made to the rules.

[T.G. Oskar]

they sacrifice 5 levels of spellcasting in exchange for those abilities. that's not free, that's paying an extremely steep cost versus what archmage gets for his powers

Again, look at the quotation marks.

Another good use is to define when you're using something without actually quoting, and instead using it to specify a point you don't agree with.

The reason I did that was because I agree that it's not meant to be used as a balancing point (otherwise, I would have dropped the marks and just gone with it, or italicized it for emphasis. Note that I later mention that the developers overshot the concept, when they thought that getting stuff "for free" instead of expending spell slots was properly balanced with the lack of spell progression altogether. As the game progressed, the importance of spell progression was evident, and thus you saw classes for mages that always dropped spell progression at first level if they were too powerful, and in other levels as well, but VERY RARELY dropping more than five spell levels worth of progression, because then no character would ever get it. Compare this, the Green Star Adept, the Shining Blade of Heironeous and other classes from the first three Complete books (and, heck, even the PrCs of 3.0 proper) with the PrCs that came from later books, such as Master Specialist, Soulguard, and other classes from the latter Complete books (namely, Mage, Scoundrel and Champion, for obvious reasons). Note, for example, that even Mythic Exemplar, a class meant for six specific classes to gain different abilities, allow their Wizard and Cleric equivalents to progress 8 of their 10 levels in spellcasting, leaving only the first and the last, but otherwise they're a half spellcasting PrC. This is mostly because of how they overshot the idea that spellcasting classes would accept entering PrCs that stopped their progression altogether.

[ArcturusV]

Or on the misstep on spellcasting progression PrCs, you can look at the old 3.0 style ones, where often you had classes that merely said something like "Add X spells per day" instead of proper spellcasting progression. I've never see a player touch them with a 10 foot pole. Not even if I, as the DM, gave them extra incentives and bribes to take it. No one would take Wonderworker, trading out full spellcasting for merely +7 spells (And only +3 spells of their max castable level) and three feats. Or use the Eunuch Warlock and it's extra spells (And 2 spellcasting levels over 10) for free metamagic on only a couple of spells, leadership, etc.

[T.G. Oskar]

Or on the misstep on spellcasting progression PrCs, you can look at the old 3.0 style ones, where often you had classes that merely said something like "Add X spells per day" instead of proper spellcasting progression. I've never see a player touch them with a 10 foot pole. Not even if I, as the DM, gave them extra incentives and bribes to take it. No one would take Wonderworker, trading out full spellcasting for merely +7 spells (And only +3 spells of their max castable level) and three feats. Or use the Eunuch Warlock and it's extra spells (And 2 spellcasting levels over 10) for free metamagic on only a couple of spells, leadership, etc.

Probably you've never seen a non-Epic player touching those.

Think: after 20th level, your Wizard stops getting new spells per day, and only progresses its caster level; so does the Cleric and the Druid. Yet, you add 3 levels of Wonderworker, and all of a sudden you're getting more spell slots, and from essentially ALL levels. EW is suitable for evil casters, if they don't mind being, y'know, Eunuchs.

Think in the same way as what to do with Hierophant: before level 20, it's a waste of time. After 20th level, slap 4 levels and Practiced Spellcaster and you're getting powers for free. Though you might not need getting those (after all, what's Epic Spellcasting for?), but if you're interested in getting even MORE spell slots, or ways on how to improve your spells without losing your valuable spell slots, they suddenly become obvious choices.

[ArcturusV]

Touche. Have not mucked around with Epic stuff. My group tried a one off at Epic. Saw how silly it got with our Epic Wizard and our Epic Cleric, swore it off. So I don't really spare much thought towards it.

[Rubik]

Probably you've never seen a non-Epic player touching those.

Think: after 20th level, your Wizard stops getting new spells per day, and only progresses its caster level; so does the Cleric and the Druid. Yet, you add 3 levels of Wonderworker, and all of a sudden you're getting more spell slots, and from essentially ALL levels. EW is suitable for evil casters, if they don't mind being, y'know, Eunuchs.

Think in the same way as what to do with Hierophant: before level 20, it's a waste of time. After 20th level, slap 4 levels and Practiced Spellcaster and you're getting powers for free. Though you might not need getting those (after all, what's Epic Spellcasting for?), but if you're interested in getting even MORE spell slots, or ways on how to improve your spells without losing your valuable spell slots, they suddenly become obvious choices.It's the exact same way with the psionic PrC metamind. It's horrific in pre-epic, but once you hit those post-20 levels it's absolutely amazing...at least, once you hit the capstone.

I'd still rather get Font of Power through three levels of illithid savant, however.

[Gnaeus]

Probably you've never seen a non-Epic player touching those.

They are also good in Gestalt. Advance your casting on one side and take classes that boost it on the other.