What is the lamest prestige class concept (to you)

[daremetoidareyo]

Is fluff just too specific or does the crunch have no real bearing in most adventures? Or does the class just seem...lame? most importantly, WHY?

[OldTrees1]

In Song and Silence there was a prestige class about cursing yourself into a drider form.

[Psyren]

{obligatory Risen Martyr reference}

I'll be a bit controversial here though and say I don't like one of the best PrCs in core, Archmage. Really, any wizard or sorcerer who gets that high up should have that title, and those options (or similar ones) should be available to all such casters. Ditto Hierophant and Arch-Psion.

[Fax Celestis]

Cloaked Dancer. I like the concept, but it doesn't really do anything.

[The Viscount]

Halfling Whistler is a good class crunch-wise, but its very hard to overcome the inherent silliness of whistling in a combat situation (unless you're Yondu).

[Troacctid]

Daggerspell Shaper. It's just so absurdly specialized.

[Zubrowka74]

Was it "Harper Agent" that didn't add anything?

[Anxe]

Acolyte of the Skin never appealed to me that much. A deal with a devil should be giving you more power, not takng it away by giving you fewer spellcaster levels! That's why I modified the Alienist prestige class to fulfill the deal with a devil niche in my campaign.

Also, Ravager has always bothered me. It seems so cool, but its so bad!

[AvatarVecna]

Ladies and gentlemen, feast your eyes on the Fleet Runner of Ehlonna (http://dndtools.eu/classes/fleet-runner-ehlonna/)!

The easiest entry class is straight cleric...and it gives only half casting progression!

It has a bad Reflex save...and grants you Improved Evasion!

It can jump from a standing start without penalty...and Jump is a cross-class skill!

It gives you the ability to pounce...and "Shot on the Run" for free!

It has pounce and a combat feat for free...and has medium BAB progression!

Literally most of class features focus around running...since you'll be running away quite often!

It is...the most confused prestige class in the world!

"I don't always remain on the battlefield, but when I do, it's not for very long."
--Fleet Runner of Ehlonna

In all seriousness, this prestige class entertains me with how many directions it's trying to go in at once.

[Harlot]

Anchorite: A caster that can't travel more than 100 feet from his house and thus operates through a willing human familiar called a proxy. Worst. concept. ever.

[Dr. Cliché]

Anchorite: A caster that can't travel more than 100 feet from his house and thus operates through a willing human familiar called a proxy. Worst. concept. ever.

Does the human familiar get to make use of any of your class levels, spells etc.?

[georgie_leech]

Anchorite: A caster that can't travel more than 100 feet from his house and thus operates through a willing human familiar called a proxy. Worst. concept. ever.

The only reference to a class with that specific name is on the D&D wiki in the homebrew section. For the sake of the server, I'd advise against opening up the thread to that. :smallbiggrin:

[Anachronity]

Arcane Archer, though I'm blurring the lines between 'concept' and 'execution' here.

They've had so long to get it right, but the class is still laughably bad.

[A_S]

Every time I read the fluff for Urban Savant, I think of this (http://asofterworld.com/index.php?id=460) A Softer World comic.

[Harlot]

The only reference to a class with that specific name is on the D&D wiki in the homebrew section. For the sake of the server, I'd advise against opening up the thread to that. :smallbiggrin:

Crap, you're right! I always assumed that the wiki version was the same as the Ravenloft (Domains of Dread) Version, but looking it up properly, it clearly isn't - the ravenloft version is not a prestige class and it seems to be some weird priest/paladin combo having 'mistwalking'. - clearly able to travel and no mention of proxy...

[dysprosium]

Fleet Runner silliness -snip-

In all seriousness, this prestige class entertains me with how many directions it's trying to go in at once.

Hey I won that round of Iron Chef!


My answer: Shining Blade of Heironeous, a ten level prestige class that (supposedly) makes my sword better(?)

[Sartharina]

Crap, you're right! I always assumed that the wiki version was the same as the Ravenloft (Domains of Dread) Version, but looking it up properly, it clearly isn't - the ravenloft version is not a prestige class and it seems to be some weird priest/paladin combo having 'mistwalking'. - clearly able to travel and no mention of proxy...

Even the homebrew one is not a lame idea for an NPC prestige class. It's like a form of Astral Projection several levels early (And without the 'hide in my own little demiplane' shenanigans accompanying that level).

[lytokk]

Arcane Archer, though I'm blurring the lines between 'concept' and 'execution' here.

They've had so long to get it right, but the class is still laughably bad.

I'd have to agree with this. A simple fix for the class would be full or even half casting progression. Let it stack with duskblade so that if you go dusk/AA you get full attack chanelling at level 13, assuming you took levels in only those two classes.

Another archery one that just doesn't work, Order of the bow initiate. Archery is based around hitting someone as far away from you as possible, yet for this class to even work, you have to stay within charging distance of just about everything. Seriously, wth.

[Extra Anchovies]

Another archery one that just doesn't work, Order of the bow initiate. Archery is based around hitting someone as far away from you as possible, yet for this class to even work, you have to stay within charging distance of just about everything. Seriously, wth.

Seconded. The class's abilities would be a lot more thematically fitting if the range restriction on its precision damage was removed, or at least extended to 1 full range increments. It's still a fairly solid class (after all, it's a better damage progression than Skirmish and can keep up with Travel Devotion full-attackers via Greater Manyshot), but having to stay within 30 feet is really annoying for any archer.

As for my choice: Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil. I hate the "prismatic X" spells, and can't stand anything that expands/builds upon them. I don't care how much fun you may have rolling on tables to determine what your spells do, I don't like those spells. If you want rainbows, play Rainbow Servant. Also, the artwork for IotSV is pretty bad.

[StoneCipher]

Master of Masks had good flavor but the execution was just simply appalling.

[Honest Tiefling]

Blackguard is alright, except for the weird hide requirement. Because everyone knows that the first thing fallen paladins do is hide from stuff. Hiding from things is an integral step of the process to bind one's soul to a fiend as well!

[True believer]

Is fluff just too specific or does the crunch have no real bearing in most adventures? Or does the class just seem...lame? most importantly, WHY?


Any prestige class that adds melee flavor to Wizards . You simply don't need it !!! Spells are always better from a sword , and in the end if you wanna fight melee from time to time , you could transform yourself in an effective "fighter" with your spells (Tenser's Transformation etc)

But my least favorite prestige class in the game is the Green star adept !Good and strong abilities but the lore simply sucks !!! It is a mix of Superman , hulk and Merlin that i , personally , cant find attractive and most important i think that it really doesn't fit in any usual campaign

[(Un)Inspired]

Any prestige class that adds melee flavor to Wizards . You simply don't need it !!! Spells are always better from a sword , and in the end if you wanna fight melee from time to time , you could transform yourself in an effective "fighter" with your spells (Tenser's Transformation etc)

But my least favorite prestige class in the game is the Green star adept !Good and strong abilities but the lore simply sucks !!! It is a mix of Superman , hulk and Merlin that i , personally , cant find attractive and most important i think that it really doesn't fit in any usual campaign

Lets get one thing straight, while wizards are at their strongest when casting spells instead of swinging swords; if they do want to wade into melee, Tenser's Transformation doesn't the opposite of making one an effective "fighter"

[Amphetryon]

Green Star Adept. "I eat this meteor rock, and as a result I can slow my caster level down!"

[Honest Tiefling]

Green Star Adept. "I eat this meteor rock, and as a result I can slow my caster level down!"

Seems legit. This is why you don't put random glowing space rocks into your mouth.

[atemu1234]

In Song and Silence there was a prestige class about cursing yourself into a drider form.

I like that one, personally. Unfortunately, there's that stupid little caviat where it only becomes actually useful near the end of its run, when you get the ability to multiweapon fight with an extra set of limbs...

[Jeff the Green]

Dwarven Defender. Their entire combat style focuses on not moving. I don't care if you live in tunnels; not meting able to advance or fall back is a very good way to die.

Champion of Llanfair*pwllgwyn*gyllgo*gery*chwyrn*drobwll*llant y*silio*gogo*goch Gwynharwyf. I'm so Good at being angry it makes me magic.

[OldTrees1]

I like that one, personally. Unfortunately, there's that stupid little caviat where it only becomes actually useful near the end of its run, when you get the ability to multiweapon fight with an extra set of limbs...

If it were any other monster then it would make more sense. But becoming a Drider is a divine punishment. Why would anyone intentionally subject themselves to a divine punishment?

[Jeff the Green]

If it were any other monster then it would make more sense. But becoming a Drider is a divine punishment. Why would anyone intentionally subject themselves to a divine punishment?

Someone with a very specific dysmorphic disorder?

[Honest Tiefling]

Someone with very specific fetishes? Someone who realized it was CR 7 as opposed to the drow's 1?

[Sith_Happens]

Renegade Mastermaker is a ten level prestige class meant for Artificers that turns you into a Warforged bit by bit. While in isolation that is incredibly cool, in practice if you want to play a Warforged... then you probably already are, because it's already a player race.

[Denver]

Dwarven Defender. Their entire combat style focuses on not moving. I don't care if you live in tunnels; not meting able to advance or fall back is a very good way to die.

Second'd. Though, they do get the ability to move at the 8th level... *five* feet per round.

--

I'll throw out the Highland Stalker, from Complete Adventurer. It sounds like it should be useful, but when you get down to it, it is not.

It requires you take have 8 ranks in Listen, Spot, and Survival. It also requires the ability to deal Sneak Attack or Skirmish damage, and it requires you to take the feat Track.

Rangers get Track for free - but no inherent Sneak Attack or Skirmish, so you'd have to multi-class to get to it. You could try to get to the prestige class as a Rogue, but survival being a cross-class skill, it'd take a few levels to get there, unless you multi-class. Finally, you could get the Prestige Class from Scout.

And when you take the class, what do you get? More Skirmish! Which you get as a Scout. Swift Tracker! Which you get as a Ranger. Camouflage! Which you get as a Ranger. You gain fewer skill points per level! Your Class-Skill list is smaller than any of the contributing classes. Aside from gaining Mountain Stride and Sure-footed, there is no reason to take this prestige class that taking Scout or Ranger wouldn't give.

[Extra Anchovies]

Second'd. Though, they do get the ability to move at the 8th level... *five* feet per round.

--

I'll throw out the Highland Stalker, from Complete Adventurer. It sounds like it should be useful, but when you get down to it, it is not.

It requires you take have 8 ranks in Listen, Spot, and Survival. It also requires the ability to deal Sneak Attack or Skirmish damage, and it requires you to take the feat Track.

Rangers get Track for free - but no inherent Sneak Attack or Skirmish, so you'd have to multi-class to get to it. You could try to get to the prestige class as a Rogue, but survival being a cross-class skill, it'd take a few levels to get there, unless you multi-class. Finally, you could get the Prestige Class from Scout.

And when you take the class, what do you get? More Skirmish! Which you get as a Scout. Swift Tracker! Which you get as a Ranger. Camouflage! Which you get as a Ranger. You gain fewer skill points per level! Your Class-Skill list is smaller than any of the contributing classes. Aside from gaining Mountain Stride and Sure-footed, there is no reason to take this prestige class that taking Scout or Ranger wouldn't give.

Ranger wouldn't give Skirmish progression. Scout wouldn't get full BAB or good Fortitude save. Also, why can't a character just, you know, take track as one of their normal feats to meet the prereq? It's not like we need to make every feat a bonus feat, especially on the Scout, which isn't a hugely feat-starved class. Of course, the full BAB and one-feat tax aren't really worth it, since you trade away more from Scout than you get back from Highland Stalker, and Ranger entry is just as much of a drop down. A swift hunter could do with a two-level dip for Mountain Stride and the +1d6 skirmish, though (this would let them end up with +6d6/+4 instead of +5d6/+5 by 20th level).

[Fax Celestis]

Second'd. Though, they do get the ability to move at the 8th level... *five* feet per round.

--

I'll throw out the Highland Stalker, from Complete Adventurer. It sounds like it should be useful, but when you get down to it, it is not.

It requires you take have 8 ranks in Listen, Spot, and Survival. It also requires the ability to deal Sneak Attack or Skirmish damage, and it requires you to take the feat Track.

Rangers get Track for free - but no inherent Sneak Attack or Skirmish, so you'd have to multi-class to get to it. You could try to get to the prestige class as a Rogue, but survival being a cross-class skill, it'd take a few levels to get there, unless you multi-class. Finally, you could get the Prestige Class from Scout.

And when you take the class, what do you get? More Skirmish! Which you get as a Scout. Swift Tracker! Which you get as a Ranger. Camouflage! Which you get as a Ranger. You gain fewer skill points per level! Your Class-Skill list is smaller than any of the contributing classes. Aside from gaining Mountain Stride and Sure-footed, there is no reason to take this prestige class that taking Scout or Ranger wouldn't give.

Wilderness Rogue who takes the Track feat says hello.

[Anxe]

Second'd. Though, they do get the ability to move at the 8th level... *five* feet per round.

--

I'll throw out the Highland Stalker, from Complete Adventurer. It sounds like it should be useful, but when you get down to it, it is not.

It requires you take have 8 ranks in Listen, Spot, and Survival. It also requires the ability to deal Sneak Attack or Skirmish damage, and it requires you to take the feat Track.

Rangers get Track for free - but no inherent Sneak Attack or Skirmish, so you'd have to multi-class to get to it. You could try to get to the prestige class as a Rogue, but survival being a cross-class skill, it'd take a few levels to get there, unless you multi-class. Finally, you could get the Prestige Class from Scout.

And when you take the class, what do you get? More Skirmish! Which you get as a Scout. Swift Tracker! Which you get as a Ranger. Camouflage! Which you get as a Ranger. You gain fewer skill points per level! Your Class-Skill list is smaller than any of the contributing classes. Aside from gaining Mountain Stride and Sure-footed, there is no reason to take this prestige class that taking Scout or Ranger wouldn't give.

I was gonna mention Highland Stalker too, but at one point I realized that the class was intended for PCs that existed prior to the release of Complete Adventurer. If you are a Ranger who wanted to have Skrimish after Skirmish became a thing, but didn't want to lower your BAB too much, Highland Stalker is the class for you to take.

[Bloody Peasant!]

Blackguard is alright, except for the weird hide requirement. Because everyone knows that the first thing fallen paladins do is hide from stuff. Hiding from things is an integral step of the process to bind one's soul to a fiend as well!

Actually I think that makes perfect sense. What else is a fallen paladin supposed to do about enemies with a higher movement speed?

[Bloody Peasant!]

All the prestige classes that slowly turn you undead (pale master, bone night, etc). I wouldn't mind so much if it weren't for the fact that they make it extremely hard to find an undead-themed prestige class that's viable for an undead character. Also, necropolitan is a thing.

[Callos_DeTerran]

Gray Guard: "Let's have a class where players don't have have to follow all those silly code of conduct requirements they don't care about anyway and make the paladin something besides a fighter with minimal cleric casting so they can be 'gritty, realistic heroes'."


....f*** you Gray Guard. I acknowledge you exist only to curse that very fact. If you want to play a paladin then play a paladin, not his 'morally ambiguous' cousin that is basically PC-viable totally-not-blackguards endorsed by churches that should never endorse them. Paladins are heroes, so act like it.

[Bloody Peasant!]

Gray Guard: "Let's have a class where players don't have have to follow all those silly code of conduct requirements they don't care about anyway and make the paladin something besides a fighter with minimal cleric casting so they can be 'gritty, realistic heroes'."


....f*** you Gray Guard. I acknowledge you exist only to curse that very fact. If you want to play a paladin then play a paladin, not his 'morally ambiguous' cousin that is basically PC-viable evil endorsed by churches that should never endorse them. Paladins are heroes, so act like it.

I actually like gray guard. I hate filtering every character class into a single archetype, and gray guard, if played well, allows for a more nuanced take on the paladin class. But that's just my personal preference.

[Jon_Dahl]

In all seriousness, this prestige class entertains me with how many directions it's trying to go in at once.

Oh man, I laughed so hard!

[Sam K]

Every PRC that has an alignment restriction while not being directly linked to a specific planar being of that alignment.

I can see how PRCs that make you a champion of some diety or fiend may require you to conform to that specific alignment, but the requirement to be evil in order to take the assassin PRC just doesn't make any sense. WORKING as an assassin would likely turn you evil, but there's nothing evil about the class. Atleast not any more evil than any of the other thousands of (far more efficient) ways PCs can kill intelligent humanoids.

I'm even iffy about blackguards requirement to be evil. While I could see non-good making some sense, there's no real reason why neutral characters couldn't have, you know, "peaceful contact with evil outsiders :sabine:". Wouldn't tempting neutral people to pledge their service to fiends in exchange for (the chance of) temporal power be EXACTLY the kind of thing evil outsiders would do?

Also, blackguards hide requirement. And blackguards cleave requirement. When did selling your soul become so complicated? I thought the dark side was suppose to be more tempting? "Sorry, Orcus has rejected your application, please contact us again once you have picked up 5 ranks of a cross-class skill that doesn't work very well with the combat style we encourage you to use."

[Velaryon]

I feel that Reaping Mauler deserves a mention because it's a grappling-focused class that actively makes you worse at grappling by locking away the best option you have for being good at grappling.

If it required Improved Grapple as a prerequisite instead of Clever Wrestling and gave you Clever Wrestling at level 1 instead of Improved Grapple, then that would fix the problem (though it still wouldn't be a particularly good class). Anyone who wants to be a grappler has already taken Improved Grapple before entering this class anyway, and Clever Wrestling is all about getting out of a grapple, which a Reaping Mauler should almost never want to do.

I just houserule that Improved Grapple is the prerequisite and you get Clever Wrestling at level 1, although it doesn't matter since no one in my games wants the class anyway. This has the benefit of also allowing you to increase your size beyond medium without losing access to all your class features.

[Melcar]

A couple of things...

I like this thread... I think it fun to read all the not so well thought of PrC. There are so many thats its hard to pick one...

Persoanlly I have problems with PrC that have stupid or directly bad prerequisites... I get hat is supposed to be cool fluff, but when the fluff is something that youll never actually use, I think its bad.

The prerequisite of the 3.0 version of Dweomerkeeper... Yes exotic weapon proficiency (Shuriken) as a caster, was a real good thing.

EDIT: Oh yeah... Apostle of Peace. It simply makes no sense to me... and actually seems to not work. It might fit more into a dysfunctionel thread, but I remember thingking "wow that was poorly designed" when first reading this class.

[jedipotter]

Arcane Archer such a great idea fluff wise, but mechanicaly it sucks. First off, who is this class for martial character archers or spellcasters? The class is quite odd about that point. The martial archer can't really make use of the adding spells to the arrow ability without lots of levels in a spellcasting class. And a spellcaster does not get much from the class other then adding spells to arrows, but they have the huge drawback of not being able to hit anything as they have low BaBs and no archery feats.

Now the plus arrows and adding spells to arrows is a good start, but then the class just kinda sputters out. The seeker, phase, hail and death arrows are kinda ''ok'' abilities....but each is only once a day. Sure shooting an arrow through an adamaintimum wall once a day is ok, but what about the rest of the day? And the death arrow ability is a very low powered ability. Considering you won't get the death arrow until at least 16th level, a DC of 20 is a bit pointless for foes of that level.


Arcane Trickster Another class that sounds good. Have a mischievous gnome, this class sounds great. But it has the odd spellcaster/rogue requirement requiring a split of experience. And the sneak attack is just not a good fit for the concept. The ranged skills is ''ok'', but it's very limited...opening a lock from 30 feet away once a day is just ''ok''. Then the class gives more sneak attack, and a ''trickster'' just does does not fit with ''I'm gonna stab you for more damage!''. Sneak attack is way to combative an ability for a ''trickster''. A Trickster does a trick, like an illusion to fool someone...they are not a combat striker doing lots of damage. And then that is it.....the class gives nothing else.

[Jeff the Green]

Arcane Archer such a great idea fluff wise, but mechanicaly it sucks. First off, who is this class for martial character archers or spellcasters? The class is quite odd about that point. The martial archer can't really make use of the adding spells to the arrow ability without lots of levels in a spellcasting class. And a spellcaster does not get much from the class other then adding spells to arrows, but they have the huge drawback of not being able to hit anything as they have low BaBs and no archery feats.

Now the plus arrows and adding spells to arrows is a good start, but then the class just kinda sputters out. The seeker, phase, hail and death arrows are kinda ''ok'' abilities....but each is only once a day. Sure shooting an arrow through an adamaintimum wall once a day is ok, but what about the rest of the day? And the death arrow ability is a very low powered ability. Considering you won't get the death arrow until at least 16th level, a DC of 20 is a bit pointless for foes of that level.

Rather than just add casting progression, my preferred fix is to condense it to five levels and give it casting for four of those. It means you get your special arrows at levels where they actually matter and makes it worth taking the whole way; even with full casting I'd probably only ever take two levels of the original.

[OldTrees1]

Arcane Trickster Another class that sounds good. Have a mischievous gnome, this class sounds great. But it has the odd spellcaster/rogue requirement requiring a split of experience. And the sneak attack is just not a good fit for the concept. The ranged skills is ''ok'', but it's very limited...opening a lock from 30 feet away once a day is just ''ok''. Then the class gives more sneak attack, and a ''trickster'' just does does not fit with ''I'm gonna stab you for more damage!''. Sneak attack is way to combative an ability for a ''trickster''. A Trickster does a trick, like an illusion to fool someone...they are not a combat striker doing lots of damage. And then that is it.....the class gives nothing else.

The 3.5 Arcane Trickster does fail in its implementation. Silver Key (http://dndtools.eu/classes/silver-key/) is a better implementation of the concept in 3.5. You are basically applying magic towards your Rogue profession.

[Novawurmson]

Every PRC that has an alignment restriction while not being directly linked to a specific planar being of that alignment.

I can see how PRCs that make you a champion of some diety or fiend may require you to conform to that specific alignment, but the requirement to be evil in order to take the assassin PRC just doesn't make any sense. WORKING as an assassin would likely turn you evil, but there's nothing evil about the class. Atleast not any more evil than any of the other thousands of (far more efficient) ways PCs can kill intelligent humanoids.

YES, thank you. This one always drove me nuts.

I'll throw in votes for Duelist and Shadowdancer, both for massive failure on the crunch side. Shadowdancer was especially a thorn in my side because my wife loves to play rogue-ish things and is a dancer IRL, so we tried to make it work in several campaigns (before we really knew much about optimization).

[torrasque666]

The 3.5 Arcane Trickster does fail in its implementation. Silver Key (http://dndtools.eu/classes/silver-key/) is a better implementation of the concept in 3.5. You are basically applying magic towards your Rogue profession.
Which is kind of odd, given how when most people think "magic rogue" they think elf, or gnome. Not dwarf.

[NotScaryBats]

The "Terrain Books" like to introduce really specific PrCs to combat the really specific rules of the books they are in.

Cloud Anchorite is kinda cool, but over ten levels it lets you... walk on water, walk on air, charge through difficult terrain, and gives you a climb speed.

That's kind of a raw deal for 10 levels of 3/4 BAB and no progression of anything (not even Monk stuff, while Monk is the clearly intended entry to this class).

Knight of the Pearl is kinda cool, but over five levels it lets you not suck in water as much as a paladin, but most of their abilities can be bought with cheap magical items, and it also doesn't progress anything but Lay on Hands.

[NeoSeraphi]

The answer is weretouched master from the Eberron Campaign Setting.

Now, hear me out. Shifters are amazing beastly holy crap how much do I love lycanthropes I only wrote a handbook on shifters and like 5 different pieces of lycanthropy homebrew.

The problem is the stupid errata that it got. Weretouched Master was created to let you play a lycanthrope. To earn your LA and your awesome powers through feats and class levels, like the shifter race itself. But no, the errata ruined it. Instead of getting to transform into a true hybrid form with claws and fangs, an increase in size and bonuses to your physical scores equal to the animal's -10, you get the ability to polymorph into that creature, for only a few rounds per day! At level 5, in a class that took you 5 levels to qualify for. So you can be this specific race, and spend one of your feats and 5 levels in a prestige class that grants no caster levels to get a few rounds of a spell that wizards got at 7th level?! For one specific animal.

The errata'd capstone gives you neither the amazing versatility of polymorph nor the raw power of true lycanthropy. It's a joke.

[OldTrees1]

Which is kind of odd, given how when most people think "magic rogue" they think elf, or gnome. Not dwarf.

Well it makes sense in the "A locksmith is the best thief" kind of way, but yeah there should have been a non racial prestige class long before then.

[Troacctid]

Oh! Let's not forget Incarnum Blade. Now that's a steaming pile of whatsit. Learn to shape blademelds! Except all the blademelds suck! Have fun!

[jedipotter]

Rather than just add casting progression, my preferred fix is to condense it to five levels and give it casting for four of those. It means you get your special arrows at levels where they actually matter and makes it worth taking the whole way; even with full casting I'd probably only ever take two levels of the original.

I like prestige classes to be more rounded and give attack, defense and utility powers. And the powers need to scale with levels and not be too limiting. And powers need to be a mix of mundane and magic. And a lot of powers just make no sense for their level...like death arrow.


Assassin Again great fluff, but only a little useful crunch. Death attack is ''ok'', but they could sure use more abilities like Impromptu Sneak Attack like the arcane trickster has. Dodge and poison use are ''ok'', but nothing exciting. And hide in plain sight is nice enough, but it comes way, way late at almost 20th level. And the spells are a bit....eh. Well, I do like the idea of a ''spell assassin'', I kinda don't like the ''every single assassin in the world is a spellcaster'' bit. It just does not fit the class. And the assassin is missing a ton of other abilities that could be very useful to an assassin: skill bonuses, supernatural magic defenses like nondetection, some type of advanced disguise ability and maybe most of all: some type of scaling attack ability so they can still assassinate things past 10th level or so.

Blackguard Again great fluff and idea....and not so much crunch. Detect good, poison, blessing, aura, command, servant and spells are a good start......but then they get little else. Sneak attack is very odd and does not scale well. Getting +1d6 damage at 10th level is just a joke. And '''smite foe'' or some type of more unique ability might have worked so much better. And after 5th level...the class is blank except for a couple of improvements. They just forgot to add anything high level.

[Lappy9001]

In terms of sheer goofiness, probably Scion of Tem-Et-Nu. While you don't need the river goddess' super silly accompanying feat to qualify, it's specialized so that you have to be by water for half of its abilities to function. And specifically, you have to be by a river, so it's not especially useful in aquatic campaigns. Of course, if you're going for a hippo-control build, it's probably your best bet :smalltongue:

Now, in terms of what I'm actually disappointed by? Risen Martyr. I actually really like the idea of pulling a Gandalf for a quest of supreme good. I don't even mind that you die at the end, it's very thematically appropriate. However, it's a mish-mash of class features and could have been pulled off far more eloquently than it was.

[ILM]

Which is kind of odd, given how when most people think "magic rogue" they think elf, or gnome. Not dwarf.
In fairness, the adaptation section pretty much opens it up to everyone else, if your DM is open to these things.

[Bloody Peasant!]

I like prestige classes to be more rounded and give attack, defense and utility powers. And the powers need to scale with levels and not be too limiting. And powers need to be a mix of mundane and magic. And a lot of powers just make no sense for their level...like death arrow.


Assassin Again great fluff, but only a little useful crunch. Death attack is ''ok'', but they could sure use more abilities like Impromptu Sneak Attack like the arcane trickster has. Dodge and poison use are ''ok'', but nothing exciting. And hide in plain sight is nice enough, but it comes way, way late at almost 20th level. And the spells are a bit....eh. Well, I do like the idea of a ''spell assassin'', I kinda don't like the ''every single assassin in the world is a spellcaster'' bit. It just does not fit the class. And the assassin is missing a ton of other abilities that could be very useful to an assassin: skill bonuses, supernatural magic defenses like nondetection, some type of advanced disguise ability and maybe most of all: some type of scaling attack ability so they can still assassinate things past 10th level or so.


I disagree. The assassin is a pretty solid choice for a roguey build. Uncanny dodge is a very useful ability (though if you start out rogue you'll probably already have it), and HiPS comes at 8th level, when the character is likely around the ~13 mark. Still a little late coming though. Death attack is pretty crap, but they get a great SA progression plus something you forgot to mention which is spells! And those are kind of a big deal. You'll notice this includes supernatural magic defenses like nondetection, skill bonuses, and some type of advanced disguise ability. As far as the scaling attack ability goes, I thought that was what sneak attack was?

[eggynack]

I frigging hate beastmaster. I just hate it so much. So many people, good and druid loving people, are pulled down this worst of paths, a class that grants a first level animal companion, one that's next to impossible to advance, as a capstone. It's so enticing, with its promise of a pile of animals waiting at your beck and call, and then it stabs you in the back, turning all of your hopes, hopes for actually useful bonus companions, hopes that natural bond will interact with it favorably, hopes that you won't sacrifice all of your awesome for a pile of nothing, into ashes in its wake. They created this horror with full intent too. They meant to make you wait ten levels for an unadvanced and unadvancable riding dog. Cruel is what it is.

[Extra Anchovies]

I frigging hate beastmaster. I just hate it so much. So many people, good and druid loving people, are pulled down this worst of paths, a class that grants a first level animal companion, one that's next to impossible to advance, as a capstone. It's so enticing, with its promise of a pile of animals waiting at your beck and call, and then it stabs you in the back, turning all of your hopes, hopes for actually useful bonus companions, hopes that natural bond will interact with it favorably, hopes that you won't sacrifice all of your awesome for a pile of nothing, into ashes in its wake. They created this horror with full intent too. They meant to make you wait ten levels for an unadvanced and unadvancable riding dog. Cruel is what it is.

What do you mean? It's only a 1-level class! :smalltongue:

[eggynack]

What do you mean? It's only a 1-level class! :smalltongue:
Quite true, but that's definitely not the thing that attracts most folk. People want those awful awful extra companions, and they want them under some misguided assumption that they're not awful. I have a special place in my anti-heart for traps of that kind.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Quite true, but that's definitely not the thing that attracts most folk. People want those awful awful extra companions, and they want them under some misguided assumption that they're not awful. I have a special place in my anti-heart for traps of that kind.

Consider, if you will, a totemist /beastmaster with share soulmeld and shape soulmeld (vitality belt).

[Abd al-Azrad]

I'm not sure if it properly fits the theme of "awful concept," but I hate the stupid broken overpowered Warshaper. As a shapeshifter of some sort or another, I can learn quickly (5 levels) to contort my body to gain extended reach, incredible immunities, free ability score and damage boosts that stack with everything, ultra-fast healing... the best warrior class ever.

Frenzied Berzerker: interesting concept, devastating execution that makes it unplayable.

Forsaker: same as above, but even more unplayable. At least the FB can be worked into a very forgiving and cautious party. The Forsaker loses class abilities if he stops destroying party wealth.

[atemu1234]

Gray Guard: "Let's have a class where players don't have have to follow all those silly code of conduct requirements they don't care about anyway and make the paladin something besides a fighter with minimal cleric casting so they can be 'gritty, realistic heroes'."


....f*** you Gray Guard. I acknowledge you exist only to curse that very fact. If you want to play a paladin then play a paladin, not his 'morally ambiguous' cousin that is basically PC-viable totally-not-blackguards endorsed by churches that should never endorse them. Paladins are heroes, so act like it.

Yes, because how dare they not want to play a static hero! How dare they want character development!

Seriously, don't hate on the gray guard. He's not meant for your everyday, run-of-the-mill paladin, and he's not just an archetype. He's a character, one that develops over time, one that realizes sometimes greater good requires lesser evil.

He's morally ambiguous because sometimes that's what the situation needs.

[ranagrande]

I actually like the Forsaker. The only feature tied to the magic item destruction is its damage reduction, and there are lots of other sources for that, including Vow of Poverty, which every good Forsaker should have. Also, if flaws are allowed, characters can start as Forsakers at level 1.

Now, for a class I really don't like, I will mention the Solar Channeler from the Shattered Gates of Slaughtergarde. The easiest entry is with a level 6 Cleric. It loses three caster levels, and its titular feature allows you to spend a Turn Undead attempt to turn into a Solar for up to one minute per attempt.

While in Solar form you gain a fly speed and the ability to fight in melee almost as well as if you had cast Divine Power. In exchange you temporarily lose access to all of your magic items and the ability to cast spells.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Ya know, I've spent most of the last day thinking about this on and off but I just can't really think of any PrC's whose concepts strike me as inherently lame. Lots and lots of terrible execution on concepts but no really lame concepts.

[Rubik]

Every PRC that has an alignment restriction while not being directly linked to a specific planar being of that alignment. This. This and spells with alignment tags that don't actively use aligned energy. Why is Mindrape [Evil]? It can [very very easily] be used for Neutral and even Good things! It doesn't involve channeling Evil energy or summoning or calling inherently Evil creatures. It's not even inherently unusable for Good things, like Eternity of Torture. Why is it Evil? Is it the name? Because I can change the name with a single Ctrl+H in MS Word and suddenly BAMF. It's no longer Evil.

I also have a beef with other types of prereqs, especially racial ones. Unless a feat, PrC, or other option explicitly improves upon a specific racial feature (such as weretouched master, as an example), there is never a time when racial prereqs are good ideas. Arcane archer? Why? Shadowcraft mage? Why? Dwarven defender? Why? Able Learner and chameleon? Why? Not a single one of those deals with anything racial beyond stereotypes.

[Lappy9001]

Ya know, I've spent most of the last day thinking about this on and off but I just can't really think of any PrC's whose concepts strike me as inherently lame. Lots and lots of terrible execution on concepts but no really lame concepts.That's actually a good point. At the least, even the bad classes are trying to do something cool. They often fail miserably, but they had good ideas.

[torrasque666]

This. This and spells with alignment tags that don't actively use aligned energy. Why is Mindrape [Evil]? It can [very very easily] be used for Neutral and even Good things! It doesn't involve channeling Evil energy or summoning or calling inherently Evil creatures. It's not even inherently unusable for Good things, like Eternity of Torture. Why is it Evil? Is it the name? Because I can change the name with a single Ctrl+H in MS Word and suddenly BAMF. It's no longer Evil.

Mindrape being [Evil]? Probably because it involves forcibly altering a fundamental part of a person's personality. And they don't even know that it happened.


I also have a beef with other types of prereqs, especially racial ones. Unless a feat, PrC, or other option explicitly improves upon a specific racial feature (such as weretouched master, as an example), there is never a time when racial prereqs are good ideas. Arcane archer? Why? Shadowcraft mage? Why? Dwarven defender? Why? Able Learner and chameleon? Why? Not a single one of those deals with anything racial beyond stereotypes.

Stereotypes yes, but that's part of the flavor of a race. Elves? I got nothing on that really. ScM? Gnomes are the only core race, which is the only thing that can be absolutely assumed in use, that has access to SLAs and their SLAs involve [Illusion] so naturally they'd create a PrC devoted to a magic that they are innately gifted with. Dunno why its related to [Shadow] but it makes sense for them to have a PrC devoted to improving their innate abilities. Dwarven Defender? Even from a mechanical standpoint, Dwarves are the race that's all about being an immovable object against unrelenting force. Well, Core race at least and DD is a Core PrC. Its not going to consider other races that weren't printed at the time.

Do some of these reasonings rely on Flavor? Yes. But that was the only sure thing about a race that the writers had to work with. They couldn't anticipate all variations and permutations of flavor individual DMs would come up with, so they made PrCs/feats/options that fit the default flavor of a race.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

For me it's when the PrC's fluff presents it as the biggest stereotype of a base class and being better han the base class at their classic schtick.

ex: Loremaster is a better nose-in-a-book nerd than Wizard.

[Jeff the Green]

That's actually a good point. At the least, even the bad classes are trying to do something cool. They often fail miserably, but they had good ideas.

I kind of disagree. As I said earlier, the idea of an immobile warrior is profoundly stupid, even if you're a dwarf.


Mindrape being [Evil]? Probably because it involves forcibly altering a fundamental part of a person's personality. And they don't even know that it happened.

That's one use. As someone with depression and an anxiety disorder, though, I can say that I'd love to have someone I trusted mindrape that away.

[squiggit]

Stereotypes yes, but that's part of the flavor of a race.
No one is quibbling that. You've established that elven arcane arches and gnome illusionists and dwarven dwarven defenders are flavorful.

You haven't established why a human arcane archer or nezumi illusionists or Goliath defender isn't flavorful and needs to be prevented.

Because all you're doing is something that can be applied to any PrC. Humans and Dwarves probably make more thematic ruby knight vindicators than high elves or gnomes, but the devs didn't feel the need to slap a "no gnomes allowed" tag on the class.

[torrasque666]

That's one use. As someone with depression and an anxiety disorder, though, I can say that I'd love to have someone I trusted mindrape that away.

That's the thing though. Its not "Willing only" or "Harmless". It has a Will Save, which means that to resist it, one must overcome a minimum​ DC of 23. Minimum. Not likely on most lower level characters, and by the time that someone is casting this even the devs were aware that the DC was likely to be higher. Also, BOOK OF VILE DARKNESS!


No one is quibbling that. You've established that elven arcane arches and gnome illusionists and dwarven dwarven defenders are flavorful.

You haven't established why a human arcane archer or nezumi illusionists or Goliath defender isn't flavorful and needs to be prevented.

Because all you're doing is something that can be applied to any PrC. Humans and Dwarves probably make more thematic ruby knight vindicators than high elves or gnomes, but the devs didn't feel the need to slap a "no gnomes allowed" tag on the class.

Like I said, I got nothing on Arcane Archer. Did you miss my point though, about how the only thing that can be assumed to be in use when writing these books is Core+The Book itself? In core, which is where DD comes from(and for the purpose of this exercise, Core Races is referring to only the PHB ones, not any MM ones) the only race that has anything to do that meshes with Dwarven Defender's shtick about not moving is the Dwarf. In Core+Races of Stone, the Shadowcraft Mage is gnome-only because, from the text as written, Gnomes are innately magical in a way that no other race in those two books are. They can work illusion magic in a way that no other race can, thus the ScM is gnome-only.

Thematically, nothing in RKV references anything that might be inferred as a racial stereotype. Its only shtick is that they are devoted to Wee-Jas, spiritual strength, and martial prowess. None of those traits are unique to any one race in the PHB which, as ToB doesn't introduce any new races, are the only races that can be assumed to be in use.

Give me a class not listed above that has a racial limitation and I can likely see the reason intended by the devs. Apparently that is rare here. For all the talk of RAW this and RAW that, apparently you guys have lost sight of the fact that the devs have not only RAW to work with, but FAW to work with as well.

[Sartharina]

Arcane Archer such a great idea fluff wise, but mechanicaly it sucks. First off, who is this class for martial character archers or spellcasters? The class is quite odd about that point. The martial archer can't really make use of the adding spells to the arrow ability without lots of levels in a spellcasting class. And a spellcaster does not get much from the class other then adding spells to arrows, but they have the huge drawback of not being able to hit anything as they have low BaBs and no archery feats.

Now the plus arrows and adding spells to arrows is a good start, but then the class just kinda sputters out. The seeker, phase, hail and death arrows are kinda ''ok'' abilities....but each is only once a day. Sure shooting an arrow through an adamaintimum wall once a day is ok, but what about the rest of the day? And the death arrow ability is a very low powered ability. Considering you won't get the death arrow until at least 16th level, a DC of 20 is a bit pointless for foes of that level.
I think the purpose is "Casters that decide they want to go martial."


Frankly - I think it's a problem inherent to the whole prestige class system. They're supposed to be about tradeoffs. Unfortunately, because they're not something always taken into account at character creation, it emphasizes just how much you have to give up in order to gain the benefits. The Arcane Archer is a D8, Full BAB class. Unfortunately, Prerequisites are also a killer to the concept, because they force you to split your tradeoffs - You can only enter a PrC after you prove you don't need to.

[Rubik]

That's the thing though. Its not "Willing only" or "Harmless". It has a Will Save, which means that to resist it, one must overcome a minimum​ DC of 23. Minimum. Not likely on most lower level characters, and by the time that someone is casting this even the devs were aware that the DC was likely to be higher. Also, BOOK OF VILE DARKNESS!And?

Just because it can be used offensively doesn't mean it has to be. There's nothing about the spell that makes it inherently Evil; otherwise, we couldn't come up with useful, non-Evil ways of using it. And in this case, doing so is very, very easy. So easy, in fact, that the idea of it having the [Evil] tag (even apart from it not using Evil energy) is actually kinda stupid. Kind of like Deathwatch having the [Evil] tag. There's nothing actually Evil about it.


Like I said, I got nothing on Arcane Archer. Did you miss my point though, about how the only thing that can be assumed to be in use when writing these books is Core+The Book itself? In core, which is where DD comes from(and for the purpose of this exercise, Core Races is referring to only the PHB ones, not any MM ones) the only race that has anything to do that meshes with Dwarven Defender's shtick about not moving is the Dwarf. In Core+Races of Stone, the Shadowcraft Mage is gnome-only because, from the text as written, Gnomes are innately magical in a way that no other race in those two books are. They can work illusion magic in a way that no other race can, thus the ScM is gnome-only.And yet a human/elven/dwarven/halfling illusionist is just as capable of taking and using shadowcraft mage as a gnome is, apart from the misplaced and useless racial prereq.


Thematically, nothing in RKV references anything that might be inferred as a racial stereotype.Which is why it (rightly) doesn't have a racial prereq. And neither should any of the ones I mentioned above.


Give me a class not listed above that has a racial limitation and I can likely see the reason intended by the devs. Apparently that is rare here. For all the talk of RAW this and RAW that, apparently you guys have lost sight of the fact that the devs have not only RAW to work with, but FAW to work with as well."Intention" doesn't mean "good thing." A lot of intended ideas are really, really bad and serve no useful purpose.

Look at Reality TV, for instance.

[Extra Anchovies]

This. This and spells with alignment tags that don't actively use aligned energy. Why is Mindrape [Evil]? It can [very very easily] be used for Neutral and even Good things! It doesn't involve channeling Evil energy or summoning or calling inherently Evil creatures. It's not even inherently unusable for Good things, like Eternity of Torture. Why is it Evil? Is it the name? Because I can change the name with a single Ctrl+H in MS Word and suddenly BAMF. It's no longer Evil.

In D&D alignments, the ends don't justify the means. Mindraping BBEG into a generous orphan-lover is still an evil act, because rearranging someone else's mind (in effect, messing around with their soul, which is über-taboo in standard D&D) is an evil act. It's similar to how Avasculate is an [evil] spell that is usable for good (e.g. avasculating BBEG).


I also have a beef with other types of prereqs, especially racial ones. Unless a feat, PrC, or other option explicitly improves upon a specific racial feature (such as weretouched master, as an example), there is never a time when racial prereqs are good ideas. Arcane archer? Why? Shadowcraft mage? Why? Dwarven defender? Why? Able Learner and chameleon? Why? Not a single one of those deals with anything racial beyond stereotypes.

To encourage people to play races other than human? Without racial PrCs and sub levels and feats, the only real difference between races would be their base racial traits, which really don't mean much at high levels.

[Jeff the Green]

"Intention" doesn't mean "good thing." A lot of intended ideas are really, really bad and serve no useful purpose.

Look at Reality TV, for instance.
Isn't there a saying about intention? Something about asphalt or concrete?

[torrasque666]

And yet a human/elven/dwarven/halfling illusionist is just as capable of taking and using shadowcraft mage as a gnome is, apart from the misplaced and useless racial prereq.

But a human/elf/dwarf/halfling doesn't have the same innate connection to illusion magic that a gnome does, hence why they cannot take it. A gnome has a connection that the rest simply do not have, and thus are able to explore said connection in a way that other races who do not have that same connection cannot. And before you bring up any other race that may have a similar connection, remember that there are only two sources that can be assumed when writing these books.

[Fax Celestis]

To encourage people to play races other than human? Without racial PrCs and sub levels and feats, the only real difference between races would be their base racial traits, which really don't mean much at high levels.

...which would indicate a problem with how races are built rather than a problem with how PrCs are built.

[heavyfuel]

...which would indicate a problem with how races are built rather than a problem with how PrCs are built.

I've always liked some races having access to unique PrCs, but this got me thinking. Just how would you make races feel more unique? I usually double racial bonus (not to abilities) to make them more distinct, but they're still irrelevant at high levels.

[Fax Celestis]

I've always liked some races having access to unique PrCs, but this got me thinking. Just how would you make races feel more unique? I usually double racial bonus (not to abilities) to make them more distinct, but they're still irrelevant at high levels.

Scaling racial abilities by level are a good start. Take a look at some of my revised races.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?104997-d20r-Race-Half-Giant
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?105968-d20r-Race-Minotaur
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?104775-d20r-Race-Lizardfolk
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?105775-d20r-Race-Kobold
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?104588-d20r-Race-Satyr
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?106563-d20r-Race-Dwarf
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?105007-d20r-Race-Shifter

Notice how they all have a Natural Talent/Inborn Psionics/Natural Magic feature that automatically scales with level, and how they all state they can also be used to power racial feats.

[Denver]

Ranger wouldn't give Skirmish progression. Scout wouldn't get full BAB or good Fortitude save. Also, why can't a character just, you know, take track as one of their normal feats to meet the prereq? It's not like we need to make every feat a bonus feat, especially on the Scout, which isn't a hugely feat-starved class. Of course, the full BAB and one-feat tax aren't really worth it, since you trade away more from Scout than you get back from Highland Stalker, and Ranger entry is just as much of a drop down. A swift hunter could do with a two-level dip for Mountain Stride and the +1d6 skirmish, though (this would let them end up with +6d6/+4 instead of +5d6/+5 by 20th level).

Wilderness Rogue who takes the Track feat says hello.

I was gonna mention Highland Stalker too, but at one point I realized that the class was intended for PCs that existed prior to the release of Complete Adventurer. If you are a Ranger who wanted to have Skrimish after Skirmish became a thing, but didn't want to lower your BAB too much, Highland Stalker is the class for you to take.

Oh, I didn't mean to suggest that it would be impossible to take, but that the return upon investment is not worth it at all, especially since it could require multiclassing. Even the first individual I quoted recognizes that the Highland Stalker returns less than you give up by giving up levels of Scout, and the Swift Hunter is a Ranger/Scout already, in order to take the feat.
That Ranger who wants to get some Skirmish? He'd have to multiclass into Scout (or Rogue) *anyway* in order to take this prestige class.
That Wilderness Rogue? It can already get Camouflage and Hide in Plain Sight as part of its progression.

I just don't see the gain from this prestige class, when most of what it gives you is "stuff" you need to have to get to it, or "stuff" you will already get anyway - as a Scout or Ranger.

It's like a recipe that calls for a pot of boiling water, and then tells you to cook water in the boiling water.
(alternate: It's like a prestige class for a wizard or sorcerer that requires a martial ability and a weapon proficiency, as well as high ranks in a few skills, and in return it gives you an arcane spellcaster's list you already had, and two spells you didn't.)

[Rubik]

But a human/elf/dwarf/halfling doesn't have the same innate connection to illusion magic that a gnome does, hence why they cannot take it.But a human/elf/dwarf/halfling can take levels in wizard or sorcerer (!) or psion or cleric or druid just as easily as a gnome. "Being very slightly more magical in a very tiny way" doesn't mean you're barred from being magical. If shadowcraft mage actually specifically worked to improve the gnome's racial abilities, I could see your point. But it doesn't, and so I don't.


A gnome has a connection that the rest simply do not have, and thus are able to explore said connection in a way that other races who do not have that same connection cannot. And before you bring up any other race that may have a similar connection, remember that there are only two sources that can be assumed when writing these books.Then why is the elf's favored class wizard, if gnomes are so much more magical? Why does a human with wizard as his class have wizard as his favored class, if gnomes are so much more magical? Why do gnomes have bard as their favored class, if gnomes are so much more magical?

[Xaragos]

I like prestige classes to be more rounded and give attack, defense and utility powers. And the powers need to scale with levels and not be too limiting. And powers need to be a mix of mundane and magic. And a lot of powers just make no sense for their level...like death arrow.


Assassin Again great fluff, but only a little useful crunch. Death attack is ''ok'', but they could sure use more abilities like Impromptu Sneak Attack like the arcane trickster has. Dodge and poison use are ''ok'', but nothing exciting. And hide in plain sight is nice enough, but it comes way, way late at almost 20th level. And the spells are a bit....eh. Well, I do like the idea of a ''spell assassin'', I kinda don't like the ''every single assassin in the world is a spellcaster'' bit. It just does not fit the class. And the assassin is missing a ton of other abilities that could be very useful to an assassin: skill bonuses, supernatural magic defenses like nondetection, some type of advanced disguise ability and maybe most of all: some type of scaling attack ability so they can still assassinate things past 10th level or so.

Blackguard Again great fluff and idea....and not so much crunch. Detect good, poison, blessing, aura, command, servant and spells are a good start......but then they get little else. Sneak attack is very odd and does not scale well. Getting +1d6 damage at 10th level is just a joke. And '''smite foe'' or some type of more unique ability might have worked so much better. And after 5th level...the class is blank except for a couple of improvements. They just forgot to add anything high level.

I enjoyed combining Assassin with Dragon Disciple, putting two classes together that were meh on their own.

[Callos_DeTerran]

Yes, because how dare they not want to play a static hero! How dare they want character development!

Seriously, don't hate on the gray guard. He's not meant for your everyday, run-of-the-mill paladin, and he's not just an archetype. He's a character, one that develops over time, one that realizes sometimes greater good requires lesser evil.

He's morally ambiguous because sometimes that's what the situation needs.

Don't play a paladin then. People who become paladins (as in, in setting) and don't fall-FALL are a special breed that take a higher path because the higher path is worth it, even if its risky. If your paladin begins to seriously contemplate that the greater good might require lesser evil then, to be honest, he was never meant to be a paladin in the first place and there's great story advancement in him finding a new path...not in him discovering some type of loophole that will allow him to to pretty much NOT be a paladin while getting to keep the abilities.

Paladins are plenty capable of character development without going down the tired 'they slip towards evil for the "greater good" ' path which has gotten really, really old. Sometimes just being a hero is what's needed, not figuring how far down the murder-hobo path you can go and still be able to smite evil. Stumble along the path? Make mistakes? Sure, that's fine. There's a bit of a learning curve to figuring out your moral compass and the one that guides you, perfectly understandable. Deliberately subverting it because 'the ends justify the means' is just hoppy-**** though.


...Obviously this is a subject I feel very strongly on. :smalltongue:

[torrasque666]

But a human/elf/dwarf/halfling can take levels in wizard or sorcerer (!) or psion or cleric or druid just as easily as a gnome. "Being very slightly more magical in a very tiny way" doesn't mean you're barred from being magical. If shadowcraft mage actually specifically worked to improve the gnome's racial abilities, I could see your point. But it doesn't, and so I don't.
You're missing the point. Its a fluff reason. It is purely a fluff reason. But the fluff in the books is all they had to work with. And until you can understand that the fluff was actually an important factor to some of these classes, you will not understand the point.


Then why is the elf's favored class wizard, if gnomes are so much more magical? Why does a human with wizard as his class have wizard as his favored class, if gnomes are so much more magical? Why do gnomes have bard as their favored class, if gnomes are so much more magical?
Because gnomes, while magical, are illusionists/pranksters. That fits the bard archetype better than Wizard. Elves have Wizard as their favored class because they are, as a people, more focused and more importantly, old. They are independent and likely to put the time and effort into the study of the arcane. Gnomes, while long lived, are much more flighty in their pursuits. But if they do put the time and effort into the study, it will likely be into ways to expand their innate talents. Humans have Any as their favored class because they are mutable and able to quickly learn new things(also why they alone qualify for Able Learner and Chameleon)

Rubik, we're going to disagree. That's just it. But you need to open your eyes to more than just the mechanics of the game and look at the fluff that accompanies the classes and races in the books that define this game. Until you can do so you will not truly understand the game.

The writers of the books were trying to build a world and craft a story without saying "here's our world. play in it." they left it vague enough that it could be modified, but defined enough to that options were unique. Without uniqueness it is a poor story.

[Divayth Fyr]

But a human/elf/dwarf/halfling can take levels in wizard or sorcerer (!) or psion or cleric or druid just as easily as a gnome. "Being very slightly more magical in a very tiny way" doesn't mean you're barred from being magical. If shadowcraft mage actually specifically worked to improve the gnome's racial abilities, I could see your point. But it doesn't, and so I don't.

Then why is the elf's favored class wizard, if gnomes are so much more magical? Why does a human with wizard as his class have wizard as his favored class, if gnomes are so much more magical? Why do gnomes have bard as their favored class, if gnomes are so much more magical?
Keep in mind that gnomes had a special connection with illussions since 1st edition of the game. If 3.5 stayed the way 3.0 was (with Illusionist being the favoured class for the gnome) would you still argue that there is no connection there and there should be no racial requirement for the Shadowcraft mage?

[georgie_leech]

Don't play a paladin then. People who become paladins (as in, in setting) and don't fall-FALL are a special breed that take a higher path because the higher path is worth it, even if its risky. If your paladin begins to seriously contemplate that the greater good might require lesser evil then, to be honest, he was never meant to be a paladin in the first place and there's great story advancement in him finding a new path...not in him discovering some type of loophole that will allow him to to pretty much NOT be a paladin while getting to keep the abilities.

Paladins are plenty capable of character development without going down the tired 'they slip towards evil for the "greater good" ' path which has gotten really, really old. Sometimes just being a hero is what's needed, not figuring how far down the murder-hobo path you can go and still be able to smite evil.


...Obviously this is a subject I feel very strongly on. :smalltongue:

Alternatively, a Grey Guard is about realising that for all D&D has Objective Morality, the best choice isn't always black and white. That ultimately, their personal honour means less than safeguarding the lives of those counting on them; of realising how blind adherence to their code can be used against them, no matter how righteous the code is trying to be. Not someone who resorts to trickery at first chance, but one that understands that sometimes it's better to just slay the dragon while it's sleeping rather than wake it to face honourable combat.

"I won't kill you. But I don't have to save you."
-Batman Begins

[daremetoidareyo]

You're missing the point. Its a fluff reason. It is purely a fluff reason. But the fluff in the books is all they had to work with. And until you can understand that the fluff was actually an important factor to some of these classes, you will not understand the point.


Because gnomes, while magical, are illusionists/pranksters. That fits the bard archetype better than Wizard. Elves have Wizard as their favored class because they are, as a people, more focused and more importantly, old. They are independent and likely to put the time and effort into the study of the arcane. Gnomes, while long lived, are much more flighty in their pursuits. But if they do put the time and effort into the study, it will likely be into ways to expand their innate talents. Humans have Any as their favored class because they are mutable and able to quickly learn new things(also why they alone qualify for Able Learner and Chameleon)

Rubik, we're going to disagree. That's just it. But you need to open your eyes to more than just the mechanics of the game and look at the fluff that accompanies the classes and races in the books that define this game. Until you can do so you will not truly understand the game.


I think that I agree with both of you. Some prestige classes have what seem like arbitrary racial barriers and it really kills my excitement for them. Runesmith from races of stone seems like it would be really cool on a viking gish. The arbitrariness of the racial fluff on top means that RAW DMs will not make an exception for you. On the other hand, some races should have some niches that only they can do best. Actually, I like the prestige classes that put seemingly mismatching races with core classes. I'd love to see a good dwarven bard based prestige class (drinking tunes?), or a half-orc based sorcery class (magic work dis WAY), or gnome fighting class not based on flipping giants (maybe dancing weapons and mirror imaged dancing weapons: "here! fight my sword).

[Rubik]

You're missing the point. Its a fluff reason. It is purely a fluff reason. But the fluff in the books is all they had to work with. And until you can understand that the fluff was actually an important factor to some of these classes, you will not understand the point.If I want my character to be something else, fluff-wise, but use the same mechanics, default fluff is utterly irrelevant.

Plus, my human character (using his racial feat to attain a sorcerer bloodline based on illusion) is WAY MORE magical than your gnome. But he still can't take shadowcraft mage.


Because gnomes, while magical, are illusionists/pranksters. That fits the bard archetype better than Wizard. Elves have Wizard as their favored class because they are, as a people, more focused and more importantly, old. They are independent and likely to put the time and effort into the study of the arcane. Gnomes, while long lived, are much more flighty in their pursuits. But if they do put the time and effort into the study, it will likely be into ways to expand their innate talents. Humans have Any as their favored class because they are mutable and able to quickly learn new things(also why they alone qualify for Able Learner and Chameleon)None of which prevents my human from being even better at being a shadowcraft mage than your gnome, or my transmuter warforged from being a better chameleon than your human.

Mechanics- OR fluff-wise.


Rubik, we're going to disagree. That's just it. But you need to open your eyes to more than just the mechanics of the game and look at the fluff that accompanies the classes and races in the books that define this game. Until you can do so you will not truly understand the game.Au contraire. You need to open your eyes to the possibilities beyond default fluff. Otherwise, you're stuck seeing the fighter as the "best fighting class" (which it isn't), the monk as "the ultimate martial artist" (which it isn't), and gnomes as "the best shadowcraft mages" (which they aren't).


The writers of the books were trying to build a world and craft a story without saying "here's our world. play in it." they left it vague enough that it could be modified, but defined enough to that options were unique. Without uniqueness it is a poor story.It's not the writers who build the DM's world. It's the DM who builds his world. And its the players who craft the story.

If there's no legitimate mechanical reason for a restriction to be in place, it shouldn't be there. A writer telling me what kinds of characters I'm allowed to play when he's not involved at my table is just ridiculous.


Keep in mind that gnomes had a special connection with illussions since 1st edition of the game. If 3.5 stayed the way 3.0 was (with Illusionist being the favoured class for the gnome) would you still argue that there is no connection there and there should be no racial requirement for the Shadowcraft mage?Yes. Because my human can be a better illusionist than a 3.0 gnome, if I use my feat to do so. Pointless restrictions are pointless.

[Sartharina]

If I want my character to be something else, fluff-wise, but use the same mechanics, default fluff is utterly irrelevant.'Fluff' is rules text. If you don't want to play by the rules, find your own rules to play by. "Crunch" is merely interpretation of the game rules to translate to dice, tabletops, and numbers for ease of play.


Plus, my human character (using his racial feat to attain a sorcerer bloodline based on illusion) is WAY MORE magical than your gnome. But he still can't take shadowcraft mage.That feat did not exist when the Shadowcraft mage was written. At the time of creation of the Shadowcraft mage, only Gnomes had inherent magic.


None of which prevents my human from being even better at being a shadowcraft mage than your gnome, or my transmuter warforged from being a better chameleon than your human.They have to do it without the class, because they lack the innate power to unlock the potential of those classes.


Mechanics- OR fluff-wise.Fluff is mechanics.


Au contraire. You need to open your eyes to the possibilities beyond default fluff. Otherwise, you're stuck seeing the fighter as the "best fighting class" (which it isn't), the monk as "the ultimate martial artist" (which it isn't), and gnomes as "the best shadowcraft mages" (which they aren't).Gnomes are the best shadowcraft mages because they're the only shadowcraft mages. Fighters were the best at 'fighting' until the Warblade replaced it, but its problem was Fighting was worthless (But nobody else can attain the same mastery over a weapon a fighter can). The monk is the best Martial Artist outside of ToB. But martial arts are actually useless to an adventurer.


If there's no legitimate mechanical reason for a restriction to be in place, it shouldn't be there. A writer telling me what kinds of characters I'm allowed to play when he's not involved at my table is just ridiculous.Then stop playing systems you don't homebrew yourself.


Yes. Because my human can be a better illusionist than a 3.0 gnome, if I use my feat to do so. Pointless restrictions are pointless.A better illusionist, yes, but not the same.


But a human/elf/dwarf/halfling can take levels in wizard or sorcerer (!) or psion or cleric or druid just as easily as a gnome. "Being very slightly more magical in a very tiny way" doesn't mean you're barred from being magical. If shadowcraft mage actually specifically worked to improve the gnome's racial abilities, I could see your point. But it doesn't, and so I don't. The gnome's racial abilities are manifestations of deeper inherent power within a gnome that's required for Shadowcraft mages.


Then why is the elf's favored class wizard, if gnomes are so much more magical? Why does a human with wizard as his class have wizard as his favored class, if gnomes are so much more magical? Why do gnomes have bard as their favored class, if gnomes are so much more magical?Elves love magic. Gnomes are magic. Elves favor a class that doesn't require any actual inherent magic ability, just patience, time, and insufferability. Gnomes don't favor a full-caster class because their culture takes magic for granted (Who needs to learn to study spells when I can cast them as I wish?). Gnomes are gifted dilettantes. Elves are tryhards.


And?

Just because it can be used offensively doesn't mean it has to be. There's nothing about the spell that makes it inherently Evil; otherwise, we couldn't come up with useful, non-Evil ways of using it. And in this case, doing so is very, very easy. So easy, in fact, that the idea of it having the [Evil] tag (even apart from it not using Evil energy) is actually kinda stupid. Kind of like Deathwatch having the [Evil] tag. There's nothing actually Evil about it.No matter what end the spell is used for, Mindrape is indescribably torturous and traumatizing (That the spell can make you forget the torture and trauma doesn't go away).[/quote]You mean nothing about the spell that makes it inherently evil other than the fact that it rapes the victims mind? - The spell's actual effect is so perverse and twisted that only the kinkiest minds can give informed consent (Of course, others certainly can be convinced into giving uninformed consent. Which they regret almost as soon as the spell's cast. Then mostly forget after it's cast, except for the part of their consciousness that's stuck in a state of "I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream").


And yet a human/elven/dwarven/halfling illusionist is just as capable of taking and using shadowcraft mage as a gnome is, apart from the misplaced and useless racial prereq.No he's not. He lack the inherent type of magic within gnomes that is required to shadowcraft to the same extent as a Gnome can. Training and nurture can only take you so far - you also need the genetics and nature to enable you.

[Roga]

There are many with poor execution, I'll try to stick with concepts I find lame. Obviously I'm boiling their concepts down in a slightly derisive manner.

The Fated (Planar Handbook) You believe in the survival of the fittest, so wait for the prophesied one who's really confident and charming. :smallconfused:

Ardent Dilettante (Planar Handbook) Taste all the things!, smell all the things! You enjoy things more than other people and tell them about it.

Avenging Executioner (Complete Scoundrel) Someone broke your heart or wronged you in same way and you deal with it by becoming a psychopathic murder. Or "What if Batman killed people?"

Fortune's Friend (Complete Scoundrel) I've always been lucky, and through skill and hard work I'm luckier than ever!

Survivor (Savage Species) You've been oppressed and enslaved. Want to learn how to fight back? Nope, I didn't think so. Get good at surviving, and get those nasty thoughts of resistance or revenge out of your head.

Metamind (Expanded Psionics Handbook) Learns how to do low level stuff really well for a few minutes and in the name of unlimited power. :smallmad:

[Denver]

It took me a minute to find it, but in one of the Dragon Magazines the Prestige Class "Charlatan" would let you use Perform and Bluff (mostly Bluff) skills to "cast" from a list of "spells."

It sounds like it could be a really fun class to play in a social game, but the spells you gain aren't spells, the healing effects you gain don't really heal, and the Divination and Detect Magic spells you cast divine nothing and detect nothing.

The class seems to offer some kind of avenue for a mundane trickster to cast a few spells, but all it does is force him or her to make even more Bluff and Sense Motive checks to appear to be a spellcaster who doesn't really gain any spells.

[darksolitaire]

Apostle of Peace. Most horrible idea, ever. Vow of Nonviolence hampers allies, and Vow of Peace means that Apostle can't debuff targets and let them be killed. Furthermore, Apostle can "turn" fiends, but this causes him to break his Vow of Peace because it specifies that only undead and constructs are not living. Oh, and because of vow of poverty, no force feeding cure potions down on dying allies' throats.

[Sam K]

In D&D alignments, the ends don't justify the means. Mindraping BBEG into a generous orphan-lover is still an evil act, because rearranging someone else's mind (in effect, messing around with their soul, which is über-taboo in standard D&D) is an evil act. It's similar to how Avasculate is an [evil] spell that is usable for good (e.g. avasculating BBEG).

I can buy that mindraping someone into being good is considered evil because the "rules of war" for the good side forbids it. In D&D, "good" basically comes down to whatever the "good party" endorses; if there are good gods that endorse war but none that endorse the use of forcibly changing peoples personality, then war can be good and the use of mind rape can not. Keep in mind this is just one way to view alignment, although in my experience it's the only one that makes sense with alignment as written.

This still doesn't justify mindrape being evil, though. It could be used to cure mental problems on consenting subjects; doing this CLEARLY isn't evil (as there is plenty of magic that lets you remove all kinds of ailments from people who want to be cured that isn't evil); the use is evil, the tool is not.

When it comes to racial requirements, I mostly agree with Rubik: the racial requirements often seem heavy handed implementations of bad (or atleast unimaginative) game design. In AD&D, humans were the "bad" race, and some bad fixes were put in place to try and make them seem better. I personally don't like throwing bad fixes on bad design, and the attempt to reinforce a races identity by adding race-specific PRCs is the wrong way to go, in my humble opinion. You're doing nothing for the race unless they take that PRC. If you want to make gnomes the "best" illusionists, give them a racial bonus that makes them better illusionists (+1 caster level on illusion spells, maybe). PRCs are too limited to make a good fix for the fluff (racial identity) OR crunch, in my humble opinion.

[torrasque666]

This still doesn't justify mindrape being evil, though. It could be used to cure mental problems on consenting subjects; doing this CLEARLY isn't evil (as there is plenty of magic that lets you remove all kinds of ailments from people who want to be cured that isn't evil); the use is evil, the tool is not.

Yes, except that most of those spells specify either [harmless] or involves the target being willing to work. Mindrape doesn't give a CW Samurai. It just goes ahead and does it. And since it involves manipulation of the soul(read: personality) that doesn't have to be voluntary. Just because it can be voluntary and used good, doesn't mean that the spell isn't [evil].

[Sam K]

Yes, except that most of those spells specify either [harmless] or involves the target being willing to work. Mindrape doesn't give a CW Samurai. It just goes ahead and does it. And since it involves manipulation of the soul(read: personality) that doesn't have to be voluntary. Just because it can be voluntary and used good, doesn't mean that the spell isn't [evil].

Then the USE of the spell can be [evil]. A sword doesn't give a shining blade of Heironeous about if it's being used to stab orphaned puppies; that doesn't make make the sword [evil] and it doesn't make having a sword [evil] and doesn't even make USING a sword [evil].

I agree with you that most uses of mindrape would be evil but the spell itself? I think we shall just agree to disagree on that subject.

[Rubik]

'Fluff' is rules text. If you don't want to play by the rules, find your own rules to play by. "Crunch" is merely interpretation of the game rules to translate to dice, tabletops, and numbers for ease of play.Um... The whole point of fluff is that it isn't rules text. It obviously influences rules text (sometimes badly, sometimes stupidly, and sometimes utterly ineffectually), but the whole point between calling crunch "crunch" and fluff "fluff" is that one is rules text and the other is not.


That feat did not exist when the Shadowcraft mage was written. At the time of creation of the Shadowcraft mage, only Gnomes had inherent magic.That is irrelevant. My human taking Spell Focus (Illusion) using his racial feat still means that he's better at magic than your gnome, since he can use his other 1st level feat to further improve his spellcasting (such as taking Extend Spell to improve it even further). Meanwhile, the gnome can do one or the other, not both. At least, not until 3rd level (in which case, the human is still ahead, since he gets that, too).


They have to do it without the class, because they lack the innate power to unlock the potential of those classes.Except they don't. There is nothing whatsoever about a gnome that makes it better at magic than a human, and that includes the magic inherent in the shadowcraft mage PrC.


Fluff is mechanics.Except it's actually defined as "not mechanics." "Crunch" is mechanics. Those are their whole definitions.


Gnomes are the best shadowcraft mages because they're the only shadowcraft mages.For no actual reason. A human Alter Self'd into a gnome is a better shadowcraft mage than a gnome.


Fighters were the best at 'fighting' until the Warblade replaced it, but its problem was Fighting was worthless (But nobody else can attain the same mastery over a weapon a fighter can).Clerics are better fighters than fighters. Druids are better fighters than fighters. Even sorcerers and wizards are better fighters than fighters.

Fluff utterly fails here. It is not rules.


The monk is the best Martial Artist outside of ToB. But martial arts are actually useless to an adventurer.Except clerics, and druids, and barbarians, and sorcerers, and wizards, and even bards.


Then stop playing systems you don't homebrew yourself.No.


A better illusionist, yes, but not the same.Wasn't the argument, "gnomes are better illusionists"? They demonstrably aren't.


The gnome's racial abilities are manifestations of deeper inherent power within a gnome that's required for Shadowcraft mages.And my human's sorcerous bloodline is even better (whether an actual bloodline or just the...ahem...fluff).


Elves love magic. Gnomes are magic. Elves favor a class that doesn't require any actual inherent magic ability, just patience, time, and insufferability. Gnomes don't favor a full-caster class because their culture takes magic for granted (Who needs to learn to study spells when I can cast them as I wish?). Gnomes are gifted dilettantes. Elves are tryhards.And yet elves are just as good at magic as gnomes. Actually, elves are MUCH better than gnomes, given all the racial stuff they get. Look up the easy bake wizard to see just how good they can be.

Of course, I can't see anything about those racial restrictions that should be there, either. How much of that is actually based on elven abilities? None, as far as I can tell.


No matter what end the spell is used for, Mindrape is indescribably torturous and traumatizing (That the spell can make you forget the torture and trauma doesn't go away).Huh. You know, I've never seen that in the spell's text. In fact, I still don't see that in the spell's text. Where is that stated, exactly?


You mean nothing about the spell that makes it inherently evil other than the fact that it rapes the victims mind? - The spell's actual effect is so perverse and twisted that only the kinkiest minds can give informed consent (Of course, others certainly can be convinced into giving uninformed consent. Which they regret almost as soon as the spell's cast. Then mostly forget after it's cast, except for the part of their consciousness that's stuck in a state of "I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream").Or, you know, you trust the caster and have a serious problem that you really need help with. Or you're using an item to learn a huge amount of information stored in the item, and the item can't remember squat. Or you cast it on yourself via a series of Craft Contingent Spells or an item you left at home because there's something you need to hide from someone trying to shake you down for info (anything from illithids to gods). Or a number of other entirely benign uses similar to what I've mentioned, because there are more.


No he's not. He lack the inherent type of magic within gnomes that is required to shadowcraft to the same extent as a Gnome can. Training and nurture can only take you so far - you also need the genetics and nature to enable you.Or a nice Alter Self spell. Or any number of other ways to count as a gnome.

Seriously, the whole fluff argument is a very bad one.

[Anlashok]

RE: Mindrape

The argument doesn't seem to hold water because, I mean, Programmed Amnesia literally lets you do the exact same thing.

The only real difference between the two is that Programmed Amnesia is close range instead of medium and can't effect constructs or undead.

I wonder which one of those differences is the one that makes it [evil].


Gnomes are the best shadowcraft mages because they're the only shadowcraft mages.
The class' entry outright says you can have a nongnome cabal of shadowcraft mages if you want and that it changes the requirement from a racial one to an organizational one.

So that's flatly incorrect too.

[Sartharina]

This still doesn't justify mindrape being evil, though. It could be used to cure mental problems on consenting subjects; doing this CLEARLY isn't evil (as there is plenty of magic that lets you remove all kinds of ailments from people who want to be cured that isn't evil); the use is evil, the tool is not.While the ends of the spell may not be evil, the means it uses to achieve those goals are horror traumatizing atrocity beyond words (And there's no telling how much of the mind it leaves fragmented-and-helpless-but-aware.


Apostle of Peace. Most horrible idea, ever. Vow of Nonviolence hampers allies, and Vow of Peace means that Apostle can't debuff targets and let them be killed. Furthermore, Apostle can "turn" fiends, but this causes him to break his Vow of Peace because it specifies that only undead and constructs are not living. Oh, and because of vow of poverty, no force feeding cure potions down on dying allies' throats.Gee. God forbid the guy who's entire point is not letting people engage in senseless violence not be allowed to let people engage in senseless violence.

[Rubik]

While the ends of the spell may not be evil, the means it uses to achieve those goals are horror traumatizing atrocity beyond words (And there's no telling how much of the mind it leaves fragmented-and-helpless-but-aware.Source?


Gee. God forbid the guy who's entire point is not letting people engage in senseless violence not be allowed to let people engage in senseless violence.I think you mean ANY violence. Even self-defense that's entirely necessary and cannot be avoided, even if you try really, really hard.

[torrasque666]

-argument against fluff as rules-

Now, I may be wrong here, but can you provide me with a book and page in any D&D book where it says that?


I think you mean ANY violence. Even self-defense that's entirely necessary and cannot be avoided, even if you try really, really hard.
Only lethal violence actually. Nonlethal damage is ok. The point of the Vows and the class itself is to reduce the deathtoll. Taking prisoners is actually encouraged by the Vows.

[Honest Tiefling]

You don't need Mindrape as a good aligned character. You have Sanctify the Wicked, which is Mindraping for goodness! Who needs free will anyway, I want a Red Dragon mount.

[Fax Celestis]

Avenging Executioner (Complete Scoundrel) Someone broke your heart or wronged you in same way and you deal with it by becoming a psychopathic murder. Or "What if Batman killed people?"

Sweeney-Todd-in-a-Box!

[Sartharina]

Um... The whole point of fluff is that it isn't rules text. It obviously influences rules text (sometimes badly, sometimes stupidly, and sometimes utterly ineffectually), but the whole point between calling crunch "crunch" and fluff "fluff" is that one is rules text and the other is not.The distinction between 'fluff' and 'crunch' is an arbitrary one made up by people who had nothing to do with the assignment of the rules. There is no distinguishing beween 'fluff' text and 'crunch' text within the books themselves. Words are words, and words have meaning.


That is irrelevant. My human taking Spell Focus (Illusion) using his racial feat still means that he's better at magic than your gnome, since he can use his other 1st level feat to further improve his spellcasting (such as taking Extend Spell to improve it even further). Meanwhile, the gnome can do one or the other, not both. At least, not until 3rd level (in which case, the human is still ahead, since he gets that, too).It takes more to be inherently magical than extra study of a school. Also - the Gnome starts with a superior form of Skill Focus(Illusion), because humans need to dedicate time and study to something that all gnomes have in their blood - and a gnome can capitalize on that by ALSO opting to take Skill Focus(Illusion). Furthermore, the human is still worse at magic, because after spending his bonus racial feat, he's spent half of his racial features to match parity with just one of the gnome's racial features.


Except they don't. There is nothing whatsoever about a gnome that makes it better at magic than a human, and that includes the magic inherent in the shadowcraft mage PrC.Yes there is - they're gnomes. Humans are not. Mechanically, this translates to automatic spellcasting, and an inherent bonus to Illusion spells on par with Spell Focus, that can be further honed with actual spell focus.


Except it's actually defined as "not mechanics." "Crunch" is mechanics. Those are their whole definitions.The distinction is arbitrary, and not actually part of the game at all. Crunch and Fluff are not terms that apply or appear anywhere in D&D with those definitions.


For no actual reason. A human Alter Self'd into a gnome is a better shadowcraft mage than a gnome.That's because, through magic, he's given himself the power inherent to gnomes. A human Alter Self'd into a Human is not a better shadowcraft mage than a gnome.


Clerics are better fighters than fighters. Druids are better fighters than fighters. Even sorcerers and wizards are better fighters than fighters.None of those are better fighters than fighters - they're better at non-fighting stuff that lets them win fights, but only the Cleric and Druid don't suck at actually fighting. And the druid sucks more than the cleric. A cleric has to spend a spell to match basic parity with a fighter... but lacks the skill and sophistication of the fighter. They just happen to have more brute strength than a fighter. But a weapon of mass destruction cannot be considered a 'better fighter' than a fighter, even if it's more destructive.

Likewise, a guy with a steam driver's not a more skilled railway man than John Henry.

My older brother managed to outperform a Black-Belt karate, Tae Kwan Do, and kung-fu master in mixed martial arts fights simply by being a foot and a half taller than her and twice her weight. He's not a better martial artist than she was.


Fluff utterly fails here. It is not rules.No - it doesn't utterly fail. You're just taking it to be broader than it is.


Except clerics, and druids, and barbarians, and sorcerers, and wizards, and even bards.They are not martial artists. The monk beats them in martial arts. Martial arts happen to just be a worthless skill to have, though.
No.THen get used to people you're not playing with telling you what kinds of characters you can create with their system.
Wasn't the argument, "gnomes are better illusionists"? They demonstrably aren't.No, the argument is gnomes are inherent illusionists, which they demonstrably are.
And my human's sorcerous bloodline is even better (whether an actual bloodline or just the...ahem...fluff).Did not exist at the time.
And yet elves are just as good at magic as gnomes. Actually, elves are MUCH better than gnomes, given all the racial stuff they get. Look up the easy bake wizard to see just how good they can be.They have absolutely no racial qualities that make them better casters. The only way they can be good at magic is through dedication to magic. How many spells can a level 1 Elven Commoner with Skill Focus (Perform) cast? If the answer is less than 4, they're inferior to Gnomes. They have to Tryhard to be magic.


Or a nice Alter Self spell. Or any number of other ways to count as a gnome.Yes, turning into a gnome gives you the inherent power of gnomes. That's not a problem.

[Anlashok]

They have absolutely no racial qualities that make them better casters.

grey elves give +2 int, which grants the exact same bonus as the gnome racial, only to all spells.


Yes, turning into a gnome gives you the inherent power of gnomes. That's not a problem.
Alter self explicitly doesn't give you the "inherent power" of any race. Only physical qualities. So that's incorrect.


That's because, through magic, he's given himself the power inherent to gnomes. A human Alter Self'd into a Human is not a better shadowcraft mage than a gnome.
here's the issue. The human who turns into a gnome, takes a level of shadowcraft mage, and then turns back into a human is not any worse at being a shadowcraft mage than he was before. Or rather, he is, because he lacks the inherent +1 to DCs, but he doesn't lose functionality.

Because being a shadowcraft mage has nothing to do with being a gnome. Nothing in the shadowcraft mage's text block does anything particular to a gnome.

And as previously said, the book even explicitly outlines how a non-gnome can take the class and it has nothing to do with gaining "magical gnome powers".

I don't know how you can get more clear cut than that.

[Milo v3]

*Snip*

Hold up for a second.... Where is there even the suggestion that flavour text is Rules? Why would fluff ever = rules. That goes against the DMG... Which has a whole chapter about making your own campaign setting, and there are suggestions of reflavouring all throughout D&D.... :smallconfused:

[Sartharina]

Hold up for a second.... Where is there even the suggestion that flavour text is Rules? Why would fluff ever = rules. That goes against the DMG... Which has a whole chapter about making your own campaign setting, and there are suggestions of reflavouring all throughout D&D.... :smallconfused:Text in Rulebook = Rules.

[OldTrees1]

Hold up for a second.... Where is there even the suggestion that flavour text is Rules? Why would fluff ever = rules. That goes against the DMG... Which has a whole chapter about making your own campaign setting, and there are suggestions of reflavouring all throughout D&D.... :smallconfused:

D&D is based on the premise of "Here are some rules, feel free to ignore/change them. Here are some ways to change/ignore them." So the chapter on setting building is not evidence against fluff having bite.

[Milo v3]

Text in Rulebook = Rules.
So every quote by a character in a PrC is a rule?

You can never change the setting at all? You cannot make new places or new gods or new settings?

Is it now impossible to play a Dwarf that isn't greedy? The fluff says that dwarves are suspcious of strangers, so does every single dwarf in existance have to have that, with no changes ever allowed because RAW. Is every character now stuck as a stereotype of there race/class combination?

What happens when there is conflicting fluff?

[Divayth Fyr]

And as previously said, the book even explicitly outlines how a non-gnome can take the class and it has nothing to do with gaining "magical gnome powers".
The adaptation section (where this is located) is for ideas which allow the DM to better incorporate classes into his world, but it shouldn't be taken as what a class is intended to be by default (like the Crusader is intended to have a religious flavor, but the adaptation mentions removing that, the Swordsage is clearly meant to be a weapon user but there are the Unarmed/Arcane Swordsageadaptation and so on...)

[Fax Celestis]

Text in Rulebook = Rules.

What definition are you using?



RULE
: a statement that tells you what is or is not allowed in a particular game, situation, etc.

: a statement that tells you what is allowed or what will happen within a particular system (such as a language or science)

: a piece of advice about the best way to do something

Full Definition of RULE

1
a : a prescribed guide for conduct or action
b : the laws or regulations prescribed by the founder of a religious order for observance by its members
c : an accepted procedure, custom, or habit
d (1) : a usually written order or direction made by a court regulating court practice or the action of parties (2) : a legal precept or doctrine
e : a regulation or bylaw governing procedure or controlling conduct
2
a (1) : a usually valid generalization (2) : a generally prevailing quality, state, or mode <fair weather was the rule yesterday — New York Times>
b : a standard of judgment : criterion
c : a regulating principle
d : a determinate method for performing a mathematical operation and obtaining a certain result
3
a : the exercise of authority or control : dominion
b : a period during which a specified ruler or government exercises control
4
a : a strip of material marked off in units used especially for measuring : ruler 3, tape measure
b : a metal strip with a type-high face that prints a linear design; also : a linear design produced by or as if by such a strip

[Sartharina]

So every quote by a character in a PrC is a rule?

You can never change the setting at all? You cannot make new places or new gods or new settings?

Is it now impossible to play a Dwarf that isn't greedy?

What happens when there is conflicting fluff?There are rules for changing the setting, making places, and new gods, and new settings. Whole chapters, in fact! And there are even rules for changing the rules, including changing the rules on changing the rules. But changing the rules is changing the rules, regardless of whether it's 'fluff' or 'crunch'.

Dwarven Greed, though, isn't quite the same as the human concept of Greed.

[Honest Tiefling]

Still, I'd say a lot of racially limited ones are pretty bad in terms of fluff, because:
1) Very setting limited, so without some refluffing, some get nigh-unusable or plain weird
2) They are sucky. Hello again Dwarven Defender, how are you?
3) They are too good, especially some of the ones for elves.

And since a lot of people can have some sort of unholy abomination on paper involving more 1-level dips then not that still forms a cohesive character in play, not being able to use these classes for less supported races or setting specific races makes me sad. Especially if, like shadowcraft mage, can be really good for a particular concept that shouldn't be restricted by race in my opinion.

[Marlowe]

Sartharina, you're generally funny and sensible, but here you're verging into Wilpell levels of wrongness. "Fluff", is called that because it's something light, soft, and insubstantial. Something that has no bearing on mechanics and can be changed without effecting gameplay.

We get officially reminded of this is the DMG, we get reminded of this with half the setting-specific PrClasses, and we get unofficially reminded everytime they produce something where the rules and the fluff are in blatant contradiction. Like the Spikers Damage Reduction.

[Milo v3]

There are rules for changing the setting, making places, and new gods, and new settings. Whole chapters, in fact! And there are even rules for changing the rules, including changing the rules on changing the rules. But changing the rules is changing the rules, regardless of whether it's 'fluff' or 'crunch'.

Dwarven Greed, though, isn't quite the same as the human concept of Greed.

Actually there isn't any rules on that stuff! :smallsigh:
There is nothing saying whether or not the setting can be completely made of water or roll on this table to find out how many continents there are. The closest thing to it is the tables to assist finding out whether a high level wizard or rogue should be in a city and that sections starts with "if you want to pull up random details on a city fast, you Can use the following". It is not a rule, its a suggestion.

When the books say "Do whatever you want" that's not a rule, there is no definition of rule that works with that. It is the opposite of a rule, literally.

[Kelb_Panthera]

RE: anti-gray guard sentiment.

Reread the full class description again. A gray guard of 1-9th level isn't released from his vows at all and a tenth level gray guard, while released from the code, is at risk for -permanent- loss of class features, as in "you are expelled from the grace of the divine forever," if a group of his peers convenes and agrees that he's abusing the freedom the class grants.

Sometimes dark, though never evil, deeds are necessary in pursuit of the greater good. The gray guards tarnish their armor in good faith so the majority of paladins don't have to.

[Brookshw]

Actually there isn't any rules on that stuff! :smallsigh:
There is nothing saying whether or not the setting can be completely made of water or roll on this table to find out how many continents there are. The closest thing to it is the tables to assist finding out whether a high level wizard or rogue should be in a city and that sections starts with "if you want to pull up random details on a city fast, you Can use the following". It is not a rule, its a suggestion.

When the books say "Do whatever you want" that's not a rule, there is no definition of rule that works with that. It is the opposite of a rule, literally.

So we're going by rulez iz rulez? Great! Then there are no Dwarven Defenders, Arcare Archers, Shadowmages, or any PrCs for the discussion to get hung up on :smallwink:

[Sartharina]

Actually there isn't any rules on that stuff! :smallsigh:
There is nothing saying whether or not the setting can be completely made of water or roll on this table to find out how many continents there are. The closest thing to it is the tables to assist finding out whether a high level wizard or rogue should be in a city and that sections starts with "if you want to pull up random details on a city fast, you Can use the following". It is not a rule, its a suggestion.

When the books say "Do whatever you want" that's not a rule, there is no definition of rule that works with that. It is the opposite of a rule, literally.It's text in a rulebook - they're rules.


Sartharina, you're generally funny and sensible, but here you're verging into Wilpell levels of wrongness. "Fluff", is called that because it's something light, soft, and insubstantial. Something that has no bearing on mechanics and can be changed without effecting gameplay.Correction - without affecting balance. It does affect gameplay, due to the roleplaying nature of a roleplaying game. Just because the means lead to the same end doesn't mean the means are the same. Lighter rules are easier to modify, yes, but still have an impact on the game. This is an RPG, not Scrabble.


We get officially reminded of this is the DMG, we get reminded of this with half the setting-specific PrClasses, and we get unofficially reminded everytime they produce something where the rules and the fluff are in blatant contradiction. Like the Spikers Damage Reduction.When the fluff and crunch are in contradiction, they should be fixed.
So we're going by rulez iz rulez? Great! Then there are no Dwarven Defenders, Arcare Archers, Shadowmages, or any PrCs for the discussion to get hung up on :smallwink:Yes there are. Dwarven Defenders, Arcane Archers, Shadowmages, and PrCs are text in rulebooks.

[Marlowe]

Correction - without affecting balance. It does affect gameplay, due to the roleplaying nature of a roleplaying game. Just because the means lead to the same end doesn't mean the means are the same. Lighter rules are easier to modify, yes, but still have an impact on the game. This is an RPG, not Scrabble.
\

So now we have this strange concept of "lighter rules". The definition of which is presumably up to you, since you're the only one who believes in this concept.

If, as you say, then all text equals rules, then therefore all characters are just amalgams of the stereotypical personal qualities given under their race/class fluff. And no roleplaying can actually happen.

This is an argument that destroys itself.

[Sartharina]

So now we have this strange concept of "lighter rules". The definition of which is presumably up to you, since you're the only one who believes in this concept.

If, as you say, then all text equals rules, then therefore all characters are just amalgams of the stereotypical personal qualities given under their race/class fluff. And no roleplaying can actually happen.

This is an argument that destroys itself.No. What I'm saying is Rules are Not Sacred.

[Milo v3]

It's text in a rulebook - they're rules.

Not how it works. It was that stupidly black and white the legal information would be game rules :smallsigh:

[Brookshw]

.Yes there are. Dwarven Defenders, Arcane Archers, Shadowmages, and PrCs are text in rulebooks.

Nope, remember, all PrCs by the rules are optional, its one of those things they left to the dm :smalltongue:

[Callos_DeTerran]

Alternatively, a Grey Guard is about realizing that for all D&D has Objective Morality, the best choice isn't always black and white. That ultimately, their personal honour means less than safeguarding the lives of those counting on them; of realising how blind adherence to their code can be used against them, no matter how righteous the code is trying to be. Not someone who resorts to trickery at first chance, but one that understands that sometimes it's better to just slay the dragon while it's sleeping rather than wake it to face honourable combat.

"I won't kill you. But I don't have to save you."
-Batman Begins

That's a valid way to look at it, but it isn't one that I particularly agree with. The best choice is usually black or white, it's what you have to do to get to it that can muddy the waters and make you doubt what if it is actually right. Nor is it about their personal honor and blind adherence to their code making them ineffectual boy scouts, but standing up as a symbol of something greater then themselves that others look to for inspiration, long after they've passed away. About being part of a legacy that embodies taking the high road, especially when it isn't the easy one and your own feelings on the matter. It's about leading by an example and being a demonstration of that example to show it isn't unattainable but something to strive towards as much as possible.

I also find that Batman quote funny because it isn't one that I would expect to hear from a Gray Guard, it is one that I actually expect to hear from a Paladin (though, honestly, at that point a paladin would have been very justified in putting Ras down). I'm also a bit mystified at how often strategy is confused with the code of conduct and deceit. Slaying the dragon while it's sleeping isn't dishonorable, you probably won't succeed anyway and it's over ten tons of scaled fury and magic, you're just attempting to level the playing field enough to have a chance at doing some good.


RE: anti-gray guard sentiment.

Reread the full class description again. A gray guard of 1-9th level isn't released from his vows at all and a tenth level gray guard, while released from the code, is at risk for -permanent- loss of class features, as in "you are expelled from the grace of the divine forever," if a group of his peers convenes and agrees that he's abusing the freedom the class grants.

Sometimes dark, though never evil, deeds are necessary in pursuit of the greater good. The gray guards tarnish their armor in good faith so the majority of paladins don't have to.

I should note that I never once referred to actual class features or anything of the short, it's the intent behind the class and how many people I've met who seem to view it as 'the paladin, but not Lawful Stupid/Stupid Good, it is a required PrC to take for paladins or you'll fall for -insert stupid example here-'. The mechanics behind it aren't nearly as offensive to me as the idea behind the class and how so many others seem to take it or how DMs never seem to observe the fact that Gray Guards can also lose their class feature. It is also more the fact that when I play a paladin, it is to play a paladin in all its shining glory.

I would however debate to no end that dark deeds are never necessary in the pursuit of the greater good, especially in a story-telling medium where there is an intelligent being guiding the story. A lot of this is just my own personal take on paladins and how they relate to the game as well as how a DM should handle them if they are in the game.

[atemu1234]

Don't play a paladin then. People who become paladins (as in, in setting) and don't fall-FALL are a special breed that take a higher path because the higher path is worth it, even if its risky. If your paladin begins to seriously contemplate that the greater good might require lesser evil then, to be honest, he was never meant to be a paladin in the first place and there's great story advancement in him finding a new path...not in him discovering some type of loophole that will allow him to to pretty much NOT be a paladin while getting to keep the abilities.

Paladins are plenty capable of character development without going down the tired 'they slip towards evil for the "greater good" ' path which has gotten really, really old. Sometimes just being a hero is what's needed, not figuring how far down the murder-hobo path you can go and still be able to smite evil. Stumble along the path? Make mistakes? Sure, that's fine. There's a bit of a learning curve to figuring out your moral compass and the one that guides you, perfectly understandable. Deliberately subverting it because 'the ends justify the means' is just hoppy-**** though.


...Obviously this is a subject I feel very strongly on. :smalltongue:

Paladins are quintessential holy warriors. Ones that do not lose faith, but lose faith in an ideal (or in idealism itself) are another archetype of holy warriors. Doing evil things for good reasons are also another archetype of holy warrior.

[Necroticplague]

Well, that went downwards in several directions fast *pulls out gasoline*.

Just for my 2cents on Mindrape; I'd just like to point out the almost-identical Programmed Amnesia isn't [evil] despite having all the same problems associated with altering someone's personality and memories. The only difference is casting time, range, and duration (all of which Mindrape has an advantage in). So apparently the Evil thing about mindrape is that it's efficient (being in a shorter time, from a farther range, able to last after an antimagic field exposure or dispel magic).

[Thiyr]

I am honestly surprised. I come in here and my first thought is Shining Blade of Heironius, and nobody beats me to the punch? Concept is that "Heironius is all about bringing goodness through fighting. These guys are people that follow heironius and fight!" And then we get something that's super-tied to a single war-deity fighting, instead of something a bit more general and a bit more widely applicable (like the later ordained champion). Oh, and it enacts its concept in a way which makes it one of the more irredeemable PrC's printed. Yea. Hard to get lamer than the SBoH.

I'll also add Eye of Gruumsh (Let's become better at being BLIND! YEAH!), Purple Dragon Knight (In a word, it's a bardladin. I'm down with the concept, but it feels like the "honorable knight" bit gets covered by paladin, the "inspiring presence" gets covered by bard, and the combo of the two is better than "Let's make a class to overcome bad alignment restrictions"), Cloud Anchorite (I'm gonna sit up on mountains till I don't die. What?), and the Evangelist (Just...did this really need to be a class unto itself? Really?)

[Kelb_Panthera]

@Callos_DeTerran:

Here's the thing: all too often, the clearly good choice that doesn't require any dark deeds is for the paladin to sacrifice himself which, while glorious and entertaining in its own right, is a -terrible- long-term plan for serving Good.

If the world is bad enough, paladins sac'ing themselves all the time tilts the world toward evil as Good's champions are disappearing left and right and acting primarily as an example of how people that are Good tend to lead short lives that end bloody.

In such a world, or even just the darker parts of an otherwise morally balanced world, making progress or even just holding ground sometimes -demands- that real heroes make hard choices.

That's were the grayguards come in and that's where they belong, not in the places where good already holds sway or is making solid progress.

Mind you, I have played and enjoyed playing fists of raziel, gray guards, and paladins in between. There are many more ways than a lawful-stupid, smite-on-site, stick-up-his-butt jerkwad to represent the Paladin in a game with a good DM.

[Venger]

I am honestly surprised. I come in here and my first thought is Shining Blade of Heironius, and nobody beats me to the punch?



Hey I won that round of Iron Chef!


My answer: Shining Blade of Heironeous, a ten level prestige class that (supposedly) makes my sword better(?)

uh... sorry to break it to you :smalltongue:


Gray Guard

politics aside, even if you enjoy grayguard's views on morality, it's still a complete failure of a class:

"in order to prevent you from losing your paladin powers, let's have you give up your paladin powers"

for me, another iron chef ingredient: psibond agent.

in order to be a better spy, we'll let you... pick up on people's senses. but only one at a time. you never know when you'll need to taste the thing your target is (???)

[Thiyr]

uh... sorry to break it to you :smalltongue:

That's what I get for skimming. Alas! Still, that's why I brought other contributions to the table too. Still, my hate-on for the SBoH has been sated.

[A Tad Insane]

Olham... Ohlum... Oldham

*looks it up with internet*

Ollam!

A lawful dwarf bard... teacher... Yeah, I don't know either.

[Callos_DeTerran]

Paladins are quintessential holy warriors. Ones that do not lose faith, but lose faith in an ideal (or in idealism itself) are another archetype of holy warriors. Doing evil things for good reasons are also another archetype of holy warrior.

It is also far more prevalently one of the most common archetypes for easily badly written villains. Doing evil things for good reasons has been, in my experience, never been well-used as an archetype for a holy warrior. Maybe you've had better experiences then me?



Here's the thing: all too often, the clearly good choice that doesn't require any dark deeds is for the paladin to sacrifice himself which, while glorious and entertaining in its own right, is a -terrible- long-term plan for serving Good.

If the world is bad enough, paladins sac'ing themselves all the time tilts the world toward evil as Good's champions are disappearing left and right and acting primarily as an example of how people that are Good tend to lead short lives that end bloody.

In such a world, or even just the darker parts of an otherwise morally balanced world, making progress or even just holding ground sometimes -demands- that real heroes make hard choices.

That's were the grayguards come in and that's where they belong, not in the places where good already holds sway or is making solid progress.

Mind you, I have played and enjoyed playing fists of raziel, gray guards, and paladins in between. There are many more ways than a lawful-stupid, smite-on-site, stick-up-his-butt jerkwad to represent the Paladin in a game with a good DM.

Respectfully, I have to disagree, the clear-cut choice doesn't always have to require the sacrifice of the paladin's life. This isn't to say it doesn't require sacrifice in the first place, but that is part of what makes paladins paladins to me, sure their lives kinda suck on the personal level, but they do it because they have such a devotion to good and bringing it out in others.

Like I said, my view on paladins can be a bit rose-colored and it does influence the way I run my games for them as long as a paladin is behaving like a paladin. Different experiences and whatnot, but I find the inherent optimism behind the paladin very appealing, considering most games I play in or see these days are very cynical.

[Extra Anchovies]

Olham... Ohlum... Oldham

*looks it up with internet*

Ollam!

A lawful dwarf bard... teacher... Yeah, I don't know either.

My favorite thing about the Ollam is that it uses the exact same artwork as the Battlesmith from Races of Stone:
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ros_gallery/83317.jpg

[Kelb_Panthera]

It is also far more prevalently one of the most common archetypes for easily badly written villains. Doing evil things for good reasons has been, in my experience, never been well-used as an archetype for a holy warrior. Maybe you've had better experiences then me?



Respectfully, I have to disagree, the clear-cut choice doesn't always have to require the sacrifice of the paladin's life. This isn't to say it doesn't require sacrifice in the first place, but that is part of what makes paladins paladins to me, sure their lives kinda suck on the personal level, but they do it because they have such a devotion to good and bringing it out in others.

Like I said, my view on paladins can be a bit rose-colored and it does influence the way I run my games for them as long as a paladin is behaving like a paladin. Different experiences and whatnot, but I find the inherent optimism behind the paladin very appealing, considering most games I play in or see these days are very cynical.

I never said always, just too often. Much more often there are options for the paladin that are the obviously right choice that doesn't get them killed. Even then, however, such choices can still make them pariahs because it's the Good choice rather than the sensible one. Being the good guy doesn't always mean being the hero.

You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion. I just think it's a shame you pigeon-hole your paladins into only one archetype.

[Sartharina]

Nope, remember, all PrCs by the rules are optional, its one of those things they left to the dm :smalltongue:And the DM is given rules for implementing these optional rules. Everything in the D&D books is written for the purpose of playing the game. Words have meaning. "Can" does not mean "must". "Tend to" does not mean "Always have/will". "Optional means Optional". Rule 0 isn't Rule '0' - it's an actual rule written in the game, and accounted for and encouraged by the designers. An open-ended rule is still a rule. Some rules limit limitations. Also - All rules are guidelines. We are not a CRPG. Except Neverwinter Nights.


...


... anyway, back onto Greyguard. "Only the most realistic and battleworn paladins become gray guards. They know the cruelties of the world cannot be expunged merely by good example and kind words. Though no less virtuous than other paladins, they join the order’s bloodstained ranks out of a sense of necessity. Those who seek membership merely because they resent the yoke of their code of conduct are unfit to be gray guards or paladins such weak-willed individuals are swiftly excommunicated from both orders."

Funny thing - a lot of people see Grey Guards as "Less Good" than Paladins. They're not. They're a little less lawful, unbound from the letter of the laws they uphold, and instead can fight for the spirit of Good.

Greyguard requires at least Five levels of Paladin, full dedication and study of religion and morality, and a moderate understanding of the deceptions of others. Note the five level requirement, though - In order to even begin being considered for a Grey Guard, they must successfully endure as a Shiny Noble Paladin. At that point in their lives, they have the experience they need to know whether the world needs a Superman-style hero of Truth, Hope, and Trust, or a more cynical batman-style Dark Knight. A Grey Guard must also always remain Lawful Good - no matter how 'edgy' they get, they cannot fall over the line from Law or Good into Neutral. They are still accountable for all their actions - they are merely the ones who have demonstrated they can be trusted with a more leeway in upholding their oaths. There is no room for villany in a Greyguard.

[heavyfuel]

I just can't understand the concept behind the Wonderworker, both the fluff and the crunsh, but hte crush is just sinfully bad. You get extra spells slots, but spell levels or caster levels, you get 3/4 bab, d6, few skill points and a crappy skill list, in exchange for 3 feats from what's possibily the worse feat category in the game, especially when you already had to get 2 of them just to qualify.

[OldTrees1]

Funny thing - a lot of people see Grey Guards as "Less Good" than Paladins. They're not. They're a little less lawful, unbound from the letter of the laws they uphold, and instead can fight for the spirit of Good.

I can kinda see their point. Paladins in literature have a kind of Moral Innocence/Purity. Paladins written by WotC are more Lawful than Good (due to WotC messing up the code of conduct rules). So while Grey Guards are less lawful but equally good when compared to the Paladin RAW, they are Morally Tarnished in comparison to the Paladins of literature. While a literature Paladin would attempt the impossible but pure route ("Reach the unreachable star" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfHnzYEHAow)), the Grey Guard would take the practical but less morally pure route instead.

Still, some games call for Grey Guards rather than Literature Paladins.

[Sartharina]

Still, some games call for Grey Guards rather than Literature Paladins.And because it's a prestige class found in a book all about morally ambiguous and underhanded characters, you have at least five levels to figure out which sort of game your paladin is in - and choosing poorly can be costly - Trying to go Greyguard when it's unnecessary will usually lead to falling. But staying Paladin when you need to go Greyguard leads to innocents dying, evil triumphing, and villains thriving with impunity.

Also - Complete Scoundrel's one of the coolest books featuring alignment interpretations.

[The Viscount]

With all this discussion of Grey Guard, I'm surprised nobody's brought up Shadowbane Inquisitor. I personally love the class for portraying a more independent paladin, as well as fully acknowledging the risk of falling this new moral code brings, but I know that this is probably what would set others off.

On a different note, I always found the Sybil quite lame. It's a class centered around being the info-giver for a party, to say nothing of the fact that it's so difficult to enter.

[jedipotter]

Trying to go Greyguard when it's unnecessary will usually lead to falling. But staying Paladin when you need to go Greyguard leads to innocents dying, evil triumphing, and villains thriving with impunity.



Did the thread touch of the bad Gray Guard mechanics yet?

The loos of half spellcasting levels is a huge hit, and is only worth it for more abilities...but look what they get... Lay on hands and smite evil just stack with already had abilities. Smite Chaos is ''ok'' and ''Smite all'' can be useful, but chances are it won't be used much as most bad guys are evil.

Debilitating touch. What? This is a dumb ability. How does ''a gray paladin doing what must be done'' really if with making people sick? And the sickened condition is just silly...wow a -2 to some rolls. And how is this used for ''interrogation''? Like ''all right Looie spill the beans or I'll make you so sick you will get a -2 for a couple rolls for a couple minutes'', gosh I bet he will tell the gray guard everything. Even in combat it's not much use as it just does not do enough....the gray guard is better just attacking for damage or doing something like a trip.

Detestation Touch. Ohh, this is worse. So the 10th or so level character can touch some one and do like 40 points of damage. Wow. Oh, and they only have to drain the number from their healing. Wow, great. And it has a save for half damage if they are non evil. But worst of all..the gray guard/paladin already has this ability
...it's called smite evil.

Unbound Justice is the first nice thing that fits the fluff, but it comes way, way, way too late....and it does not help much. Like wow...a 10th level Gray Guard gets a +5 (shudder) to Bluff and Disguise and Gather. And they might have 10 or so ranks in each by 10th level, so like, +15.

And then the Sacrament ability does not give you anything mechanically. What a waste.

[ranagrande]

Wonderworker does have a niche. It's useful for getting more high level spell slots after finishing a class like Divine Crusader or Apostle of Peace.

[ericgrau]

{obligatory Risen Martyr reference}

I'll be a bit controversial here though and say I don't like one of the best PrCs in core, Archmage. Really, any wizard or sorcerer who gets that high up should have that title, and those options (or similar ones) should be available to all such casters. Ditto Hierophant and Arch-Psion.

I kind of feel this way about every prestige class. Should just be options that everyone can grab without prestiging. Instead of paying feats and pre-reqs for PrC features, should just pay a feat and some pre-reqs for one PrC feature. If the feat makes you burn a spell slot or what not too like the PrC, good, good.

[Heliomance]

Except they don't. There is nothing whatsoever about a gnome that makes it better at magic than a human, and that includes the magic inherent in the shadowcraft mage PrC.

Except for the existence of the Gnome Illusionist racial substitution levels...

[Arbane]

Guys, Mindrape is evil not because of what it does to its victims, but the damage it does to the world.
Once it exists, any 'free will' is merely an illusion created by the current absence of a sufficiently powerful spellcaster, (edit:) AND you end up with a perverse Fermi Paradox* trying to explain why some all-powerful spellcasting tyrant doesn't ALREADY control All That Is.

*Edit2: I dub this the 'Tippy Paradox'.

[Venger]

Guys, Mindrape is evil not because of what it does to its victims, but the damage it does to the world.
Once it exists, any 'free will' is merely an illusion created by the current absence of a sufficiently powerful spellcaster.

Well, yeah. That's how D&D works. it's why people behave the way they do.

[atemu1234]

Except for the existence of the Gnome Illusionist racial substitution levels...

And the bonus on illusion spells granted by the race itself...

[Necroticplague]

Guys, Mindrape is evil not because of what it does to its victims, but the damage it does to the world.
Once it exists, any 'free will' is merely an illusion created by the current absence of a sufficiently powerful spellcaster, (edit:) AND you end up with a perverse Fermi Paradox* trying to explain why some all-powerful spellcasting tyrant doesn't ALREADY control All That Is.

*Edit2: I dub this the 'Tippy Paradox'.

The why isn't Programmed Amnesia, which has almost identical (but better defined) effects, [evil]? The only difference is that Mindrape is better.

[Sartharina]

The why isn't Programmed Amnesia, which has almost identical (but better defined) effects, [evil]? The only difference is that Mindrape is better.Seeing that the Mindrape spell lacks the descriptive text I thhough it did, and given a lot of other spells, I'm wondering if Programmed Amnesia may be the 3.5 update of the spell, but renamed and having the [Evil] after realizing it wasn't necessarily worse than any other nonevil spell.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I don't really want to weigh in on the morality matter but I will point out the single biggest difference between mindrape and programmed amnesia; the former has a duration of instantaneous and is deuced difficult to detect or reverse unless you knew the victim personally and have access to magic of the same caliber. The latter, however, has a duration of permanent and can be detected by a simple detect magic spell and, while the spell specifically prescribes a 7th level spell (or wish) as a counter, there's nothing in the text to preclude it being undone by a simple dispel magic, greater dispel magic, or break enchantment.

[georgie_leech]

I don't really want to weigh in on the morality matter but I will point out the single biggest difference between mindrape and programmed amnesia; the former has a duration of instantaneous and is deuced difficult to detect or reverse unless you knew the victim personally and have access to magic of the same caliber. The latter, however, has a duration of permanent and can be detected by a simple detect magic spell and, while the spell specifically prescribes a 7th level spell (or wish) as a counter, there's nothing in the text to preclude it being undone by a simple dispel magic, greater dispel magic, or break enchantment.

In other words, one is an ongoing spell, the other instantaneously and irreversibly (as much as anything is irreversible in D&D) rewrites a targets mind.

[Arcanist]

[...] This still doesn't justify mindrape being evil, though. It could be used to cure mental problems on consenting subjects; doing this CLEARLY isn't evil (as there is plenty of magic that lets you remove all kinds of ailments from people who want to be cured that isn't evil); the use is evil, the tool is not.

The reason Mindraping someone into being good is evil is because casting Mindrape is Evil. That evil descriptor isn't there to just look pretty.

That said:

[...] Tapping into evil power is an evil act in and of itself, no matter what the effects or the reason for using the power might be.

As for curing mental problems, I can only presume that you're talking about the sanity rules and Mindrape is not a listed means for recovering sanity. In fact, even in a low sanity setting, it still drains away 9 points of sanity.

Ghost-faced Killer: The general idea for the class is that you turn invisible (or ethereal at a high enough level) as a swift action and then go into Sudden strike a target. This class is obviously very straight forward right? Wrong. You can only stay invisible for 1 round out of your Ghost step and to sustain that Ghost step, you must spend another use of your Ghost step, of which you only gain 4 per day meaning that you can only do this trick about 4 times per day. But lets ignore that for a minute. This is a rogue designed prestige class with a two-bit trick, with a bad reflex, high fortitude, and a full BAB. Don't get me wrong, the class has a gimmick, its just the gimmick is hardly worth what you would be getting from just picking up Assassin levels (which gives you Invisibility and Greater Invisibility on that note).

[mabriss lethe]

Shadowdancer: Fluffwise, it's awesome. If it weren't for the requirements, it would be a great 1 level class. As it is, HiPS is still a good enough class feature to make swallowing the feat and skill point tax palatable, (and is a good option for a rogue looking to ditch that dead level at 20.) It's after level 1 that everything gets flushed down the circular file. The class features are all odd, and not well edited from the 3.0->3.5 conversion. The two easiest classes to enter from are bard and rogue, Neither of these classes get very much out of an extended stay in the PrC. The Rogue loses sneak attack and gains nerfed teleportation and a nigh useless undead cuddle buddy. (more on that in a bit) The bard gains some rogue special defenses but loses out on both spellcasting and bardic music progression. The bard can't even use bardic music to beef up his shadow unless he eats a feat slot for requiem.

Now about that Shadow.... In 3.0 you gained the ability to summon multiple shadows, and that would have made a shadowdancer a suitable minionmancer if it hadn't also come with a nasty EXP penalty whenever one of your shadows got destroyed(which is a bit difficult, even with low HD, but still very possible at high levels.) That got nerfed down to 1 shadow in the conversion to 3.5, but it still retains the same HD growth rate and exp penalty when destroyed. It's a serviceable enough scout, but between it's slow hit die progression and incorporeal nature, It can't do a whole heck of a lot. Sure, with some shenanigans, you can turn it into a magic item coat rack, but that's very resource intensive. The best bet is to pick up passive utility feats for it as it gains HD and use it as a mobile support unit.

About Shadow Jump. Being able to pull a nightcrawler style bamf-n-smack would be right up the SDs alley. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way without a lot of out-of-core help. You gain a limited range Dimension door spell so a teleport attack is off the table, and what should be your defining schtick is completely outdone, in core, by the horizon walker.

[Extra Anchovies]

About Shadow Jump. Being able to pull a nightcrawler style bamf-n-smack would be right up the SDs alley. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way without a lot of out-of-core help. You gain a limited range Dimension door spell so a teleport attack is off the table, and what should be your defining schtick is completely outdone, in core, by the horizon walker.

Only if the DM rules that Shifting Planar Mastery can be used on non-shifting terrain; fluff very strongly implies that it should not, so most DMs probably won't, regardless of RAW.

[Thiyr]

Only if the DM rules that Shifting Planar Mastery can be used on non-shifting terrain; fluff very strongly implies that it should not, so most DMs probably won't, regardless of RAW.

I don't really see that. The fluff seems to be saying you've learned a lot of stuff from going a lot of places, but you never stick around too long. They gain a connection, but they "take their terrain mastery wherever they go". That and it does kinda explicitly say they retain abilities regardless of the terrain they're on. "For example, a horizon walker who selected desert terrain mastery is immune to fatigue even if she's underground, in the mountains, or in a city". I'd be kinda miffed if I was told that I couldn't use those abilities off their respective terrains, just 'cause it doesn't seem like there's a reason for it to me.

[Venger]

Only if the DM rules that Shifting Planar Mastery can be used on non-shifting terrain; fluff very strongly implies that it should not, so most DMs probably won't, regardless of RAW.


I don't really see that. The fluff seems to be saying you've learned a lot of stuff from going a lot of places, but you never stick around too long. They gain a connection, but they "take their terrain mastery wherever they go". That and it does kinda explicitly say they retain abilities regardless of the terrain they're on. "For example, a horizon walker who selected desert terrain mastery is immune to fatigue even if she's underground, in the mountains, or in a city". I'd be kinda miffed if I was told that I couldn't use those abilities off their respective terrains, just 'cause it doesn't seem like there's a reason for it to me.

Yeah, Thiyr is right, it doesn't get much clearer than this:


Horizon walkers take their terrain mastery with them wherever they go. They retain their terrain mastery bonuses on skill checks, attack rolls, and damage rolls whether they’re actually in the relevant terrain or not.
(emphasis mine)

There is no RAW justification whatsoever for robbing horizon walker of his class features if he's not in that terrain type. It's already a pretty weak class, there's no reason to take away the one thing that makes it vaguely worthwhile.

[Extra Anchovies]

(I never said there was a RAW justification)

The fluff justification I refer to is as follows:

You instinctively anticipate shifts in the reality of the plane that bring you closer to your destination
The prime material plane doesn't have too many reality shifts, at least none that aren't brought about by external forces (e.g. spells). Hence my opinion that it's shaky whether this specific planar terrain mastery is usable anywhere. I think it should be usable anywhere, but some DMs may disagree.

[georgie_leech]

(I never said there was a RAW justification)

The fluff justification I refer to is as follows:

The prime material plane doesn't have too many reality shifts, at least none that aren't brought about by external forces (e.g. spells). Hence my opinion that it's shaky whether this specific planar terrain mastery is usable anywhere. I think it should be usable anywhere, but some DMs may disagree.

Well, to be ridiculously pedantic the Prime Material is supposed to behave like Earth if it's not otherwise mentioned, which would hold true for Quantum Electrodynamics. Meaning that really, really tiny variations or shifts on the quantum level still happen.

[Jeff the Green]

Well, to be ridiculously pedantic the Prime Material is supposed to behave like Earth if it's not otherwise mentioned, which would hold true for Quantum Electrodynamics. Meaning that really, really tiny variations or shifts on the quantum level still happen.

So Horizon Walker = Quantum Tunneler?

[Venger]

So Horizon Walker = Quantum Tunneler?

"I completed horizon walker. Why haven't I leapt yet?"

[georgie_leech]

So Horizon Walker = Quantum Tunneler?

I've seen weirder justifications. (http://youtu.be/xv9eSBNzeJs?t=1m58s)

[Sam K]

Another PRC concept that seems kind of silly to me: all those full divine caster progression classes that essentially comes down to being "the chosen uber high priest best buddy of <diety>". There is already a class like that, it's called cleric! You're channeling the power of your god, it doesn't get much more chosen than that!

Ofcourse, from a power point of view those PRCs are awesome because cleric is pretty dull beyond first level, and I'd obviously rather have full casting AND additional powers, but from a fluff perspective it just seems pretty silly. Having your god on speed-dial for divine intervention isn't enough to mark you as special in the church? Being a servant of Pelor isn't enough, you have to be a radiant one? Domains are suppose to reflect what kind of diety you follow; stacking on a PRC on top of that is just... well, awesome for the power, but it seems like pretty weak concepts to me.

[Thiyr]

Or if you're not a fan of the quantum angle, it could be that you're sensing shifts in the plane of shadow or limbo, and then using those shifts as a means to propel yourself through whatever plane you're on? At that point you're basically just doing a normal dimension door, going off-plane just long enough to get to where you want to be, riding the planar wave.

Which kinda makes me want to make an over-the-top surfer horizon-walker. Constantly searching for the Ultimate Wave.


also


Another PRC concept that seems kind of silly to me: all those full divine caster progression classes that essentially comes down to being "the chosen uber high priest best buddy of <diety>". There is already a class like that, it's called cleric! You're channeling the power of your god, it doesn't get much more chosen than that!

Ofcourse, from a power point of view those PRCs are awesome because cleric is pretty dull beyond first level, and I'd obviously rather have full casting AND additional powers, but from a fluff perspective it just seems pretty silly. Having your god on speed-dial for divine intervention isn't enough to mark you as special in the church? Being a servant of Pelor isn't enough, you have to be a radiant one? Domains are suppose to reflect what kind of diety you follow; stacking on a PRC on top of that is just... well, awesome for the power, but it seems like pretty weak concepts to me.

I can kinda see it as a "you're set apart from the rest" bit. Clerics are more the standard magically imbued dudes, low-rung followers. Anyone can become a cleric if they have enough faith. Your RSoPs are the ones who go above and beyond, though. To use a non-religious comparison (because otherwise I'm getting into real-world stuff), anyone can become a computer techie, take a few classes and spend a few bucks and you can get some low level certificates, know your way around computers. But if you meet someone with, say, a CCAr certification? They're at the -top-, basically the best at what they do. Within their realm, they can do anything a low level techie can do and then some.

At least, that's how I'd see it. It depend on how the clergy is structured in your setting, though.

[Sartharina]

I can kinda see it as a "you're set apart from the rest" bit. Clerics are more the standard magically imbued dudes, low-rung followers. Anyone can become a cleric if they have enough faith. Your RSoPs are the ones who go above and beyond, though. To use a non-religious comparison (because otherwise I'm getting into real-world stuff), anyone can become a computer techie, take a few classes and spend a few bucks and you can get some low level certificates, know your way around computers. But if you meet someone with, say, a CCAr certification? They're at the -top-, basically the best at what they do. Within their realm, they can do anything a low level techie can do and then some.

At least, that's how I'd see it. It depend on how the clergy is structured in your setting, though.Nah - all clerics of equal level are of equal skill. The specialized one, instead of saying "You're a Cleric of Pelor", they say "You're a cleric of Pelor." Well... maybe comparing it to certification makes sense.

[Bloody Peasant!]

I'm not sure if it properly fits the theme of "awful concept," but I hate the stupid broken overpowered Warshaper. As a shapeshifter of some sort or another, I can learn quickly (5 levels) to contort my body to gain extended reach, incredible immunities, free ability score and damage boosts that stack with everything, ultra-fast healing... the best warrior class ever.


Agreed. My hatred for the warshaper defies language. One of the few prestige classes I always ban outright, and the only one that isn't for spellcasters.

[Honest Tiefling]

I personally thought a lot of the cleric prestige classes were not indicating that the cleric was closer to the god, but rather specialized priestly training to reflect the god. After all, clerics of a chaotic evil war diety should not be similar in training to those of a peaceful lawful good healing deity.

[Thurbane]

Well, that went downwards in several directions fast *pulls out gasoline*.

I know, I was enjoying the thread much more before it became pages of debating the definition of fluff vs. crunch; and "Mindrape: evil or just misunderstood?". :smallfrown:

For my 2 cents, one of the most annoying things is how many PrCs dedicated to giving melee types magical or pseudo magical powers (particularly classes about imbuing your weapon with powers) are medium BAB. I know full BAB isn't the be all and end all, but it kind of is a thing for melee types. Elemental Warrior, Dragon Samurai and Shadowblade all come to mind as offenders.

Oh, and another of my major PrC gripes: there is (AFAIK) no Undead-slaying PrC that doesn't require Turn Undead. Oh, you wanted to play a Fighter or Ranger who really hates undead and has a PrC to back it up? Sorry, you need a Cleric dip - in fact, why not just play a Cleric or Paladin instead? Seriously - we have dedicated PrCs for slaying pretty much every other creature type that don't rely on a specific class feature; since Undead are one of the classic fantasy stereotypes for someone to dedicate their career to fighting, why no love for simple melee types? Sure, you can pick up feats and gear designed specifically for battling undead, but the lack of a PrC that didn't require Turning (and often spells as well) constantly irritates me. I keep meaning to homebrew one myself...

[Extra Anchovies]

Or if you're not a fan of the quantum angle, it could be that you're sensing shifts in the plane of shadow or limbo, and then using those shifts as a means to propel yourself through whatever plane you're on? At that point you're basically just doing a normal dimension door, going off-plane just long enough to get to where you want to be, riding the planar wave.

Which kinda makes me want to make an over-the-top surfer horizon-walker. Constantly searching for the Ultimate Wave.

Hm. That's actually a really good justification of the Dimension Door ability; I forgot that the PMP is coterminous with the not-so-static Ethereal and Shadow planes. My mind is changed on the matter.

Also, that is a great concept for a Horizon Walker. I like.

[Blackhawk748]

Oh, and another of my major PrC gripes: there is (AFAIK) no Undead-slaying PrC that doesn't require Turn Undead. Oh, you wanted to play a Fighter or Ranger who really hates undead and has a PrC to back it up? Sorry, you need a Cleric dip - in fact, why not just play a Cleric or Paladin instead? Seriously - we have dedicated PrCs for slaying pretty much every other creature type that don't rely on a specific class feature; since Undead are one of the classic fantasy stereotypes for someone to dedicate their career to fighting, why no love for simple melee types? Sure, you can pick up feats and gear designed specifically for battling undead, but the lack of a PrC that didn't require Turning (and often spells as well) constantly irritates me. I keep meaning to homebrew one myself...

This. Ive always wanted to play a Hunter of the Dead, but i need to be a friggin paladin to do it. Seriously, its even a D8 HD PrC, which screams Ranger to me (or Fighter, cuz ill totally drop a HD to get a handful of spells.) and it has its own spells so no Cleric entry. Seriously am i supposed to get in as a Cleric 1/Full BaB class 5? So i need to wait till level 7 in order to be good at wrecking undead. Good job there guys.

[Honest Tiefling]

Dare I ask how many classes require dipping into one of the Master Classes to fight undead?

[Blackhawk748]

Dare I ask how many classes require dipping into one of the Master Classes to fight undead?

To be honest, i think most of them. Its kinda sad actually.

[Extra Anchovies]

To be honest, i think most of them. Its kinda sad actually.

Even Hunter of the Dead, the undead-fightin' class from Complete Warrior (of all places), requires it. As does Purifier of the Hallowed Doctrine, the anti-taint PrC from Heroes of Horror.

[Blackhawk748]

Honestly, if any of my players actually wanted to play an Undead murdering machine, id wave the Turn prereq for Hunter of the Dead as that Knowledge pre req seems good enough.

[Honest Tiefling]

So only 2? Still bad, but I thought it was much more pervasive.

And I quite like the fix that ranks in the skill used to identify them can be used in place of Turn Undead to identify them.

[Blackhawk748]

So only 2? Still bad, but I thought it was much more pervasive.

Honestly im not even sure if there are more than two, though there really should be one for Rangers.

[Extra Anchovies]

So only 2? Still bad, but I thought it was much more pervasive.

And I quite like the fix that ranks in the skill used to identify them can be used in place of Turn Undead to identify them.

Those were just the two I knew off the top of my head; there are a number of others. Of note, however, is Sacred Exorcist, since they're sort of anti-undead in the sense that they hate possessing entities, many of which are undead. That class grants TU, but requires casting so it's a moot point anyways.

[Psyren]

A cleric dip isn't the end of the world - just trade out the domains for devotion feats. Travel Devotion is great, as is Knowledge Devotion. You can even dip Cloistered Cleric to keep your skills up on a skillmonkey or knowledgemonkey, and getting Know Religion as a class skill is helpful for classes like Rogue.

Skullclan Hunter is another anti-undead class that needs TU but for the reasons mentioned above it is a worthwhile trade. It has 6+Int skills, advances sneak attack, allows you to track and sneak attack any undead, and grants a boatload of very handy immunities.

[Thurbane]

I'm not saying from a mechanical standpoint that a Cleric dip is a bad thing...but from a fluff POV, I think it's pretty sad that you need to dip to enter an Undead hunting PrC. Hellreaver is a great example of how to make a class like this with Fighter, Barbarians, Rangers etc. in mind.

I think there may be at least one more PrC than already mentioned that requires TU, but I can't find it at the moment.

[Divayth Fyr]

I think there may be at least one more PrC than already mentioned that requires TU, but I can't find it at the moment.
There are several others, most of them tailored towards Clerics (either because they're the spellcasters most suited towards the task or because they're flavored as servants of one god or the other). Some of the undead-hunter type classes that don't require TU are the Deadgrim (Magic of Eberron), which requires either TU or Favored Enemy (Undead) so at least a Ranger can get in and Knight of the Raven (Expedition to Castle Ravenloft) that only requires divine spells. The Fighter is still out of luck though...

However Deities and Demigods has the Soldier of Light class which doesn't require any of that, so our Fighter can actually enter it - to get the spells and TU he was missing to enter the other classes ;)

[Blackhawk748]

However Deities and Demigods has the Soldier of Light class which doesn't require any of that, so our Fighter can actually enter it - to get the spells and TU he was missing to enter the other classes ;)

And it doesnt suck, who woulda thunk it? Joking aside it actually is pretty good, spells, fast healing, some of the best paladin features, low entry requirements. I think im gonna make a Soldier of Light next time i wanna make a Vampire Hunter, and he shall be a Fighter.

[torrasque666]

So while complaining about classes that require TU, everyone is forgetting that Paladin gets it at 4th? AND has a couple ways to get rid of the casting if you want it?

[Extra Anchovies]

So while complaining about classes that require TU, everyone is forgetting that Paladin gets it at 4th? AND has a couple ways to get rid of the casting if you want it?

I think the gripe is that those PrCs can't be entered without Paladin or Cleric.

[Divayth Fyr]

So while complaining about classes that require TU, everyone is forgetting that Paladin gets it at 4th? AND has a couple ways to get rid of the casting if you want it?
The very post that brought this issue up basically did mention it.

Oh, and another of my major PrC gripes: there is (AFAIK) no Undead-slaying PrC that doesn't require Turn Undead. Oh, you wanted to play a Fighter or Ranger who really hates undead and has a PrC to back it up? Sorry, you need a Cleric dip - in fact, why not just play a Cleric or Paladin instead?
If you got rid of the spells AND the Code of Conduct a Paladin could be a form of alternative for the simple Fighter (though it still brings up the issue of "why can't I become an undead slayer, but can be a specialized hunter of X, Y and Z types of creatures") though that still locks out Rangers (even those built for fighting undead) out of a large part of those classes.

[ranagrande]

The Knight of the Raven, from Expedition to Castle Ravenloft, is a class focused on fighting undead that does not require Turn Undead. It grants it at third level too. It does require divine casting though

[Blackhawk748]

The Knight of the Raven, from Expedition to Castle Ravenloft, is a class focused on fighting undead that does not require Turn Undead. It grants it at third level too. It does require divine casting though

Ya, still no Fighter entry, but the Ranger can get in on this one which is nice.

[Extra Anchovies]

Ya, still no Fighter entry, but the Ranger can get in on this one which is nice.

You could also do Soldier of Light entry, if you really wanted, but you wouldn't get nearly as much out of the casting advancement.

[Blackhawk748]

You could also do Soldier of Light entry, if you really wanted, but you wouldn't get nearly as much out of the casting advancement.

Yes you could, but you get some more fun class features.

[Fax Celestis]

Ya, still no Fighter entry, but the Ranger can get in on this one which is nice.

Or a Barbarian/Runescarred Berserker, lol.

[Blackhawk748]

Or a Barbarian/Runescarred Berserker, lol.

By the gods, those undead are so screwed lol

[Sam K]

I can kinda see it as a "you're set apart from the rest" bit. Clerics are more the standard magically imbued dudes, low-rung followers. Anyone can become a cleric if they have enough faith. Your RSoPs are the ones who go above and beyond, though. To use a non-religious comparison (because otherwise I'm getting into real-world stuff), anyone can become a computer techie, take a few classes and spend a few bucks and you can get some low level certificates, know your way around computers. But if you meet someone with, say, a CCAr certification? They're at the -top-, basically the best at what they do. Within their realm, they can do anything a low level techie can do and then some.

At least, that's how I'd see it. It depend on how the clergy is structured in your setting, though.

To me, the problem with this kind of reasoning is that channeling divine power directly from your god is "low-rung". Once you get past the first few levels (which is usually when you can start entering PRCs), you're able to pull people from deaths door with a wave of your hand and a brief prayer.

If "anyone" could be a cleric, most commoners would go that route (profession skills are based on wisdom anyway), and suddenly injuries would be far less of a problem in the world. Ofcourse, crunch-wise this is how it would be, but fluff-wise PC-classes should be rare and spellcasters even more so.

I suppose that if you view clerics and dietys as weakly linked, as in clerics can easily change diety and channel someone elses power, specialized PRCs makes more sense, with the cleric giving up/restricting their ability to switch gods in exchange for more power. Sounds like material for another thread!

[Petrocorus]

My own 2 copper are the BladeSinger from CW. It try to be too much at once. The Elf warrior/dancer concept from AD&D 2 and WarHammer but also the Elf Fighter-Wizard (explicitly). And it's poorly executed, the entry requirements are big and don't combine well with the "most obvious" entry class (Feat-heavy and cross class skill) and it makes you lose 5 caster levels. The actual better entry to meet the prerequisites is Bard with a fighter dip, but you lose too much and the class feature don't combine with bard.



3) They are too good, especially some of the ones for elves.

Which Elf PrC is too good for your taste? Of all the PrC usually considered as "too good" and overpowered, none that i can think of is reserved to elves.


I know, I was enjoying the thread much more before it became pages of debating the definition of fluff vs. crunch; and "Mindrape: evil or just misunderstood?". :smallfrown:

Thank you. I second this.



For my 2 cents, one of the most annoying things is how many PrCs dedicated to giving melee types magical or pseudo magical powers (particularly classes about imbuing your weapon with powers) are medium BAB. I know full BAB isn't the be all and end all, but it kind of is a thing for melee types. Elemental Warrior, Dragon Samurai and Shadowblade all come to mind as offenders.

Vigilante, Suel Arcanamach, Divine Crusader... All requiring a rather good BAB but giving a medium one.


Oh, and another of my major PrC gripes: there is (AFAIK) no Undead-slaying PrC that doesn't require Turn Undead. Oh, you wanted to play a Fighter or Ranger who really hates undead and has a PrC to back it up? Sorry, you need a Cleric dip - i.........I keep meaning to homebrew one myself...
That bites me too. One of the strong contender IMHO is the Silver Pyromancer, it's an arcane PrC, not even specialised against undead but require TU for basically no reason.


Dare I ask how many classes require dipping into one of the Master Classes to fight undead?

Aforementioned Knight of the Raven and Soldier of Light (from Deities & Demi-God, IDK but i think it's 3.0). But there are some PrC with alternate casting that are not specialised against undead but can be good at it, like Suel Arcanamach.


A cleric dip isn't the end of the world - just trade out the domains for devotion feats. Travel Devotion is great, as is Knowledge Devotion. You can even dip Cloistered Cleric to keep your skills up on a skillmonkey or knowledgemonkey, and getting Know Religion as a class skill is helpful for classes like Rogue.

The prooblem with ditching Knowledge Granted Power for Knowledge Devotion is that you need the former to fuel the later.


However Deities and Demigods has the Soldier of Light class which doesn't require any of that, so our Fighter can actually enter it - to get the spells and TU he was missing to enter the other classes ;)
I like that class. And it combine well with Divine Crusader, also. You can build a neutral-good paladin with 9th lvl spells casting keyed on Charisma thanks to it.