Are most PRCs bad design?

[Necroticplague]

O.k., just a wierd thought that popped into my head while wondering about the assumptions that DnD seems to have: Are most PRCs bad design? It seems the vast majority of PRCs do one of two things, both of which seem like poor design.

1.The PRC sacrifices some power now for greater power in the future. Since you can't guarantee a character will have a future, this is a poor trade-off unless you start at a high enough level to get the 'later' already, in which case the very trade-off is moot.

2. The PRC grants great power now, in exchange for less power later. However, since there's nothing that actually forces you to take all the levels in a PRC AND nothing guarantees you'll live to have to take that trade off, this is a bad idea.

So, what do you guys think? Are there PRCs that are an example of good design?

[Bad Wolf]

Ruathar. Easy as hell to get in to, medium BAB, good skills and skill points, and advances spellcasting. Tons of other good ones that I can't list.

[Hrugner]

They aren't developed with an understanding of the power disparity in the classes and they sacrifice power for theme. I think they're well made for people who pick classes based on their name and theme, but awful from the perspective of power balance. I think they'd make some kick ass feat chains though.

[Extra Anchovies]

The good PrCs are the ones that focus on a specific part of the intended entry class, or that are theurge PrCs. Master of Many Forms, for example, is a good prestige class, since it takes part of the Druid (wild shape) and expands on it while leaving the animal companion and spellcasting by the roadside.

[Psyren]

1.The PRC sacrifices some power now for greater power in the future. Since you can't guarantee a character will have a future, this is a poor trade-off unless you start at a high enough level to get the 'later' already, in which case the very trade-off is moot.

This sounds less like "bad design" and more like "design I personally dislike." Why is this bad design? Some players (and DMs for that matter) enjoy the idea of Magikarp Power (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MagikarpPower) in their games. Also your premise is faulty - starting at a later level in the PrC does not make the dead level, dead feats or weak features (or all three) you had to take at the start of the PrC moot - the straight-classed character who did not have to endure these things can still enjoy an advantage. For example, a sorcerer that ate a dead level at the start of his PrC will end up a spell level behind the wizard for the rest of his career.



2. The PRC grants great power now, in exchange for less power later. However, since there's nothing that actually forces you to take all the levels in a PRC AND nothing guarantees you'll live to have to take that trade off, this is a bad idea.

This one I agree with, PrCs should never be frontloaded because folks will just dip in, grab what they want and then leave without taking the drawback at the end.

[Malimar]

Counterpoint: Some of the best PRCs simply make you focus on one thing at the expense of other things. Consider Virtuoso, which improves a bard's bardic music at the expense of spellcasting; consider also Sublime Chord, which improves a bard's spellcasting at the expense of bardic music. Master of Many Forms improves a druid's wildshape at the expense of spellcasting and animal companion. Sovereign Speaker improves a cleric's domains at the expense of two levels of their regular spellcasting. And so on.

I'd say most caster PrCs are of this form (or, at least, they attempt to be): they sacrifice spellcasting (in the form of a few lost caster levels) in exchange for giving you new and different options. (Some, obviously, don't sacrifice spellcasting at all, and many don't give you anything new or interesting, regardless of what they sacrifice.)

[AmberVael]

I can't actually think many PrCs that follows either of those designs. Most don't have a specific point of power return- so there is no "invest now, get great returns later" or "get good stuff and pay later." There are a few that largely hinge on one or two specific features, but most seem to be decent throughout, or horrible throughout. It really tends towards "you lose basically nothing and gain a decent amount" or "ABANDON HOPE ALL YE WHO ENTER HERE."

Which I mean, that's still not exactly an example of good design, now is it?

[Venger]

yes, most prcs are badly designed, that's why people only use a small fraction of the ones that exist. you won't see pcs clamoring to play a shining blade of heironious any time soon.


This one I agree with, PrCs should never be frontloaded because folks will just dip in, grab what they want and then leave without taking the drawback at the end.

What's the problem with this? Do you think people should have to take all of every class? I know the design philosophy in PF is that you should stay in a base class til 20 because of archetypes and things that fill in your dead levels, but most 3.5 clases do not work that way.

if you get all you need from mindbender 1, then leave. dipping in, grabbing what you like, and leaving, is how you build characters in this system, it leads to greater variety and customization. it might be involved design, but I don't think it's necessarily bad. after all it's not like anyone expects you to play sorcerer 20 or monk 20. dipping is expected, even if the entirety of a class isn't trash (like factotum) I think it's just different design goals in pf/3.5.

[AmberVael]

What's the problem with this? Do you think people should have to take all of every class?

The problem with this is that if you're designing a class to be really good now, and be balanced on the basis of "well the first levels are great but the last levels are pure crap so it works out" then if you just take the first levels and ignore the rest, you've gotten all the good stuff without suffering any of the flaws meant to balance it.

Being able to leave a class is fine... which is why balancing a single prestige class around "good now, bad later" is terrible design.

[squiggit]

Yeah, there's nothing wrong with dipping and I think Paizo goes too far the other way to try to make dipping a nonoption... but when certain PrCs give the player no reason to stick around past the first couple levels I'd say that's pretty bad.

[Amphetryon]

O.k., just a wierd thought that popped into my head while wondering about the assumptions that DnD seems to have: Are most PRCs bad design? It seems the vast majority of PRCs do one of two things, both of which seem like poor design.

1.The PRC sacrifices some power now for greater power in the future. Since you can't guarantee a character will have a future, this is a poor trade-off unless you start at a high enough level to get the 'later' already, in which case the very trade-off is moot.

2. The PRC grants great power now, in exchange for less power later. However, since there's nothing that actually forces you to take all the levels in a PRC AND nothing guarantees you'll live to have to take that trade off, this is a bad idea.

So, what do you guys think? Are there PRCs that are an example of good design?

Given your two pillars of 'bad design' (either lots of power up-front that isn't consistent or certain throughout a PC's career, or less power up-front in exchange for a power increase which isn't certain due to the uncertainty of both a campaign's longevity and the continued survival of any given PC), I can't think of a single base Class which would meet the apparent criteria of 'good design.' This makes me think it's less 'bad design' and more 'design philosophy Necroticplague doesn't like,' though it would seem fairly systemic within any level-based RPG I know. Either the PCs get more powerful as they level (bad design, by the above metrics), or their relative power tapers off as they level (again, bad design according to the above).

[OldTrees1]

Consider Bloodstorm Blade:

It has several cutoff points(1, 2, 4, 5, 10). The abilities gained at later cutoff points are stronger than the earlier cutoff points(as they should be since the PC is higher level now) but even the 1st level is a significant ability(not a sacrifice). Thus Bloodstorm Blade is a good example of balancing the level by level growth of a prestige class(although it could be better still).

[Psyren]

yes, most prcs are badly designed, that's why people only use a small fraction of the ones that exist. you won't see pcs clamoring to play a shining blade of heironious any time soon.

Right, but this is explained by Sturgeon's Law and thus there's no real point in discussing it. It sounds like OP has an issue with the concept of PrCs themselves, at least with the first example.


What's the problem with this? Do you think people should have to take all of every class? I know the design philosophy in PF is that you should stay in a base class til 20 because of archetypes and things that fill in your dead levels, but most 3.5 clases do not work that way.

It simply begs the question of "why have the later levels of X at all, if nothing they offer is worth sticking around for?" Every level of a PrC is optional, save for things like Risen Martyr and possibly Tainted Scholar.

I'm fine with dipping into Mindbender and leaving, if there were a compelling reason to stick with it. But there isn't, hence my agreeing that that is bad design. If a given choice is a no-brainer then it isn't a choice at all, it's just a calculation.

[jiriku]

Swiftblade is an excellently designed prestige class. I'd go so far as to call it the gold standard. I've also had good experiences with master specialist, trapsmith, divine oracle, fatespinner, radiant servant of pelor, and divine oracle. I haven't played them but I see a lot of good design principles when I look at mage of the arcane order, ultimate magus, divine disciple, dragon prophet, deadgrim, quori mindhunter, primal scholar, and warforged juggernaut. A lot of the Eberron prestige classes are exceptionally well-designed, actually (although not many of the ones in the primary Eberron sourcebook).

[Venger]

Swiftblade is an excellently designed prestige class. I'd go so far as to call it the gold standard. I've also had good experiences with master specialist, trapsmith, divine oracle, fatespinner, radiant servant of pelor, and divine oracle. I haven't played them but I see a lot of good design principles when I look at mage of the arcane order, ultimate magus, divine disciple, dragon prophet, deadgrim, quori mindhunter, primal scholar, and warforged juggernaut. A lot of the Eberron prestige classes are exceptionally well-designed, actually (although not many of the ones in the primary Eberron sourcebook).

I agree completely. I love all the eberron setting prcs. they really give you a good amount of stuff to make you want to stay there.

chameleon is also a good example of a class like this, due to how its casting works.

[Story]

I love all the eberron setting prcs. they really give you a good amount of stuff to make you want to stay there.


Thunder Guide

[AvatarVecna]

There's evidence to suggest at least 70 PrCs are pretty terrible...but that's not even a majority of all PrCs, so make of that what you will.

[Venger]

Thunder Guide
Say what you will, but it sure was a fun iron chef.

There's evidence to suggest at least 70 PrCs are pretty terrible...but that's not even a majority of all PrCs, so make of that what you will.

You want to talk about terrible design, check out the current round (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?425634-Iron-Chef-Optimisation-Challenge-in-the-Playground-LXX)

[Necroticplague]

Given your two pillars of 'bad design' (either lots of power up-front that isn't consistent or certain throughout a PC's career, or less power up-front in exchange for a power increase which isn't certain due to the uncertainty of both a campaign's longevity and the continued survival of any given PC), I can't think of a single base Class which would meet the apparent criteria of 'good design.' This makes me think it's less 'bad design' and more 'design philosophy Necroticplague doesn't like,' though it would seem fairly systemic within any level-based RPG I know. Either the PCs get more powerful as they level (bad design, by the above metrics), or their relative power tapers off as they level (again, bad design according to the above).

Option 3: The PrC gives consistent power throughout its whole levels, and acts as more of a variation of its entry.
That is what I think a good design for a PRC would be (and some people have had some examples, like MoMF and Bloodstorm Blade).

I don't object to getting stronger as one levels (that's the point of leveling). It just seems like bad design to have, say "Oh, this is gonna completely suck until level 10, at which point it's awesome", equally as much as it is to say "eh, just dip it for the feat, then GTFO".

[AvatarVecna]

Say what you will, but it sure was a fun iron chef.


You want to talk about terrible design, check out the current round (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?425634-Iron-Chef-Optimisation-Challenge-in-the-Playground-LXX)

Believe me, I already have. Usually, I at least attempt to put a build together, but this time I'm not going to kid myself.

[Venger]

Believe me, I already have. Usually, I at least attempt to put a build together, but this time I'm not going to kid myself.

oh yeah sure, I was just putting it there for the thread in general, I see you over there already. I feel largely the same. I think I might have an idea though. we'll see how it shakes out.

[A_S]

There's evidence to suggest at least 70 PrCs are pretty terrible...but that's not even a majority of all PrCs, so make of that what you will.
Not all of the Iron Chef classes are bad. I mean, the competition usually avoids PrC's that are so strong it's impossible not to use them well (like Incantatrix), because (A) finding good ways to use those classes is so easy it's boring, and (B) it leads to builds everyone's seen before because they're optimization staples. But there are plenty of decent and/or situationally strong ingredients in there. Cancer Mage, Mythic Exemplar, War Mind, Divine Crusader, Renegade Mastermaker, Geomancer, Slime Lord...all perfectly respectable classes.

[Amphetryon]

Option 3: The PrC gives consistent power throughout its whole levels, and acts as more of a variation of its entry.
That is what I think a good design for a PRC would be (and some people have had some examples, like MoMF and Bloodstorm Blade).

I don't object to getting stronger as one levels (that's the point of leveling). It just seems like bad design to have, say "Oh, this is gonna completely suck until level 10, at which point it's awesome", equally as much as it is to say "eh, just dip it for the feat, then GTFO".

What one poster, such as yourself, considers consistent power throughout, another almost certainly considers underpowered throughout, while another will call it too strong for his or her game. The vast majority of people I've seen online who talk about BSB don't consider it good for more than a 4-level dip, and I believe it rates as down at least one tier on the most commonly cited PrC-rating list I know. Master of Many Forms, by contrast, was considered powerful/unwieldy enough to earn a ban in the Test of Spite (and my home games, for whatever that's worth). 'Earns a ban in a popular optimization PvP contest' is not a ringing endorsement for a well-balanced, good PrC from where I sit.

Also, given that even the post supporting BSB above cites good 'dippable' levels, with levels 6 - 9 reading as undesirable to have to wade through in an environment where the payoff (10th level) isn't a certainty. By that measure, it's failing one of your own criteria, as a Character 'stuck' in those levels could well be complaining that there's no 'consistent power throughout its whole levels.'

Edit to add: I can't believe I forgot to mention the biggest problem most folks have with BSB. It's a PrC that requires Maneuvers and Stances, without advancing either of them at all. Maneuvers and Stances are not spells, but losing out on that progression, having been required to either invest in it or in a number of your precious Feats in order to gain access, is PAINFUL.

[OldTrees1]

Also, given that even the post supporting BSB above cites good 'dippable' levels, with levels 6 - 9 reading as undesirable to have to wade through in an environment where the payoff (10th level) isn't a certainty. By that measure, it's failing one of your own criteria, as a Character 'stuck' in those levels could well be complaining that there's no 'consistent power throughout its whole levels.'

Eh, I would have also listed 3, 6, and 9 as 'dippable' levels(at the optimization level I use) but they are not as well designed as 1, 2, 4, 5, & 10 since they do not grow in power. So I left them out to avoid muddying my example.

Here is my take:
Premise 1: The first level of a prestige class should be worth taking
Premise 2: The N+1th level of a prestige class should be better than the Nth level but not unreasonably so.

However you are absolutely right that different groups(with differing optimization levels) would want prestige classes that follow those differing optimization levels. I don't think this is a bad thing provided there are enough options for everyone(inducing easy modifications).

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

To answer the thread question: Yes, I think most PrCs are an example of bad design. Not necessarily bad design philosophy.

The idea behind PrCs is usually that they're more specialized versions of particular ideas. They move you from the taxonomic genus to the species, if you will; no longer are you a Wizard, now you're a Lorekeeper, a wizard to whom knowledge is sacred and blah blah whatever. And then your choices within that framework give you the individual. I think that's a fine idea.

The problem is in the execution. The vast majority of published prestige classes fall into one of four categories:

1) They require you to give up so much that it's impossible to justify their use - Harper Master is a good example.
2) They require you to give up nothing of value, so there's no reason not to use them; many full-casting PrCs, for example.
3) They're drastically underpowered, or written so poorly as to be unusable. CW's Order of the Bow Initiate, for example, or many of the Forgotten Realms 3.0 cleric/rogue hybrids.
4) They're drastically overpowered; classics like Ruby Knight Vindicator, for example. A RKV will very nearly always be better than a Cleric/Warblade, just by the very nature of the class.

Power creep is responsible for some of this. Philosophy creep is responsible for some as well. As multiclassing became more of an inherent assumption in 3.5's lifespan, prestige classes became, I think, better on average. Fewer really overpowered options, fewer really terrible options, and more that were just generally better than their parent classes.

The biggest factor is that the designers, while in most cases good designers, are moderately crap at balance. That's fine! It's not their job to be good at that. Buuut it also seems like many of the balance testers weren't great at that either, or their input didn't make it in, or something. So you end up with a good philosophy applied badly, and the result is a bad design. It's like wanting to paint your kitchen a geometric pattern with strong colors and ending up with zebra stripes in bright yellow and pink. I like geometric patterns and color, but that's still not a place where I want to cook breakfast.

[Venger]

To answer the thread question: Yes, I think most PrCs are an example of bad design. Not necessarily bad design philosophy.
Well said, I agree.



The problem is in the execution. The vast majority of published prestige classes fall into one of four categories:

1) They require you to give up so much that it's impossible to justify their use - Harper Master is a good example.
2) They require you to give up nothing of value, so there's no reason not to use them; many full-casting PrCs, for example.
3) They're drastically underpowered, or written so poorly as to be unusable. CW's Order of the Bow Initiate, for example, or many of the Forgotten Realms 3.0 cleric/rogue hybrids.
4) They're drastically overpowered; classics like Ruby Knight Vindicator, for example. A RKV will very nearly always be better than a Cleric/Warblade, just by the very nature of the class.
that about covers it. I disagree that RKV is overpowered, I'd just call it "good" (after all, if it weren't better than what you entered as, there'd be no reason to take it) but the basic breakdown of categories, I'm onboard with


Power creep is responsible for some of this. Philosophy creep is responsible for some as well. As multiclassing became more of an inherent assumption in 3.5's lifespan, prestige classes became, I think, better on average. Fewer really overpowered options, fewer really terrible options, and more that were just generally better than their parent classes.
and you lost me.

Power creep is used as a 4 letter word in the gaming industry, but it's an inevitable part of the medium. While it's easy to forget in the information age, the ostensible goal is to get us to pay money for stuff. if none of the prcs in the books are more powerful than what we've already got, then we won't use them and won't have any reason to buy the product, so I'm kind of fine with it.


The biggest factor is that the designers, while in most cases good designers, are moderately crap at balance. That's fine! It's not their job to be good at that. Buuut it also seems like many of the balance testers weren't great at that either, or their input didn't make it in, or something. So you end up with a good philosophy applied badly, and the result is a bad design. It's like wanting to paint your kitchen a geometric pattern with strong colors and ending up with zebra stripes in bright yellow and pink. I like geometric patterns and color, but that's still not a place where I want to cook breakfast.
it kinda is their job to be good at balance, they just aren't much good at it.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

and you lost me.

Power creep is used as a 4 letter word in the gaming industry, but it's an inevitable part of the medium. While it's easy to forget in the information age, the ostensible goal is to get us to pay money for stuff. if none of the prcs in the books are more powerful than what we've already got, then we won't use them and won't have any reason to buy the product, so I'm kind of fine with it.

I'm not making a values judgement on creep. But, as a consequence of that creep - which is understandable and normal for all the reasons you said - you end up with more of those PrCs that arre significantly too good. RKV to me is an example of an overpowered PrC, because I think an ideally designed PrC won't be more or less powerful, just different. RKV, and many others, is always better than its two parent classes. But that's kind of an old fashioned idea, and within the reality of 3.5 as a system RKV is fine, power-wise.

Edit: So when I say overpowered or underpowered, I'm talking about compared solely to the classes you'd take to get into the PrC. CW's OotBI is underpowered compared to Ranger. RKV is much better than splitting Cleric/Crusader.

[ericgrau]

They are a bad design in that they tend to be stronger than taking non-PRC classes. The original intent in the DMG was for them to be something special and obtained via roleplay. For example becoming an assassin might also include convincing the assassin's guild to let you in, in addition to all the listed pre-reqs. Which helps the extra power make a bit more sense. Unfortunately this doesn't tend to happen though. Most of the caster PRCs especially are strictly better than taking more caster class levels.

If you integrate them with the campaign as intended then I think they might be pretty nice. You get more power, variety and fun but it still makes sense for many single classed casters to exist too so you don't lose that variety either. i.e., PRCs are great in small doses when you use them to distinguish someone for campaign reasons, not as the norm.

[Forrestfire]

I'm not making a values judgement on creep. But, as a consequence of that creep - which is understandable and normal for all the reasons you said - you end up with more of those PrCs that arre significantly too good. RKV to me is an example of an overpowered PrC, because I think an ideally designed PrC won't be more or less powerful, just different. RKV, and many others, is always better than its two parent classes. But that's kind of an old fashioned idea, and within the reality of 3.5 as a system RKV is fine, power-wise.

Edit: So when I say overpowered or underpowered, I'm talking about compared solely to the classes you'd take to get into the PrC. CW's OotBI is underpowered compared to Ranger. RKV is much better than splitting Cleric/Crusader.

I feel like you're making a false equivalency. A ruby knight vindicator is stronger than a crusader (because it has cleric casting) and significantly weaker than a straight cleric (because of the level cost of multiclassing crusader and losing casting in the prc). It's a strong class, but weaker than half if it's ingredients. Personally, I like the RKV. It's at a balance point that isn't toxic to most campaigns, because using it cuts a cleric's power by a bit while emphasizing the fun and non-broken things a cleric does (gishing mostly).

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I feel like you're making a false equivalency. A ruby knight vindicator is stronger than a crusader (because it has cleric casting) and significantly weaker than a straight cleric (because of the level cost of multiclassing crusader and losing casting in the prc). It's a strong class, but weaker than half if it's ingredients. Personally, I like the RKV. It's at a balance point that isn't toxic to most campaigns, because using it cuts a cleric's power by a bit while emphasizing the fun and non-broken things a cleric does (gishing mostly).

Yeah, but I'm comparing it specifically to its entry requirements, and to that concept. I'm comparing RKV to Cleric/Crusader, not to Cleric or to Crusader, because that's what a RKV is in concept.

[Story]

By that standard, even Mystic Theurge is OP. As is every Theurge PRC, for that matter.

[Venger]

By that standard, even Mystic Theurge is OP. As is every Theurge PRC, for that matter.

right, that's his position, that if a prc makes you stronger, that it's bad. I think the consensus on this thread and in general is the opposite.

I agree with Forrestfire re: RKV. while it may be stronger than a crusader, it's weaker than a cleric, since it requires crusader levels, putting you behind a cleric/xx full casting prc, so even on a "+power prcs are bad" it wouldn't really count vs something like say malconvoker, which just makes a caster stronger with no sacrifice or forced multiclassing into a noncasting class, which quicklyrainbow would categorize as a bad prc

[OldTrees1]

right, that's his position, that if a prc makes you stronger, that it's bad. I think the consensus on this thread and in general is the opposite.

Hold on a moment. Take Planar Shepard as an example rather than the multiclass PrCs. There is no opportunity cost worth noting for a Druid going into Planar Shepard rather than progressing Druid. I think we can all agree that Planar Shepard is bad design in this respect.

QuickLyRaiNbow was proposing that PrCs ideally would be balanced such that there was a choice between prestiging out or not rather than a mere calculation(a choice with an inherent and obvious right answer). Now QuickLyRaiNbow's position gets a little more complicated when it comes to theruge classes due to WotC's poor implementation of multiclassing spellcasters.


Yeah, but I'm comparing it specifically to its entry requirements, and to that concept. I'm comparing RKV to Cleric/Crusader, not to Cleric or to Crusader, because that's what a RKV is in concept.

While ideally this comparison would have merit, WotC failed to make a Wizard/Cleric comparable to a Wizard or a Cleric of equal ECL. As a result comparing an X/Y to an X or an X/Y/Theruge is going to get erroneous results.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

right, that's his position, that if a prc makes you stronger, that it's bad. I think the consensus on this thread and in general is the opposite.

I agree with Forrestfire re: RKV. while it may be stronger than a crusader, it's weaker than a cleric, since it requires crusader levels, putting you behind a cleric/xx full casting prc, so even on a "+power prcs are bad" it wouldn't really count vs something like say malconvoker, which just makes a caster stronger with no sacrifice or forced multiclassing into a noncasting class, which quicklyrainbow would categorize as a bad prc

My position is not, and has never been, that PrCs that add power in particular areas are bad. My position is that PrCs that are must-takes for particular archetypes are bad design. You cannot make a Cleric 10/Crusader 10 that's as effective as a Cleric 5/Crusader 5/RKV 10. The Mystic Theurge isn't overpowered relative to 3.5, but it is relative to Wizard 10/Cleric 10. It's overpowered relative to its own archetype. Planar Shepherd is stupid (in part; it's stupid for lots of reasons) because it advances every feature of Druid better than the Druid does and gives up nothing to do so.

In fariness, most of the reason for that rests with casting classes in core and their lack of class features. A Wizard PrCing out to a full casting class gives up, usually, two feats. Three, if you can get out before level 5. A Cleric or Sorcerer doing the same gives up nothing. If there were meaningful sacrifices to dropping out of most classes early, there might be a reason not to take dual-advancement classes. Part of why Tome of Battle and Magic of Incarnum are so good is that the classes continue to have class features despite also having casting progressions. There's a reason to be a Warblade 20, or a Totemist 20. Meanwhile, a Cleric 6 will always be inferior to a Cleric 5/Full casting PrC 1, because the PrC has features and the Cleric doesn't.

As an example of a class I mostly like from a design perspective, the Assassin is a Rogue that trades something useful for something useful. Your Sneak Attack is significantly upgraded, but you give up a lot of skills. That is, or should be, meaningful.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

While ideally this comparison would have merit, WotC failed to make a Wizard/Cleric comparable to a Wizard or a Cleric of equal ECL. As a result comparing an X/Y to an X or an X/Y/Theruge is going to get erroneous results.

It would help if spells were slightly less crazy good. I think you'd see times where dual-advancement classes would be worthwhile some, but not all, of the time if there were meldshaping/maneuver or invocation/maneuver theurge classes. As it it access to high level spells is better than every existing class feature.

[OldTrees1]

It would help if spells were slightly less crazy good. I think you'd see times where dual-advancement classes would be worthwhile some, but not all, of the time if there were meldshaping/maneuver or invocation/maneuver theurge classes. As it it access to high level spells is better than every existing class feature.

Non caster/Non caster theruge classes tend to do a good job of being viable but not must-takes. This is due to each side contributing to the other when multiclassing(no X >> X/Y problem and thus no need for the X/Y << X/Y/Theruge patch).

[Chronos]

Personally, the test I apply is this: Can you give a good reason why you'd prefer to take base class 20 instead of the prestige class? If not, then the prestige class is overpowered.

Note that I only apply this to a single base class. Mystic theurge is much better than half-and-half arcane casting class and divine casting class, but that's the fault of the way spellcasting interacts with the multiclassing rules, not the fault of the prestige class. And there are plenty of reasons you'd want either wizard 20 or cleric 20 instead of mystic theurge, so it passes my test.

[Venger]

My position is not, and has never been, that PrCs that add power in particular areas are bad. My position is that PrCs that are must-takes for particular archetypes are bad design. You cannot make a Cleric 10/Crusader 10 that's as effective as a Cleric 5/Crusader 5/RKV 10. The Mystic Theurge isn't overpowered relative to 3.5, but it is relative to Wizard 10/Cleric 10. It's overpowered relative to its own archetype. Planar Shepherd is stupid (in part; it's stupid for lots of reasons) because it advances every feature of Druid better than the Druid does and gives up nothing to do so.
Fair enough.

But just about anything is better than cleric10/crusader10. Does that mean all prcs are bad? Same with wizard10/clr10. unless you're an example 3.0 NPC, no one would try to take that in the first place, so saying "MT is OP because it's stronger than wiz10/clr10" seems sort of disingenuous to me.

ok, so anything that progresses everything that you care about without cost is bad design in your opinion. fair enough. I disagree, but I understand that position more than what I thought your earlier one was. thanks for clarifying.


Personally, the test I apply is this: Can you give a good reason why you'd prefer to take base class 20 instead of the prestige class? If not, then the prestige class is overpowered.

Note that I only apply this to a single base class. Mystic theurge is much better than half-and-half arcane casting class and divine casting class, but that's the fault of the way spellcasting interacts with the multiclassing rules, not the fault of the prestige class. And there are plenty of reasons you'd want either wizard 20 or cleric 20 instead of mystic theurge, so it passes my test.
so do you think all full casting classes are overpowered then since if you enter them as say sorcerer or cleric, you give up nothing and continue gaining spls and also get some features? (not saying you shouldn't, just want to understand your position)

[ShaneMRoth]

So, what do you guys think? Are there PRCs that are an example of good design?

The Assassin.

The Assassin is an example of a well-designed prestige class, and is the only prestige class in the Core Rules that I've ever seen any player show any interest in putting into play.

There are better PrCs out there, but the Assassin is the standard by which I measure all PrCs.

But first, lets talk about the Bard.

Long ago... in an ancient time... a time before Advanced Dungeons and Dragons... there were four classes. The Fighter, the Magic User, the Cleric, and the Thief.

The Paladin, the Ranger, the Druid and the Barbarian came later. They were variations on a theme, but they weren't mechanically prestige classes.

The Assassin and the Monk were somewhat specialized, but not really mechanically Prestige Classes. (It was 3rd Edition that officially deemed the Assassin to be a prestige class. A decision with which I concur.)

The Bard was the first Prestige Class I can remember. You had to have levels of Fighter... and Thief... and... I can't remember exactly what else. But mechanically, it was a Prestige class.

It was a Prestige Class that could be worked into nearly any campaign setting. I suspect that is why it was 'promoted' to a Core class.



The problem with PrC's is that there are so damn many of them.

PrCs were used as filler for 3.5 sourcebooks. There are dozens of PrCs printed in official WotC publications. Some of them were not well-designed, but that is besides the point.

PrCs are supposed to be specialized. That is part of their design. That's not a bug, it's a feature.

A well designed PrC is the perfect tool for one job, without being rendered useless for anything else. The Assassin is way better at killing with Sneak Attacks than a Rogue, the Rogue is a better overall problem solver.

A well designed PrC should not be a good fit for all campaigns.

Some PrCs will work really well against undead...

Some PrCs will work really well in urban settings...

Some PrCs will work really well in wilderness settings...

Some PrCs will work really well for planar travel...

A well-designed PrC should not be as universally useful as a Core Class.

[Venger]

A well-designed PrC should not be as universally useful as a Core Class.

This I think is the primary point of divergence between us pro-prc people and you anti-prc people. if it's not as good as what I entered as, then why would I take it? if all prcs are like this, then why would I buy prc-only splats? making prcs that are better than old prcs or old base classes is good design and business strategy (or was anyway) because otherwise we'd just sit around playing with old books instead of getting new stuff.

Good thing that never happened

[ShaneMRoth]

This I think is the primary point of divergence between us pro-prc people and you anti-prc people. if it's not as good as what I entered as, then why would I take it?

I don't consider myself to be anti-PrC.

I just don't think that a PrC is badly-designed just because it isn't equally useful for all campaigns in all adventures.

For the most part, by the time your character is eligible for a PrC, you will have figured out what the nature of your specific game is. What your specific DM's style is... then you can make a decision on which PrC would be the best fit for you.

There is no point in locking your character in to a specific optimization before you have some idea how that optimization is going to play at the table.

[ericgrau]

This I think is the primary point of divergence between us pro-prc people and you anti-prc people. if it's not as good as what I entered as, then why would I take it? if all prcs are like this, then why would I buy prc-only splats? making prcs that are better than old prcs or old base classes is good design and business strategy (or was anyway) because otherwise we'd just sit around playing with old books instead of getting new stuff.

Good thing that never happened

The key word is universally. If going into a PrC is always better, why should anyone ever take a base class past level 6?

It should be sometimes better, sometimes worse, or provide another reason to not always take it. Most 3.5 PrCs give little reason to not PrC out at 6.

[Venger]

The key word is universally. If going into a PrC is always better, why should anyone ever take a base class past level 6?

It should be sometimes better, sometimes worse, or provide another reason to not always take it. Most 3.5 PrCs give little reason to not PrC out at 6.

A lot of the time, they shouldn't. Like with sorcerer or cleric. If you don't have any class features beyond level 1, then it's not the prc's fault that you want to leave. the problem is that the base class is poorly designed. you're pointing the finger in the wrong direction.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Here's a thought experiment:

Any prestige class can be taken at character creation. If it advances any class features from a base class, the character would count as being Level 0 in that class. So an ECL 6 Planar Shepherd 6 would have the animal companion, casting and Wild Shape of a level 6 Druid. Which prestige classes would be mostly fine? Which base classes would become irrelevant? Let's leave aside dual-advancement classes for the moment.

[Venger]

Here's a thought experiment:

Any prestige class can be taken at character creation. If it advances any class features from a base class, the character would count as being Level 0 in that class. So an ECL 6 Planar Shepherd 6 would have the animal companion, casting and Wild Shape of a level 6 Druid. Which prestige classes would be mostly fine? Which base classes would become irrelevant? Let's leave aside dual-advancement classes for the moment.

what do you mean by "mostly fine" re: prestige classes? do you mean "so good they would always be better than base" or "they are weaker than base" ?

as far as base classes that are now pointless, it's pretty much just going to be cleric and sorcerer, same as now since they don't have any class features. wizards' feats are mostly inferior to full-casting classes, but they do represent some opportunity cost. you could probably look at most of the mundane dip classes like barb, pally, monk, and fighter, but again, people only take a few levels of them because they are terrible classes, not because all prcs that don't cripple you are too powerful.

[Extra Anchovies]

Here's a thought experiment:

Any prestige class can be taken at character creation. If it advances any class features from a base class, the character would count as being Level 0 in that class. So an ECL 6 Planar Shepherd 6 would have the animal companion, casting and Wild Shape of a level 6 Druid. Which prestige classes would be mostly fine? Which base classes would become irrelevant? Let's leave aside dual-advancement classes for the moment.

Ur-Priest, Blighter, Beholder Mage, Sublime Chord, that one Wizard PrC where it replaces your class levels, and Nar Demonbinder would all be OP, along with Divine Crusader with proper domain choices.

Suel Arcanamach, Knight of the Weave, and similar independent-progression classes would be pretty great but wouldn't break games outside of very low-op.

On a related note, does anyone know the wizard PrC that I'm referring to? It had some thing where you died, came back, and traded all of your class levels for levels in the PrC, and it gave full BAB and 9th casting in 10 levels.

[Amphetryon]

what do you mean by "mostly fine" re: prestige classes? do you mean "so good they would always be better than base" or "they are weaker than base" ?

as far as base classes that are now pointless, it's pretty much just going to be cleric and sorcerer, same as now since they don't have any class features. wizards' feats are mostly inferior to full-casting classes, but they do represent some opportunity cost. you could probably look at most of the mundane dip classes like barb, pally, monk, and fighter, but again, people only take a few levels of them because they are terrible classes, not because all prcs that don't cripple you are too powerful.

It seems to me that the metrics Necroticplague uses to define bad design for PrCs would make any base Class that is basically only useful as a dip 'bad design' as well. That leaves. . . Druid and Favored Soul?

[Venger]

I think the UE class you're talking about is nar demonbinder. what wizard class replaces your levels? do you mean tainted scholar?

[Extra Anchovies]

I think the UE class you're talking about is nar demonbinder. what wizard class replaces your levels? do you mean tainted scholar?

Yeah, I opened up UE and found Nar Demonbinder, and that's the one.

The Wizard prestige class is from some weird supplement (I think it's on the site-which-must-not-be-named, though, which means it's first-party), and had some thing where you died and came back or underwent some transformative ritual and then became a 1st-level character with one level in the prestige class, and it had full BAB and gave 9th-level spells. It had a generally evil-ish fluff to it. It's not tainted scholar.

[Venger]

Yeah, I opened up UE and found Nar Demonbinder, and that's the one.

The Wizard prestige class is from some weird supplement (I think it's on the site-which-must-not-be-named, though, which means it's first-party), and had some thing where you died and came back or underwent some transformative ritual and then became a 1st-level character with one level in the prestige class, and it had full BAB and gave 9th-level spells. It had a generally evil-ish fluff to it. It's not tainted scholar.

oh sorry you edited your post.

I've... never even heard of that class.

might you be talking about maho-tsukai, by any chance?

[Rubik]

Personally, the test I apply is this: Can you give a good reason why you'd prefer to take base class 20 instead of the prestige class? If not, then the prestige class is overpowered.That's not a good rubric at all. Most martial base classes are terrible past level 2 or so. "Do I go for my fourth dead level of fighter or take a class that actually gives me class features?" is a no-brainer, and it's not because the PrC you're looking at is badly designed.

[ericgrau]

A lot of the time, they shouldn't. Like with sorcerer or cleric. If you don't have any class features beyond level 1, then it's not the prc's fault that you want to leave. the problem is that the base class is poorly designed. you're pointing the finger in the wrong direction.

Insignificant compared to spells. Or I suppose those are the class features. Grab some splatbook spells for more variety. And I hope you're putting wizard in the same boat and not counting a bonus feat every 5 levels as a significant class feature.

That's still a bit of patchwork fix to apply random PrCs. May as well switch to Pathfinder instead and get class features on the base class, with alternates too. And it's a split opinion whether or not that's an improvement.

[Venger]

That's not a good rubric at all. Most martial base classes are terrible past level 2 or so. "Do I go for my fourth dead level of fighter or take a class that actually gives me class features?" is a no-brainer, and it's not because the PrC you're looking at is badly designed.

Absolutely. It almost always being a good idea to PRC mean the base classes are poorly designed, not that the prcs are bad.


Insignificant compared to spells. Or I suppose those are the class features. Grab some splatbook spells for more variety. And I hope you're putting wizard in the same boat and not counting a bonus feat every 5 levels as a significant class feature.

That's still a bit of patchwork fix to apply random PrCs. May as well switch to Pathfinder instead and get class features on the base class, with alternates too. And it's a split opinion whether or not that helps.

right, I agree. spells are the most important thing. the impression I got from QuickLyRaiNbow's post was that if you would progress everything you cared about, like spells, would you have any reason to stay in the class? since sorcerer and cleric have nothing besides spells, the answer is no.

no, as I said later on in that post, I don't think wizard feats are any obstacle, but QuickLyRaiNbow might, since his metric for prcs is very different from ours.

yeah, not a pf guy, myself, but let's not make the thread another "is pf better than 3.5" one, there's plenty of those already.

[Rubik]

Oh, and I think the 3.5 constructor and the 3.5 crystal master are two of the best PrCs in all of 3rd edition. They force you to give up manifester levels and class features for slightly more powerful class features that push you into specialization without neutering your ability to perform outside of those areas. Granted, the constructor has some slight issues with prereqs (ie, why would I ever, ever want to manifest Ecto Protection, or manifest Psionic Repair Damage if I'm not a warforged?), but the classes themselves are really good, while still incurring some costs from losing out on the feats or class features of the base classes you're no longer taking.

[squiggit]

Calling a PrC badly designed because it enables and fulfills a specific archetype seems like an especially weird position to take, because that seems more like the whole point of PrCs rather than a design failing.

[OldTrees1]

That's not a good rubric at all. Most martial base classes are terrible past level 2 or so. "Do I go for my fourth dead level of fighter or take a class that actually gives me class features?" is a no-brainer, and it's not because the PrC you're looking at is badly designed.

The rubric works when you don't transform a noun into an adjective.
A prestige class being universally better than staying in the base class is bad design(notice this is a noun).
This is not quite the same as saying the prestige class is badly designed(notice this is an adjective).

Ideally this bad design would not exist.

[Rubik]

The rubric works when you don't transform a noun into an adjective.
A prestige class being universally better than staying in the base class is bad design(notice this is a noun).
This is not quite the same as saying the prestige class is badly designed(notice this is an adjective).

Ideally this bad design would not exist.I'm not arguing that. Go back and look at the quote I responded to, because your response seems almost like a non sequitur.

[OldTrees1]

I'm not arguing that. Go back and look at the quote I responded to, because your response seems almost like a non sequitur.

I was defending the rubric(that you were critiquing) by improving the conclusion that you were rightly criticizing.

Although I thought he was using overpowered in a relative sense(aligning with the improvement to the conclusion) rather than an objective sense.

[ben-zayb]

In my experience, many of the beef with theurge PrCs come down to having more than 8 "+1 spellcasting progression", which essentially allows a full-caster to still rock level 9th. Not a position I agree with, but that seems to be the crux of the "gain something, for so little sacrifice" position.

[chaos_redefined]

So, this counts as the suck now, be awesome later aspect of things, but let's take a look at Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil.

It is a 7-level prestige class designed for wizards and sorcerers. For a wizard to enter it, he ends up taking 3 feats. Additionally, he gives up one feat and 2/5 of another compared to pure wizard (round up though... but it stacks with, say, the 1/5 of a feat that Mindbender takes up). So that's 4.4 feats. That's... not an insignificant cost, and one that a lot of people ignore. Is it worth the class features of IotSV? Arguable. Sorcerers have it slightly easier, as they aren't giving up bonus feats, so it is 3 feats. Still a very real cost. (Don't tell me you would have been taking Spell Focus(Abjuration) if it weren't a prerequisite feat).

This means that we have a full-casting class making a very real sacrifice in exchange for some very real benefits. It is arguable that those benefits are worth more than the cost, and I won't disagree with that sentiment. However, the viewpont that a full-casting class can't have a cost is clearly flawed.

[Extra Anchovies]

So, this counts as the suck now, be awesome later aspect of things, but let's take a look at Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil.

It is a 7-level prestige class designed for wizards and sorcerers. For a wizard to enter it, he ends up taking 3 feats. Additionally, he gives up one feat and 2/5 of another compared to pure wizard (round up though... but it stacks with, say, the 1/5 of a feat that Mindbender takes up). So that's 4.4 feats. That's... not an insignificant cost, and one that a lot of people ignore. Is it worth the class features of IotSV? Arguable. Sorcerers have it slightly easier, as they aren't giving up bonus feats, so it is 3 feats. Still a very real cost. (Don't tell me you would have been taking Spell Focus(Abjuration) if it weren't a prerequisite feat).

This means that we have a full-casting class making a very real sacrifice in exchange for some very real benefits. It is arguable that those benefits are worth more than the cost, and I won't disagree with that sentiment. However, the viewpont that a full-casting class can't have a cost is clearly flawed.

The thing is, feats aren't necessarily a meaningful cost for spellcasters. They don't have anything that they're required to spend their feats on, unlike martials. What is a meaningful cost for a spellcaster is, well, their spellcasting. Full-casters are strong enough without noncasting class features (as evidenced by the fact that single-classed clerics, sorcerers, and wizards [let's face it, bonus feats don't count as class features] are still T1) that any class that provides meaningful noncasting class features (e.g. Mage of the Arcane Order, or Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil, or anything that isn't just 10/10 casting with nothing else) and that doesn't force any dips (e.g. doesn't have something like sneak attack as a prerequisite) shouldn't also give full spellcasting progression.

That's not to say that every PrC should start with a noncasting level, but they should give up a level of casting at the same level that they provide one of the more meaningful class features. For example, IotSV should lose a caster level at level 4 (reactive warding) or level 6 (double warding), and Incantatrix should lose a caster level at 3 (metamagic effect). Unseen Seer, to give an example of a good-where-it-is casting PrC, forces a dip to meet the required skill prerequisites before 13th level, as well as to take full advantage of its class features (damage bonus doesn't do anything unless you have SA/SS/Sk from a different source), so it is fine where it is. Someone with levels of Unseen Seer has almost certainly already lost a caster level or three via Rogue or Scout dips.

[Svata]

So, this counts as the suck now, be awesome later aspect of things, but let's take a look at Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil.

It is a 7-level prestige class designed for wizards and sorcerers. For a wizard to enter it, he ends up taking 3 feats. Additionally, he gives up one feat and 2/5 of another compared to pure wizard (round up though... but it stacks with, say, the 1/5 of a feat that Mindbender takes up). So that's 4.4 feats. That's... not an insignificant cost, and one that a lot of people ignore. Is it worth the class features of IotSV? Arguable. Sorcerers have it slightly easier, as they aren't giving up bonus feats, so it is 3 feats. Still a very real cost. (Don't tell me you would have been taking Spell Focus(Abjuration) if it weren't a prerequisite feat).

This means that we have a full-casting class making a very real sacrifice in exchange for some very real benefits. It is arguable that those benefits are worth more than the cost, and I won't disagree with that sentiment. However, the viewpont that a full-casting class can't have a cost is clearly flawed.

Yeah, but for IotSV the main entry for wizards is via Master Specialist (abjuration). Because now it only costs one feat, unless you count giving up bonus feats, in which case it costs 5, if you want minimum levels of wizard in your build. (which you will. Those two are awesome classes, though it pains me to have to pick between their capstone unless you go into epic. IotSV wins that contest by a lot, though.) If you go maximal wizard it only costs you three feats. But you get two back from Master Specialist (even if they aren't good, they still count. Kinda.)

Also, as pointed out, you still have Full Casting. So its not a big deal.

[Extra Anchovies]

Those two are awesome classes, though it pains me to have to pick between their capstone unless you go into epic.

What?

Wizard 3/Master Specialist 10/Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil 7 or Wizard 3/MS 6/IotSV 7/MS +4
1: Spell Focus (Abjuration), Scribe Scroll (Bonus)
3: Greater Spell Focus (Abjuration)
4: Skill Focus (Spellcraft) (Bonus)
6: anything
9: anything
12: anything
15: anything
18: anything

[ShaneMRoth]

If going into a PrC is always better, why should anyone ever take a base class past level 6?
...


A lot of the time, they shouldn't. Like with sorcerer or cleric. If you don't have any class features beyond level 1, then it's not the prc's fault that you want to leave. the problem is that the base class is poorly designed. you're pointing the finger in the wrong direction.


...
Most martial base classes are terrible past level 2 or so. "Do I go for my fourth dead level of fighter or take a class that actually gives me class features?" is a no-brainer



Absolutely. It almost always being a good idea to PRC mean the base classes are poorly designed, not that the prcs are bad.


I speak in defense of the Core Classes.

Some of us really don't care that much about optimization.

If you do, I respect that, but that's you.

One time, I created a Half-Orc Fighter.

The other players, including the DM, pointed out that there were advantages to playing a half-orc Barbarian.

I didn't want to play a Half-Orc Barbarian.

And I didn't want to play a non-Half-Orc Fighter.

My character concept was Half-Orc Fighter.

Was he optimal? No, he was not.

Did I take any prestige classes? No, I did not.

Why?

Because it was my first break from being a DM in years. That's why.

I was tired of poring through rule books to keep Power Gamers from getting out of hand in my campaign. That's why.

Because I wanted to play a Half-Orc Fighter. That's why.

His name was Max.

Max's job? Protect the Glass Cannons.

You know how many Divine and Arcane spell-casters in that party were killed?

Zero.

You know why?

Because Max was good at his job.

Because Max said "You stand behind me and cast your spells. No one dies on my watch, except me."

And the Glass Cannons didn't have to be told twice.

A hit point is a hit point.

An attack bonus is an attack bonus.

An AC rating is an AC rating.

Everyone hits on a natural 20. Everyone misses on a natural 1.

Optimization is overrated.

And I have never sat at a game table where I heard anyone say, "you know, we have too many Fighters in this party."

[chaos_redefined]

Please note: I agree that Iot7V is strong, I'm just using it as an example because it has a fair few feat requirements for entry. To highlight this, I'm gonna make up a case.

Let's say that Malconvoker did not lose a level of casting, however, to enter, it required Spell Focus(Conjuration), Greater Spell Focus(Conjuration), Augment Summoning and Skill Focus(Knowledge[Planes]). Two of those feats are a total wash. Two of those feats, well, you're a summoner, you're taking them anyway. Is it still good? Yes. Is it strictly better than a summoning wizard who didn't take Greater Spell Focus and Skill Focus, instead taking other feats? Not necessarily. If the answer is still yes, tack on Skill Focus(Bluff) and perhaps even Skill Focus(Speak Languages) (Literally the most useless feat ever, as it does nothing).

Additionally, while I will agree that wizards don't have as many must-have feats (Quicken Spell is pretty high on the list, and Uncanny Forethought is pure amazing), they still benefit from feats. They are just more free to choose what they want. If a 10-level prestige class had no prerequisites and gave the equivalent benefit of two feats... that would be fine. (Because then they would be giving up the bonus feats from wizard progression, and gain the benefit of those two feats) Alternatively, if a 10-level prestige class had 3 prerequisite feats and gave the equivalent benefit of 5 feats, that would still be fine, for the same reason. (As long as the prereq feats weren't high priorities in the first place such as Spell Focus, and it would be somewhat more frontloaded, since the cost is more frontloaded)

[Extra Anchovies]

Let's say that Malconvoker did not lose a level of casting, however, to enter, it required Spell Focus(Conjuration), Greater Spell Focus(Conjuration), Augment Summoning and Skill Focus(Knowledge[Planes]). Two of those feats are a total wash. Two of those feats, well, you're a summoner, you're taking them anyway. Is it still good? Yes. Is it strictly better than a summoning wizard who didn't take Greater Spell Focus and Skill Focus, instead taking other feats? Not necessarily. If the answer is still yes, tack on Skill Focus(Bluff) and perhaps even Skill Focus(Speak Languages) (Literally the most useless feat ever, as it does nothing).

Additionally, while I will agree that wizards don't have as many must-have feats (Quicken Spell is pretty high on the list, and Uncanny Forethought is pure amazing), they still benefit from feats. They are just more free to choose what they want. If a 10-level prestige class had no prerequisites and gave the equivalent benefit of two feats... that would be fine. (Because then they would be giving up the bonus feats from wizard progression, and gain the benefit of those two feats) Alternatively, if a 10-level prestige class had 3 prerequisite feats and gave the equivalent benefit of 5 feats, that would still be fine, for the same reason. (As long as the prereq feats weren't high priorities in the first place such as Spell Focus, and it would be somewhat more frontloaded, since the cost is more frontloaded)

The issue is that feats are necessary for martials, but not necessary for casters. A Wizard 20 with no feats is still T1. The solution to balancing caster PrCs isn't to make them cost more of a non-essential class feature. It's to make them cost some of the important class features, i.e. spellcasting. Making PrCs more feat-expensive won't make them worse, it will only delay the level at which characters can enter them. It's putting off a problem instead of fixing it by making the classes have a meaningful entry cost for spellcasters (e.g. losing one or more levels of casting, whether by not granting casting progression at every level in the PrC or by forcing a dip into a noncaster class).

To illustrate the issue with raising feat costs, let's look at the Incantatrix. If it cost four weak feats to enter, e.g. Skill Focus: Knowledge (Arcana), Skill Focus: Knowledge (The Planes), Iron Will, and Spell Mastery, and had a class feature at first level that prevented you from gaining any more of the normal level-granted feats, it would still be way overpowered. Why? Because the four bonus feats from the class could be Extend Spell, Persistent Spell, Twin Spell, and Easy Metamagic (Twin Spell), and those + metamagic effect are the only things an incantatrix needs to be able to break the game. Also, it gives full casting anyways, so a caster doesn't lose any real power by entering the class even if they did give up all of their feats.

IotSV is another example of a class that could cost literally every one of a character's feats to enter but that would still be a strong class, since none of its abilities are dependent on using a particular feat, and at the end of the day it still gives full casting.


I speak in defense of the Core Classes.

That's not a refutation of venger's post, so I don't know what you're trying to accomplish here.

Sure, you may have done your job (keep X and Y alive) well. However, that doesn't make fighter a well-designed class, or a class worth staying in. A number of other classes could have done that job much better, and/or could have been able to do other things on the side. Examples include Crusader, Trip Barbarian, Summoner Wizard/Cleric, and many others.

Also, if a monster never got to the casters, one of three things is happening.
1. The DM is intentionally choosing not to target the casters.
2. The DM is only using nonsentient monsters with purely melee attacks.
3. The DM doesn't realize that any enemy who knows what a spellcaster is will probably be able to spot one and recognize it as a priority target.

[Story]

That's not to say that every PrC should start with a noncasting level, but they should give up a level of casting at the same level that they provide one of the more meaningful class features. For example, IotSV should lose a caster level at level 4 (reactive warding) or level 6 (double warding), and Incantatrix should lose a caster level at 3 (metamagic effect). Unseen Seer, to give an example of a good-where-it-is casting PrC, forces a dip to meet the required skill prerequisites before 13th level, as well as to take full advantage of its class features (damage bonus doesn't do anything unless you have SA/SS/Sk from a different source), so it is fine where it is. Someone with levels of Unseen Seer has almost certainly already lost a caster level or three via Rogue or Scout dips.

Losing feats is a real cost, because it means losing stuff like Uncanny Forethought. And the real test should be how the benefits compare to the costs. A PRC that provides powerful abilities like Incantrix or Iot7FV probably should lose caster level, but if say, Fatespinner lost a caster level, noone would ever take it.

[Svata]

What?

Wizard 3/Master Specialist 10/Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil 7 or Wizard 3/MS 6/IotSV 7/MS +4
1: Spell Focus (Abjuration), Scribe Scroll (Bonus)
3: Greater Spell Focus (Abjuration)
4: Skill Focus (Spellcraft) (Bonus)
6: anything
9: anything
12: anything
15: anything
18: anything

I was half-asleep and have largely been away from the game for several months. I derped, and I apologize. My bad.

[Venger]

Losing feats is a real cost, because it means losing stuff like Uncanny Forethought. And the real test should be how the benefits compare to the costs. A PRC that provides powerful abilities like Incantrix or Iot7FV probably should lose caster level, but if say, Fatespinner lost a caster level, noone would ever take it.

I reread this several times before figuring it out. I was like "when did I write this?" only to determine I didn't.

While I may agree with extra anchovies a lot, we're not quite at the point where we've merged into a single hideous shoggoth-like creature. he said that, not me :smalltongue:

for the record I'm on your side here.

[Extra Anchovies]

I reread this several times before figuring it out. I was like "when did I write this?" only to determine I didn't.

While I may agree with extra anchovies a lot, we're not quite at the point where we've merged into a single hideous shoggoth-like creature. he said that, not me :smalltongue:

Welp. Looks like it's the second time in two days that I've had occasion to link this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7Hoz2ZHYZM) (gory special-effects warning).

ETA: Just realized that Venger was also in the thread where it came up yesterday. I've been set up! :smalltongue:

[Venger]

Welp. Looks like it's the second time in two days that I've had occasion to link this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7Hoz2ZHYZM) (gory special-effects warning).

ETA: Just realized that Venger was also in the thread where it came up yesterday. I've been set up! :smalltongue:

hey, didn't you link that yester-

oop, beaten to it. looks like we're at the point where we finish each other's posts.

This is clearly a plot by the OOTB.

[chaos_redefined]

Yes, some prestige classes aren't balanced even if they cost all your feats. That doesn't change my point. A prestige class for casters can be balanced by feats. As long as the things it grants are on par with feats. Incantatrix doesn't do that. Iot7V arguably doesn't do that.

Fatespinner, however, is a reasonable prestige class (except that it's secretly only 4 levels long, but advertises itself as 5). Master Specialist costs a feat to enter, is 10 levels long (so costs 2 more feats compared to pure wizard) and has class features that are approximately on par with 3 feats. (I do not count Skill Focus or Greater Spell Focus as benefits worth the cost of a feat for most wizards). The problem with Master Specialist is that it gives the prereqs for other prestige classes such as Iot7V and Archmage.

[Venger]

Fatespinner, however, is a reasonable prestige class (except that it's secretly only 4 levels long, but advertises itself as 5). Master Specialist costs a feat to enter, is 10 levels long (so costs 2 more feats compared to pure wizard) and has class features that are approximately on par with 3 feats. (I do not count Skill Focus or Greater Spell Focus as benefits worth the cost of a feat for most wizards). The problem with Master Specialist is that it gives the prereqs for other prestige classes such as Iot7V and Archmage.

Right, see, that's what we're saying though, and you seem to understand it. If a caster class doesn't advance casting and is generous enough to put the dead level at the end, like fatespinner, people are just not gonna take it. people aren't going to take levels that make them worse at what they want to do.

[chaos_redefined]

Oh yeah. Don't get me wrong, I get that aspect. But if you take the 4 levels of fatespinner, you are going to lose a feat. So, compared to wizard 20, wizard 16/fatespinner 4 can mess with +1's 4 times/day and force a reroll 1/day in exchange for a feat. That's... comparable to a feat. It's actually fine as is. The class could probably get away with not losing a caster level at level 5.

That's what I'm getting at here. If the benefits of a prestige class are comparable to a feat, and the prestige class is 5 levels long and has no feat prerequisites... then it doesn't need to lose caster levels. That's a valid balance point.

Now, sure. Fatespinner 5 is horrible design. You get a class feature that save-or-sucks weaklings, and you lose a caster level which is impossible to get back. That's never gonna be worth it.

[Venger]

Oh yeah. Don't get me wrong, I get that aspect. But if you take the 4 levels of fatespinner, you are going to lose a feat. So, compared to wizard 20, wizard 16/fatespinner 4 can mess with +1's 4 times/day and force a reroll 1/day in exchange for a feat. That's... comparable to a feat. It's actually fine as is. The class could probably get away with not losing a caster level at level 5.

That's what I'm getting at here. If the benefits of a prestige class are comparable to a feat, and the prestige class is 5 levels long and has no feat prerequisites... then it doesn't need to lose caster levels. That's a valid balance point.

Now, sure. Fatespinner 5 is horrible design. You get a class feature that save-or-sucks weaklings, and you lose a caster level which is impossible to get back. That's never gonna be worth it.

Sure, I agree completely. It's a good deal. I think the trap some get sucked into is saying that the only meaningful thing for a caster to sacrifice is levels of casting, which is just too high a cost for a lot of players. fatespinner is a good example of how that's not alway true.

[Story]

It also requires burning skill points on Profession (Gambler), though admittedly, skill points are something Wizards are never short of.

[Venger]

It also requires burning skill points on Profession (Gambler), though admittedly, skill points are something Wizards are never short of.

well once you fill all your knowledges, it's not like you have anything else you really need them for. by the time you're considering fatespinner, you've got all you need to auto-ID stuff via spellcraft, and even maxing concentration, you'll be able to spare the points.

profession (gambler) is amusing though, since you cannot fail to make a profit after rolling. hardly gambling, really.

[NichG]

I'd say quite a few PRCs are badly designed because they're too niche in a game where niche is generally not just a bad idea, but is also tedious to keep track of. These 'most' PRCs are the PRCs that no one ever bothers talking about, because everyone looks at them, their eyes glaze over when they see things like '+2 bonus on rolls versus orcs' and they move on to things that they'll actually remember they have. It seems like this was in particular a problem with a lot of the earlier PRCs. Often what this translates to is that many PRCs are trap options for players who get lured in by the fluff but don't realize that the PRC's special gimmick isn't going to be that useful.

Stuff that everyone eventually learns about like Iot7V may be potentially broken, but at least they manage to be memorable for it.

My feeling is that if you're going to go with PRCs and make them good, you have three options. One option is to explicitly make PRCs something like substitution options for base classes, so they enable you to trade a specific thing for a specific thing, but you don't 'advance in a PRC' per se. Bonus points if that exchange can be done retroactively on previous levels after the fact.

Option two would be to just make PRCs mandatory replacements for normal advancement past a certain level. So there's no choice 'do I take a base class or a PRC' but rather you explicitly say 'the choice is what PRC to take?'. That way you can avoid the issue of balancing PRCs versus base classes (which would have been designed at different points anyhow), and you can just worry about balancing PRCs against each-other.

Option three would be to make PRCs something like an added character-advancement track that characters can use along-side their base class without replacing it. Sort of a gestalt-lite. The idea here might be something like 'each character gets a PRC track at Lv6 and another PRC track at Lv12; these give additional abilities as they level'. You could make them have plusses and minuses, be retrainable, etc. This is a way to make weaker (in general) PRCs more attractive.

The point of all of these options is that it makes the design more modular, so you don't have as many problems with having to either invalidate previous design or creating designs that are so underwhelming that they're invalidated by other things in the system the moment they hit the page.

[Chronos]

The funny thing about Incantatrix is that it does actually get something right: You keep full casting progression, but you have to give up an entire school of magic. That is, indeed, a significant cost. The problem with incantatrix isn't that there's no cost; it's that it gives you way too much in exchange.