What is your least favorite prestige class?

[Inevitability]

Because every thread needs its counterpart. :smalltongue:

I'm going to have to go with Prophet of Erathaoi. It's a class that requires four feats to enter, so that's bad in itself, but then it grants no class features except for all good saves and spellcasting advancement. There's so much great things you can give a celestial-channeling prophet, but instead they made this?

Also, it requires Spell Focus (Divination). That's right, you don't just have to pick Spell Focus, you have to pick the worst one.

[Necroticplague]

Mystic Theurge. Not a bad class, but it suffers from being incredibly boring. At least Prophet of Erathaoi pretends to have some form of class feature of it's own.

[JoshuaZ]

Mystic Theurge. Not a bad class, but it suffers from being incredibly boring. At least Prophet of Erathaoi pretends to have some form of class feature of it's own.

PF did a really decent job on making MT not boring.

I'm not sure what my least favorite PrC is. Most just don't speak to me very much. Monk of the Long Death is one of my least favorite. It is incredibly weak for what it is supposed to do (a straight monk is often better, which is saying something) and the interesting fluff is countered by one of the silliest fluff ideas: people have trouble remembering you because you are so creepy. That makes no sense whatsoever, so even to get that to work, one needs to fluff it completely differently about how the monks are adept at looking generic and harmless.

[Crake]

Risen Martyr. Awesome concept, but my 10th level capstone is "I die."

[John Longarrow]

To me its got to be Arcane Archer.
Not full BAB.
Requires casting to get into but DOESN'T ADVANCE CASTING. And its best class feature requires casting to use!

[NecroDancer]

Id say seeker of the song. It looks cool, but it is not even close to its "equal" sublime chord. The SotS isn't horrible it's just overhyped WAY too much.

[Inevitability]

To me its got to be Arcane Archer.
Not full BAB.
Requires casting to get into but DOESN'T ADVANCE CASTING. And its best class feature requires casting to use!

To add insult to injury, later material completely surpassed AA's class features. Take a look at Arrow of Death (available at ECL 16), then check out Spell Compendium's Arrow of Bone (available at ECL 13).

[bean illus]

Spymaster and . . .uhmm... Exemplar.
These two PrCs just had the potential but... You can do as much or more without them. Maybe a 1 dip, but when i first saw them i was excited, but no.

[lylsyly]

To me its got to be Arcane Archer.
Not full BAB.
Requires casting to get into but DOESN'T ADVANCE CASTING. And its best class feature requires casting to use!


To add insult to injury, later material completely surpassed AA's class features. Take a look at Arrow of Death (available at ECL 16), then check out Spell Compendium's Arrow of Bone (available at ECL 13).

Guess which PrC is my least favorite. ;)

[Kaje]

Mystic theurge. I already dislike spellcasting. Last thing I need is twice that.

[GrayDeath]

I do not pretend to know them all, but it would have to be either Arcane Archer (for the abovementioned Reasons) or the Kensai (which I love regarding the fluff and with some Houserules easily gets into my top 5) for not having full bab and these prereqs....

[Hogsy]

A "martial casting" PrC which is worse than Arcane Archer has got to be Eldritch Knight whether it's 3.5 or PF. It's one of my favourite considering the fluff(thank god Magus exists) and my least favourite for being a complete and utter faliure. In 3.5, you get full casting progression and full bab but no actual class features. In PF, you get a couple of bonus combat feats and at level 10, whenever you confirm a critical strike you can cast a spell as a swift action, so you basically get Quicken Spell for free, which is awesome, except it's not awesome at all. There's Magus who is an Eldritch Knight and then there's the Bloodrager who also plays like an EK except he actually gets class features! I don't know who designed the class, but he has obviously never played D&D. At least in PF, AA progresses his casting and gets lots of goodies. EK is just a mess. You already lose tons of BAB if you want to enter at 5th level or you go Magus and enter at 7th, in which case the class could be useful in order to get full bab and progress your spellcasting, except Magus can do a better job by sticking to Magus or spreading out to different 3.5 PrCs. I just don't see a point where entering EK is not a mistake. Even at a low-op game, as a fun option, it's barely an option at all since it gives nothing! A 15-20 crit magus could utilize the capstone, but you have to waste 9 damn levels which could be better spent elsewhere, while getting metamagic cheese feats in order to use Quicken more frequently, consistently and without living with the ridiculous mistake of being an Eldritch Knight.

[John Longarrow]

Hogsy,

I can see why you don't like it. Only gets full BAB and 9/10 casting.

[Long_shanks]

Least favorite means it's still a favorite.
So, Bloodstorm blade. I really like it mechanically. It's abilities make it a combattant to be feared.
However, I'm all for suspension of disbelief in a make-belief world of magic and dragons and ... but what he does is just plain ridiculous, with weapons ricocheting everywhere and blending everything. I mean, you can even throw people with it and kill everything in your path. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?107248-3-5-quot-King-of-Pong-quot-Hulking-Hurler-Dungeon-Crasher-War-Mind-Mashup)

[danielxcutter]

Spellsword. When you can take Battlecaster to have a Duskblade channel touch spells into a full attack while wearing heavy armor, you can see why no one takes the more than the first level.

[137beth]

If we're talking about 3.5: Dwarven Defender, because I really want a prestige class that does what it claims to do.
Runner up: Any prestige class whose only class features are number boosts.

If we're talking about Pathfinder: Way too many to choose from. Pretty much any Paizo prestige class gives either exclusively number boosts or has really minor class features that aren't nearly worth the prerequisites. I'd have to look a lot harder to find a prestige class that isn't abysmally boring.

[Nifft]

Metamind.

Taking it is usually much worse than not taking it.

It's like the designers didn't understand the system for which they were writing.

[Inevitability]

Metamind.

Taking it is usually much worse than not taking it.

It's like the designers didn't understand the system for which they were writing.

No, it's great! It protects you from dangers every psion has to face, such as running out of power points, by greatly crippling your manifesting progression. How can you not see the greatness? :smalltongue:

[J-H]

Metamind becomes much better if you are trying to not overshadow a lower-tier party, or if you are getting into Epic (25+), where power point pools do not get larger unless you multiclass or waste feats.

[Troacctid]

Or hey, maybe you're a Psionic Fist, War Mind, Zerth Cenobite, or Psionic Assassin, and you don't care about losing manifester levels because you cap out at 10 anyway!

[Inevitability]

Or hey, maybe you're a Psionic Fist, War Mind, Zerth Cenobite, or Psionic Assassin, and you don't care about losing manifester levels because you cap out at 10 anyway!

I, too, see nothing wrong with taking a manifesting-oriented class with poor BAB and adding it to a psionic gish.

[Stealth Marmot]

Honestly, as a guy who loves rogue/mages, the 3.5 version of the Arcane Trickster was always pretty horrible to me.

d4 hit die, bad BAB progression. You did get 2 good saves and full spell progression, which would be nice, were it not for the fact as by core it had horrible class requirements.

Without adding source books, you had to have at LEAST 8 levels before you could take the class at 9th level. That means that as a rogue, you were 5 levels behind in sneak attack, WAY down in skills, and even had a lower BAB and hit points. As a Wizard, you were 3 levels behind in caster level AND spells per day, not to mention spells known or added to your spellbook. And you had to put up with that for several levels, not to mention enduring either being unarmored or having spell failure.

And once you got to the class, what did you get? Sure you got 2 good saves and full sneak attack and spell progression, but you are already way behind on both accounts so you aren't catching up so much as not falling behind any MORE behind. Whats worse, you only get 4+int skill points per level, which means you don't have too many skill points to throw around. PLUS your familiar does not progress either.

Ranged Legerdemain is a top contender for one of the WORST class abilities of any prestige class. You do a thief style skill at a distance of 30 feet, taking a -5 on it to boot. Why 30 feet? Well that way the trap wont have you in the radius. If that is the case, and you don't care about the trap going off, just use mage hand and willingly set it off anyway. And you can only do this at most, 3 times a day, starting you only can do it once a day!

Impromptu sneak attack is nice, especially since there is no save against it, but by the time you have it you also can have invisibility OR greater invisibility, and not THAT many things can be sneak attacked, and all it means is maybe 3d6 damage the first time you are able to use it for ONE attack a day. Even at highest level it's only 2 attacks. By that point you are 15th level and an extra 5d6 damage is barely noteworthy.

Upon looking through my books I found one worse: The Black Flame Zealot. Rogue/Cleric hybrid class, you again have fewer skill points than the rogue (4+int) and the hit points of the rogue, so near worst of both worlds there. You have to dip 3 levels into cleric to fulfill the divine spell requirement, and to top it all off you have to take 2 feats: Iron Will and Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Kukri). The class only has half spellcasting progression, on top of the lost level at least to get the sneak attack requirements (and probably more to get the skill points needed). Sneak attack is also +d6 every 3 levels instead of every 2. You do get poison use and death attack, but those come with their own costs, both in money for poison and social cost of using poison possible. Other bonuses include a free flaming enchant on ONE weapon, which can become flaming burst for a whole minute (whoopity doo!), the ability to dimension door once a day, and corpses turning to ash after you kill them, which given that you get that at 15th level ranks up with Ranged Legerdemain in the useless class abilities area.

So those are my least favorite that I can think of right now. The Arcane Trickster for personal reasons, and the Black Flame Zealot for practical uselessness.

[Troacctid]

Without adding source books, you had to have at LEAST 8 levels before you could take the class at 9th level.
7, actually. Wizard 5/Rogue 1/Assassin 1/Arcane Trickster X.

[danielxcutter]

Honestly, as a guy who loves rogue/mages, the 3.5 version of the Arcane Trickster was always pretty horrible to me.

d4 hit die, bad BAB progression. You did get 2 good saves and full spell progression, which would be nice, were it not for the fact as by core it had horrible class requirements.

Are the requirements less horrible outside core? Maybe after you've finished Spellwarp Sniper?

[zergling.exe]

Upon looking through my books I found one worse: The Black Flame Zealot. Rogue/Cleric hybrid class, you again have fewer skill points than the rogue (4+int) and the hit points of the rogue, so near worst of both worlds there. You have to dip 3 levels into cleric to fulfill the divine spell requirement, and to top it all off you have to take 2 feats: Iron Will and Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Kukri).

Well this class is impossible to enter. Kukris are martial weapons, so you can't even take that feat! I guess that saves anyone trying to enter from wasting their time on it.

[Inevitability]

Are the requirements less horrible outside core? Maybe after you've finished Spellwarp Sniper?

Sudden Raystrike ≠ Sneak Attack.

I believe the conventional entry is Arcane Caster 5/Unseen Seer 5/Arcane Trickster 10, though depending on the exact reading of Damage Bonus and the build's priorities and willingness to spend a feat fixing the CL setbacks the exact number of Unseen Seer and Arcane Trickster levels may vary.

[Eldariel]

Shining Blade of Heironeous is pretty high up there. You give up ½ your casting levels...for the ability to use some weak spell-like blade buffs few times per day? Yeah, no thanks, I'll just be here taking my Cleric-levels. If I really want those particular abilities I have spells that bestow them. It's just strictly worse than the base class at the niche it tries to cater to. Most of the Complete ½ casting classes fall into this category, really (except Mindbender and Spellsword thanks to 1-level dips).


Sudden Raystrike ≠ Sneak Attack.

I believe the conventional entry is Arcane Caster 5/Unseen Seer 5/Arcane Trickster 10, though depending on the exact reading of Damage Bonus and the build's priorities and willingness to spend a feat fixing the CL setbacks the exact number of Unseen Seer and Arcane Trickster levels may vary.

I personally prioritise Unseen Seer-levels and just eat up the Practiced Spellcaster feat tax to ignore the downside of Divination Spell Power. I also find Unseen Seer-levels better than Trickster due to their increased number of skill points. That said, you don't gain Sneak Attack unless you have it while entering Unseen Seer so for this to work you'd need some other source of it - the prototypical build is Rogue-or-Spellthief 1/Wizard 4/Unseen Seer 10/Arcane Trickster-or-Spellwarp Sniper 5.

[Echch]

I think I'll have to second Eldritch Knight. It's just too boring .-.

Abjurant Champion is a close second, but that's not the classes fault, but the fault of the guy at my table who runs it -,-

[Togo]

Id say seeker of the song. It looks cool, but it is not even close to its "equal" sublime chord. The SotS isn't horrible it's just overhyped WAY too much.

I love the Seeker. It just doesn't work mechanically, and needs major surgery.

[John Longarrow]

SBOH is bad enough that I made a clone of Ruby Knight Vindicator to replace it. I also let them use turning attempts to power up their swords, not a big powerhouse but really nifty for use at mid levels.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Shining Blade of Heironeous is pretty high up there.
This is my least favourite. The class has no use. There is not even a joke build, a fluff-enabled build, or a singular trick that relies on SBoH. It's completely inert.

[Stealth Marmot]

7, actually. Wizard 5/Rogue 1/Assassin 1/Arcane Trickster X.
Then you have to be evil, even if temporarily. Plus assassins only get 4+int skill points so again you are rather skill point stretched, and even dropping 2 levels behind in spells per level means you are a full spell level behind AND have fewer spells overall, not to mention the caster level being lower.


Are the requirements less horrible outside core? Maybe after you've finished Spellwarp Sniper?

Spellwarp Sniper doesn't help in RAW. If you are going outside core, you may as well pick up Unseen Seer instead. That class requires only a single level of rogue and gives 6+int skill points per level, all the while giving full spellcasting progression.


Well this class is impossible to enter. Kukris are martial weapons, so you can't even take that feat! I guess that saves anyone trying to enter from wasting their time on it.
My bad, it is martial and not exotic.

That said, neither cleric nor rogue get it as part of their weapon proficiencies, so instead you would have to take MARTIAL Weapon Proficiency (Kukri)

[zergling.exe]

My bad, it is martial and not exotic.

That said, neither cleric nor rogue get it as part of their weapon proficiencies, so instead you would have to take MARTIAL Weapon Proficiency (Kukri)

That's not the problem. RAW you need to take Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Kurkri), but such a feat does not exist by RAW, as there is no exotic kukri to become proficient with. Unless you take the feat to become proficient with a weapon that doesn't exist and thus doesn't help you wield actual kukris.

[Necroticplague]

That's not the problem. RAW you need to take Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Kurkri), but such a feat does not exist by RAW, as there is no exotic kukri to become proficient with. Unless you take the feat to become proficient with a weapon that doesn't exist and thus doesn't help you wield actual kukris.

Koarti Resin Kukri and Alchemical Gold/Platinum Kukri are Exotic weapons.

[Malimar]

All the Disciple and Thrall PrCs in BoVD. There's too many of them to keep straight, and none of them are very interesting. Disciple of Dispater is potentially useful for critical hit optimization under a DM who fails to adapt 3.0 material to 3.5, but I count that as a mark against it if anything.

[DrMotives]

All the Disciple and Thrall PrCs in BoVD. There's too many of them to keep straight, and none of them are very interesting. Disciple of Dispater is potentially useful for critical hit optimization under a DM who fails to adapt 3.0 material to 3.5, but I count that as a mark against it if anything.

I built a villain with Beguiler into Thrall of Pazuzu, but I admit I did it for the fluff of the class features mostly. As a PC, it would have been smarter to go straight Beguiler instead of PrCing into something with half casting and the ability to summon & turn into a swarm of locusts. The straight Beguiler would shadow-magic summon the locusts instead.

[Troacctid]

Thrall of Zuggtmoy is pretty cool.

[danielxcutter]

Then you have to be evil, even if temporarily. Plus assassins only get 4+int skill points so again you are rather skill point stretched, and even dropping 2 levels behind in spells per level means you are a full spell level behind AND have fewer spells overall, not to mention the caster level being lower.

That first point is precisely why I don't really like that build(unless you're willing to be evil all the way, in which case I'm fine with it).


Spellwarp Sniper doesn't help in RAW. If you are going outside core, you may as well pick up Unseen Seer instead. That class requires only a single level of rogue and gives 6+int skill points per level, all the while giving full spellcasting progression.

I can't remember, but when do you qualify for Spellwarp Sniper at the earliest again?


My bad, it is martial and not exotic.

That said, neither cleric nor rogue get it as part of their weapon proficiencies, so instead you would have to take MARTIAL Weapon Proficiency (Kukri)

If you had the War domain, then at least that would be one less pain in the neck.

[Troacctid]

I can't remember, but when do you qualify for Spellwarp Sniper at the earliest again?
It's skill-gated, 8 ranks in Concentration and Spellcraft, so level 5 at the earliest.

[danielxcutter]

It's skill-gated, 8 ranks in Concentration and Spellcraft, so level 5 at the earliest.

Then Rogue 3/Wizard 2/Spellwarp Sniper 5/Arcane Trickster would work?

[Malimar]

I built a villain with Beguiler into Thrall of Pazuzu, but I admit I did it for the fluff of the class features mostly. As a PC, it would have been smarter to go straight Beguiler instead of PrCing into something with half casting and the ability to summon & turn into a swarm of locusts. The straight Beguiler would shadow-magic summon the locusts instead.

Thrall of Zuggtmoy is pretty cool.

Thrall of Zuggtmoy is a little neat, I suppose.

But both of those are from Dragon Magazine, which brings up another problem with the Thrall/Disciple PrCs: there's a bunch of them scattered around. I can barely keep track of the ones in BoVD, much less the Dragon Magazine ones, and there are probably some more in some other splatbook somewhere.

[Nifft]

All the Disciple and Thrall PrCs in BoVD. There's too many of them to keep straight, and none of them are very interesting.

Totally agree. And it's such wasted potential. Evil should be interesting, on either side of the screen.

I re-wrote all of those over on EN World, a while back.

[JoshuaZ]

Totally agree. And it's such wasted potential. Evil should be interesting, on either side of the screen.

I re-wrote all of those over on EN World, a while back.

Sounds interesting. Link?

[Nifft]

Sounds interesting. Link?

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?77916-BoVD-3-5e-Hellbound!

I should probably move all that stuff at some point.

[Stealth Marmot]

Then Rogue 3/Wizard 2/Spellwarp Sniper 5/Arcane Trickster would work?

Well no, not because you wouldn't meet the requirements for Arcane Trickster, but you wouldn't meet the requirements for Spellwarp Sniper. You have to be able to cast 3rd level spells to be a Spellwarp Sniper.

If you want the shortest, best path to Arcane Trickster, I would say Rogue 1/Wizard 4/Unseen Seer 1/Arcane Trickster

On its first level Unseen Seer provides Sneak attack AND caster level progression.

You start with 4 x (8+INT) Skill points at level 1, which means a lot to play with, you only lose 1 caster level and spells per day overall, and you become able to take it for your 7th level instead of your 9th. Your base attack bonus and fort save will suck though.

Personally I would keep taking Unseen Seer, it's got better BAB progression and skill points that Arcane Trickster and has some nice class abilities.

[Troacctid]

I mean, the best path is single-class Spellcaster (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/genericClasses.htm#spellcaster), losing no casting. Or single-class wizard, using test-based prerequisites (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/campaigns/testBasedPrerequisites.htm#arcaneTrickster).

[danielxcutter]

Hmmm, just had an idea, but if you use the Halfling Rogue substitution levels, you have one less sneak attack dice on your melee sneak attacks but one more on the ranged ones. Probably wouldn't count, but I have to know if it would and why it would or wouldn't.

[Fizban]

Knight Protector seems like a good candidate. Of all the classes that claim to protect someone, this one has the least ability to do so, nor is it good at anything else. Dishonorable mentions to Stoneblessed, which is useful only for getting into racial prestige classes that expect full BAB and so naturally has 3/4 BAB and is worse in every way than Ruathar, which is basically "elves are better than you and you should worship them, the class." Also every bard PrC that is nothing but an alternate song list with worse songs than the base bard and also no casting, which is most of them.

[digiman619]

Dishonorable mentions to Stoneblessed, which is useful only for getting into racial prestige classes that expect full BAB and so naturally has 3/4 BAB and is worse in every way than Ruathar, which is basically "elves are better than you and you should worship them, the class."

I didn't know that they converted Blade Dancer to 3rd Edition...

[Esprit15]

Cloud Anchorite - You're the old man who lives in the mountains. You won't ever die of old age, but that's because your class features mean you shouldn't be fighting anything.

[Kaje]

Dishonorable mentions to Stoneblessed, which is useful only for getting into racial prestige classes that expect full BAB and so naturally has 3/4 BAB and is worse in every way than Ruathar, which is basically "elves are better than you and you should worship them, the class." Also every bard PrC that is nothing but an alternate song list with worse songs than the base bard and also no casting, which is most of them. What? Stoneblessed at least gets you into those classes. Ruathar does nothing.

[Fizban]

But Ruathar has full casting, so you're not going into a elf only PrC: you're going into some other full casting PrC. It's used for dodging restrictions on caster/gish builds to get into things early and/or without losing BAB. The only use for Stoneblessed is to get into racial only PrCs, and it can't even do that right.

[Nifft]

But Ruathar has full casting, so you're not going into a elf only PrC: you're going into some other full casting PrC. It's used for dodging restrictions on caster/gish builds to get into things early and/or without losing BAB. The only use for Stoneblessed is to get into racial only PrCs, and it can't even do that right. Ruathar would be neat if it gave Elven Generalist access, but it comes a bit late for that.

Stoneblessed with full casting would be killer for Shadowcraft Multiculturalism.

[Cosi]

I really dislike the various half caster PrCs. They have a bunch of cool class features, but they are almost never worth giving up casting. This forces you to pick between an effective character and an interesting one, and that's not a choice you want people to make.

For example, the Green Star Adept. The Green Star Adept gives you a bunch of minor class features. You get some buffs to your melee stats, some immunities, and you become immortal. That's cool. I could totally imagine playing a Green Star Adept, or having a Green Star Adept villain, or including a group of NPC Green Star Adepts. But it costs five levels of casting. So it sucks.

The game would be much better if all those classes gave full casting.

[Necroticplague]

The game would be much better if all those classes gave full casting.

Then there would be pretty much no reason to stay with the base classes. It makes sense to give up some casting for different abilities. The ratios are still of. There should be some trade-off, however.

[Malimar]

The game would be much better if all those classes gave full casting.Then there would be pretty much no reason to stay with the base classes. It makes sense to give up some casting for different abilities. The ratios are still of. There should be some trade-off, however.

Yeah, I think 9/10 and 8/10 casting allow for pretty decent tradeoffs. Which is what a prestige class should be, in my opinion: a tradeoff of one thing for another, not a strict upgrade.

[Inevitability]

Yeah, I think 9/10 and 8/10 casting allow for pretty decent tradeoffs. Which is what a prestige class should be, in my opinion: a tradeoff of one thing for another, not a strict upgrade.

Indeed. Psionics does this well: I believe there's only one PrC there that grants full advancement.

[Cosi]

Then there would be pretty much no reason to stay with the base classes. It makes sense to give up some casting for different abilities. The ratios are still of. There should be some trade-off, however.

Yeah, I think 9/10 and 8/10 casting allow for pretty decent tradeoffs. Which is what a prestige class should be, in my opinion: a tradeoff of one thing for another, not a strict upgrade.

I disagree. I think that caster PrCs solve a number of issues, and it is not only okay, but actively good, if taking them instead of base class levels is the right choice.

First, the best caster PrCs already offer full casting. You wouldn't play a Green Star Adept over an Incantatrix even if it was full casting, making it anything less is stupid. Similarly with Shadowcraft Mage and Mindbender, Dweomerkeeper and Acolyte of the Skin, or any number of other classes.

Second, we should be encouraging people to bail on boring classes. Clerics stop getting class features at 2nd level. So do Sorcerers (not counting Familiar advancement). Wizards get a bonus feat every five levels. That's boring. People should get interesting abilities, and the way to do that is either by writing class features for the base class or encouraging people to leave. Yes, they get casting, but in most cases that only covers half of their levels.

Third, it makes casters more distinct. If I'm a Wizard/Mindbender, and you're a Wizard/Green Star Adept, and he's a Wizard/Acolyte of the Skin, and she's a Wizard/Bonded Elemental Summoner we each have access to unique abilities that we wouldn't if we were all straight Wizards. If we had all just taken a bunch of Wizard levels, the only distinctions between our characters would be feats (which could very well all be the same) and spells (which we could all change tomorrow).

Fourth, it's simply not that much power. Being a Wyrm Wizard or whatever is a drop in the bucket compared to the fact that you can cast polymorph, planar binding, or even cloudkill. This is amplified by the first point.

Fifth, it creates bad incentives. If you lose the spellcasting level at the start, you're paying now for power later. That's a bad deal because you suck for several levels, potentially the entire campaign if it ends before you finish your PrC. If you lose the spellcasting level at any other time, you just bail before that point and pocket free stuff. And that's assuming you got the balance exactly right. If you didn't, you end up with stuff like the Eldritch Knight where the cost isn't worth everything you paid even after taking the full class.

Ultimately, making the trade off smaller doesn't solve the problem. You're still asking people to choose between interesting abilities and level appropriate abilities, and that is a bad choice.

If you really feel that things like "learn a Cleric spell every other level" or "immunity to critical hits" are broken, you can charge people spell slots for them.

[Troacctid]

Given the choice between making the base class a trap and making the prestige class a trap, I'd rather have the prestige class be a trap, honestly.

[Necroticplague]

I disagree. I think that caster PrCs solve a number of issues, and it is not only okay, but actively good, if taking them instead of base class levels is the right choice.

First, the best caster PrCs already offer full casting. You wouldn't play a Green Star Adept over an Incantatrix even if it was full casting, making it anything less is stupid. Similarly with Shadowcraft Mage and Mindbender, Dweomerkeeper and Acolyte of the Skin, or any number of other classes.
'Other classes that already exist are broken' is a fact. However, to come to the conclusion 'therefore, making classes similar to them wouldn't produce broken classes' is an egregious non-sequitor. Yes, Incantatrix should lose a few levels out of it's spell progression, due to the potency of it's class features.


Second, we should be encouraging people to bail on boring classes. Clerics stop getting class features at 2nd level. So do Sorcerers (not counting Familiar advancement). Wizards get a bonus feat every five levels. That's boring. People should get interesting abilities, and the way to do that is either by writing class features for the base class or encouraging people to leave. Yes, they get casting, but in most cases that only covers half of their levels.If the base class being boring is a problem, a more sensible solution would seem to be 'make the base class less boring'. Not 'make PRCing out ASAP mandatory'. Which is what you do when you make PRCs that are strictly better than just the base classes.


Third, it makes casters more distinct. If I'm a Wizard/Mindbender, and you're a Wizard/Green Star Adept, and he's a Wizard/Acolyte of the Skin, and she's a Wizard/Bonded Elemental Summoner we each have access to unique abilities that we wouldn't if we were all straight Wizards. If we had all just taken a bunch of Wizard levels, the only distinctions between our characters would be feats (which could very well all be the same) and spells (which we could all change tomorrow).Again, this is a problem with the Wizard class, not it's PRCs. I hear this problem, and think the solution is to add actual class features to the wizard, so wizards can be more differentiated. They do take a half-step in the right direction with school specialization, but I think they should have gone much further.
Actually, i think Wizard as a class shouldn't exist. it's bland, flavorless, and poorly-defined. Split it's spellcasting up into a bunch of more flavorful, interesting classes with fixed-list casting like Beguilers, Dread necromancers, or warmages, and now we're getting somewhere on both fronts.


Fourth, it's simply not that much power. Being a Wyrm Wizard or whatever is a drop in the bucket compared to the fact that you can cast polymorph, planar binding, or even cloudkill. This is amplified by the first point. I did say the current ratios were off, didn't I? I agree, most of the current half-casters completely bite and aren't worth it. I only disagree on 'make them all full-casters' being any kind of reasonable solution


Fifth, it creates bad incentives. If you lose the spellcasting level at the start, you're paying now for power later. That's a bad deal because you suck for several levels, potentially the entire campaign if it ends before you finish your PrC. If you lose the spellcasting level at any other time, you just bail before that point and pocket free stuff. And that's assuming you got the balance exactly right. If you didn't, you end up with stuff like the Eldritch Knight where the cost isn't worth everything you paid even after taking the full class.Or, y'know, you just have the trade-offs occur at the same time as the benefit. So you gain an ability worth a level of spellcasting advancement (or several smaller abilities that add up to that much), the benefit at the same time you lose a level of spellcasting.


Ultimately, making the trade off smaller doesn't solve the problem. You're still asking people to choose between interesting abilities and level appropriate abilities, and that is a bad choice. All PRCs have this problem, because the level you enter them at can be variable. You might take the first level of a PRC at level 9, or at level 19. You can't make it provide level-appropriate abilities at both points.
Unless you resort to all PRCs being something more akin to Archetypes of the base class, a la 4e, which removes the 'variable level' component.


Side-note: you might wanna research classes a little more closely before using them as examples. Mindbender and Acolyte of the Skin are half-casters.

[Segev]

I'll second (or third, or whatever -th we're up to) Metamind, because a straight Psion winds up with more power points at the same level. It literally does worse at what it gives up manifester levels to accomplish than the base class (and thus any PrC with full - or even 9/10 or 8/10 - manifester progression)!

I will also add Thayan Knight, because it is one I WANT to like, but if you look carefully, a Red Wizard is better off with a mind-controlled (or otherwise loyal) Fighter of the same character level than a Fighter/Thayan Knight. Even with a Red Wizard of Thay backing him up, his class perks don't make up for missing 2-3 fighter feats. (At least not compared to a fighter backed by a Red Wizard.)

Yes, it's that bad.

[The Viscount]

I'm going to go with Alienist. This is a class with a very cool concept and some truly amazing art. Very flavorful class even in the class features. Unfortunately the class thinks the equivalent of toughness is so good you need to penalize skills massively. Summon Alien is the trap that snaps shut on the very first level, forever preventing you from summoning anything but pseudonatural animals and removing 80% of the point of Summon Monster.

[JoshuaZ]

All PRCs have this problem, because the level you enter them at can be variable. You might take the first level of a PRC at level 9, or at level 19. You can't make it provide level-appropriate abilities at both points.

Most of your comment is spot on, I do want to just note that this bit isn't completely the case. There are ways of making class features scale appropriately. For example, having class features that scale with spell slots sacrificed. The Jade Phoenix Mage's Arcane Wrath class feature is a good example of this. But getting the scaling to scale right so it is tempting at a large variety of levels for resources of a large variety of power is tricky.

[Troacctid]

Currently, what I do is I allow the off-levels in non-full-casting prestige classes to advance your caster level, but not your spells known or spells per day. Same with manifesting classes, although it is certainly a bigger boost for them.

I've toyed with the idea of the reverse: having the off-levels in non-full-casting prestige classes advance your casting, but not your caster level, so a Wizard 5/Acolyte of the Skin 10 would cast as a 15th level wizard, but at a caster level of 10. Minimum caster levels are enforced, so you need something like Practiced Spellcaster in order to cast your highest-level spells, which seems fine to me.

[Cosi]

'Other classes that already exist are broken' is a fact. However, to come to the conclusion 'therefore, making classes similar to them wouldn't produce broken classes' is an egregious non-sequitor.

That's not quite the point I was trying to get across. My point is more that if Incantatrix as-is is better than 10/10 casting Green Star Adept, buffing Green Star Adept to 10/10 casting won't make game balance worse. What it will do is cause some number of characters to be Green Star Adepts instead of Incantatrixes, which is an improvement because Green Star Adepts are cool and we want them to be part of the setting.


If the base class being boring is a problem, a more sensible solution would seem to be 'make the base class less boring'. Not 'make PRCing out ASAP mandatory'.

That depends. Making base classes more appealing is a natural solution, but it has two problems.

First, it's more work. We want people to get class features (beyond casting) as they level up. If we do that by making existing PrCs more appealing, that requires no design work and can be done immediately. If we do that by giving base classes more class features, that requires us to actually go out and write class features for the Wizard, the Sorcerer, the Cleric, and any other class we aren't satisfied with. That takes time, and more than that it creates a barrier to entry. It's very simple to evaluate and start playing "D&D, but all caster PrCs are full progression", but much harder to evaluate and start playing "D&D, but casters get new class features and some PrCs have their casting progression changed".

This, I think, is the most important point. It's not just a question of making the best possible design choices. It's also a question of making design choices that are viable given our resource constraints.

Second, forcing people into PrCs solves a completely unrelated problem: Fighters sucking. If everyone is expected to pick up a PrC at a certain point, that gives you a simple avenue to solve the problem of Caster/Fighter imbalance: give all the Fighter PrCs some SLAs that are level appropriate. That's relatively simple, and it handily avoids having to figure out what a 20th level Fighter looks like, because that character is now a Fighter 10/Gaia Scion 10.


Actually, i think Wizard as a class shouldn't exist. it's bland, flavorless, and poorly-defined. Split it's spellcasting up into a bunch of more flavorful, interesting classes with fixed-list casting like Beguilers, Dread necromancers, or warmages, and now we're getting somewhere on both fronts.

I generally agree. That said, I do think you need to have some class that is literally called "Wizard" which has spellbooks and such. What specifically it does is up for debate. Definitely Evocation, with some combination of Enchantment, Conjuration, Divination, or Abjuration as backup. Maybe give it a planar theme. I also think there are some interesting story hooks in the difference between how Wizards and other (arcane) casters get spells.


Or, y'know, you just have the trade-offs occur at the same time as the benefit. So you gain an ability worth a level of spellcasting advancement (or several smaller abilities that add up to that much), the benefit at the same time you lose a level of spellcasting.

But "a level worth of spellcasting" isn't a constant cost. If you forgo a level of spellcasting at 6th (as a Wizard), you lose a 3rd level spell slot and a 2nd level spell slot. Next level you lose a 4th level spell slot and a 1st level spell slot. At 18th level you're behind a 8th level spell slot and a 9th level spell slot. The only way to make that work is to make the abilities you get scale. Or to instead trade things of constant cost (e.g. spell slots).


Unless you resort to all PRCs being something more akin to Archetypes of the base class, a la 4e, which removes the 'variable level' component.

I think this is what you should do.

That said, you can make it better by having classes provide abilities that are appropriate for the level you're expected to enter. Also, if class features are expected to be extra goodies (rather than a trade-off with casting), it matters less if you're a little behind.


Side-note: you might wanna research classes a little more closely before using them as examples. Mindbender and Acolyte of the Skin are half-casters.

I don't think there's a fundamental difference for most of may arguments between a 5/10 and an 8/10 caster. The change is one of degree.

[Telok]

Squire of Legend. It's only redeeming feature is that it's only three levels long.

If you did it right a wiz/sorc could end up with +1 bab, a couple more hp, 6 more skill points, and trade a casting level for three once a day abilities that duplicate first and second level spells.

[ExLibrisMortis]

I agree with Cosi. Caster prestige classes should be 10/10 casting, unless they are not about casting fluff-wise (such as Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster), and then they should have powerful abilities to compensate (like Swiftblade). It's just like giving melee PrCs full base attack bonus - it's just good sense. And yes, that results in a huge power gap between tiers, caster supremacy yadda yadda, but huge inter-PrC power gaps are not the way to fix that.

[Cosi]

And yes, that results in a huge power gap between tiers, caster supremacy yadda yadda, but huge inter-PrC power gaps are not the way to fix that.

This is also a good point. "Many caster PrCs are unsatisfying" and "being a caster is way better than not doing that" are separate problems, and as such should be solved separately. It's kind of the same thing as Grod's Law or "solve out of game problems out of game". You should solve a problem in the context where it occurs, not by fudging other things around the problem.

I do think this is sort of peripheral to the point Necrotic is trying to make though.

[lord_khaine]

For me there is absolutely no doubt here.
Frenzied Berkserker. A class that manages to actually offer decent power while also making the rest of the party pay the price.

[nyjastul69]

I'm gonna say Arcane Archer is my least favorite. I dislike classes that are race specific and it seems to work against itself instead having any amount of synergy. I know dropping the race fluff is easy enough, I just think it shouldn't be there in the first place.

[Troacctid]

There are a lot of bad prestige classes out there, but one that's especially a pet peeve for me is Eldritch Knight. It is quite simply a trap. It purports to allow you to combine spellcasting and swordplay, when in fact all it does is handicap you in both with its prerequisites, then swoop in at high levels to give you a BAB boost after it's too late for it to matter because your spells are already dealing more damage than you could hope to do with weapons.

[Rizban]

My least favorite is pretty much any Eberron PrC. Yes, there are a few gems, and Planar Shepherd with the right plane is ridiculous, but most of them are just plain terrible. They offer so much flavor, but most of them are strictly far worse than any reasonable entry you can take to get into them.I especially hate the ones you can't get into until 10th level+ but were clearly designed for entry at 5th+ and offer class features appropriate to lower levels of play.


I really dislike the various half caster PrCs. They have a bunch of cool class features, but they are almost never worth giving up casting. This forces you to pick between an effective character and an interesting one, and that's not a choice you want people to make.

For example, the Green Star Adept. The Green Star Adept gives you a bunch of minor class features. You get some buffs to your melee stats, some immunities, and you become immortal. That's cool. I could totally imagine playing a Green Star Adept, or having a Green Star Adept villain, or including a group of NPC Green Star Adepts. But it costs five levels of casting. So it sucks.

The game would be much better if all those classes gave full casting.GSA is one of the few that I actually do like. As written, it only gives 1/2 casting progression, but it also gives 1.5x caster level progression. Lose 5 levels of casting to gain 15 caster levels. While increased caster level isn't as crazy good as increased manifester level, it can get you some pretty good boosts.

I played a GSA in a campaign where every single enemy had SR, and all spells were house ruled to be subject to SR (but we knew that going in, so it wasn't a DM jerk move that surprised us). Even without that house rule, it's a pretty nice trade off since you have to lose casting levels.


Yeah, I think 9/10 and 8/10 casting allow for pretty decent tradeoffs. Which is what a prestige class should be, in my opinion: a tradeoff of one thing for another, not a strict upgrade.This. I'm 100% a fan of the thought that all caster/manifester PrCs should lose at least 1 level, preferably at level 1. The only exceptions should be theurge type classes that require losing levels elsewhere, and the prereqs should be written to try to force the levels to be invested in another class rather than items/feats and should still minimize the lost levels.

For example, say we have a Rogue/Wizard PrC and want the player to enter at 5th-level. We could require 1d6 SA, trapfinding, and 2nd-level spells as well as skill/bab/save/feat prereqs to bump it up to the minimum level we want. Alternatively, if we want at least two lost levels, 1d6 SA and Evasion could be the main noncasting prereqs.

In short, I think PrCing should always cost a caster at least one level either prior to entry or immediately upon entry. I justify it in fluff by attributing it to them spending time learning a new ability rather than focusing on casting. Once the new ability is learned, however, they can work on mastering both at the same time.


Second, we should be encouraging people to bail on boring classes. Clerics stop getting class features at 2nd level. So do Sorcerers (not counting Familiar advancement). Wizards get a bonus feat every five levels. That's boring. People should get interesting abilities, and the way to do that is either by writing class features for the base class or encouraging people to leave. Yes, they get casting, but in most cases that only covers half of their levels.Spells themselves are more interesting than almost anything any non-casting class gets. While it's true that after the first level they get nothing on their class table, they do get a new spell level with a whole host of potential new "class features" every 2 levels and new spells at every level. Just because it's not on the table doesn't mean they aren't getting something new and interesting at every level already.


Fourth, it's simply not that much power. Being a Wyrm Wizard or whatever is a drop in the bucket compared to the fact that you can cast polymorph, planar binding, or even cloudkill. This is amplified by the first point.Then the solution to this is nerfing the spells, not boosting the classes even higher.


Fifth, it creates bad incentives. If you lose the spellcasting level at the start, you're paying now for power later. That's a bad deal because you suck for several levels, potentially the entire campaign if it ends before you finish your PrC. If you lose the spellcasting level at any other time, you just bail before that point and pocket free stuff. And that's assuming you got the balance exactly right. If you didn't, you end up with stuff like the Eldritch Knight where the cost isn't worth everything you paid even after taking the full class.Then again, if we go with my thought, then every PrC costs casting. You're not behind any other character, unless they go straight "boring" class with no new class specific features. You either go straight caster or sacrifice a bit of casting for alternate abilities.


Ultimately, making the trade off smaller doesn't solve the problem. You're still asking people to choose between interesting abilities and level appropriate abilities, and that is a bad choice.That's my primarily complaint about many Eberron PrCs, a number of which would only be level appropriate at 1st level...

Still, being one level behind or even one whole spell level behind is just not that crippling. Yes, in theoretical builds you see online, losing casting is the greatest sin imaginable, but in actual play, it's just not that big of a deal. I've never once seen a game that was ruined or made significantly worse because you capped out at 8th-level or, Pelor forbid, only 7th-level spells instead of 9th. Yes, you're losing out on some of the cool things max level spells can do, but so is every single other player at the table who didn't choose to play a primary caster.

From a game balance perspective, PrCs should cost primary casters a level or two. And losing a level or two or three of casting to get into a PrC simply doesn't stop you from being a Tier 1 class.


If you really feel that things like "learn a Cleric spell every other level" or "immunity to critical hits" are broken, you can charge people spell slots for them.That's actually not a terrible idea, but it's not really doing anything other than adding a spell to their spell list. Burning spell slots for activating class abilities is neat, but then you have to make the class features equivalent to the spell level slot you're making them burn. If not, the player probably won't use the class feature. If it is, you might as well just say, "You learn this spell and can cast it spontaneously."


'Other classes that already exist are broken' is a fact. However, to come to the conclusion 'therefore, making classes similar to them wouldn't produce broken classes' is an egregious non-sequitor. Yes, Incantatrix should lose a few levels out of it's spell progression, due to the potency of it's class features. This.


If the base class being boring is a problem, a more sensible solution would seem to be 'make the base class less boring'. Not 'make PRCing out ASAP mandatory'. Which is what you do when you make PRCs that are strictly better than just the base classes.

Again, this is a problem with the Wizard class, not it's PRCs. I hear this problem, and think the solution is to add actual class features to the wizard, so wizards can be more differentiated. They do take a half-step in the right direction with school specialization, but I think they should have gone much further.
Actually, i think Wizard as a class shouldn't exist. it's bland, flavorless, and poorly-defined. Split it's spellcasting up into a bunch of more flavorful, interesting classes with fixed-list casting like Beguilers, Dread necromancers, or warmages, and now we're getting somewhere on both fronts. I also agree with this, but I don't see a quadratic increase of power and character options as "boring" just because the individual spell effects aren't listed on my class table. :smalltongue:
Splitting up the wizard is actually a pretty good idea to me. I'd be fine with Beg., DN, WM, and Sorc. Sorcerer is the generalist who can pick pretty much any spell, but he's got no interesting class features to balance that point.


I did say the current ratios were off, didn't I? I agree, most of the current half-casters completely bite and aren't worth it. I only disagree on 'make them all full-casters' being any kind of reasonable solutionOr we could make (almost) all of the full caster PrCs into half casters... :smalleek:


That's not quite the point I was trying to get across. My point is more that if Incantatrix as-is is better than 10/10 casting Green Star Adept, buffing Green Star Adept to 10/10 casting won't make game balance worse. What it will do is cause some number of characters to be Green Star Adepts instead of Incantatrixes, which is an improvement because Green Star Adepts are cool and we want them to be part of the setting.I strongly disagree. It won't make game balance worse among tier 1/2 casters. However, buffing the higher tiers even higher definitely does make game balance worse to anyone who is not playing one.

If balance and diversity is your goal, nerfing the "must have" full casting PrCs is a far better (and usually easier) option than making all the bad classes stronger. After all, there are far fewer spectacular PrCs than there are terrible ones.


This, I think, is the most important point. It's not just a question of making the best possible design choices. It's also a question of making design choices that are viable given our resource constraints.The fact is, people who like your changes will learn them and use them. People who don't, won't. It's not about resource constraints so much as personal preferences among play groups. Just because it's "easier" to tweak the magic system doesn't mean people don't learn to use and enjoy using psionics, or incarnum, or initiating, or invocations, or any of the other alternatives.


Second, forcing people into PrCs solves a completely unrelated problem: Fighters sucking. If everyone is expected to pick up a PrC at a certain point, that gives you a simple avenue to solve the problem of Caster/Fighter imbalance: give all the Fighter PrCs some SLAs that are level appropriate. That's relatively simple, and it handily avoids having to figure out what a 20th level Fighter looks like, because that character is now a Fighter 10/Gaia Scion 10.That doesn't address the problem at all... The core problem is linear vs quadratic progression. Giving fighters slightly stronger but fixed linear progression barely even scrapes the surface of that pandora's box, and I'd really rather not open it in this thread...


But "a level worth of spellcasting" isn't a constant cost. If you forgo a level of spellcasting at 6th (as a Wizard), you lose a 3rd level spell slot and a 2nd level spell slot. Next level you lose a 4th level spell slot and a 1st level spell slot. At 18th level you're behind a 8th level spell slot and a 9th level spell slot. The only way to make that work is to make the abilities you get scale. Or to instead trade things of constant cost (e.g. spell slots).Eh, I basically addressed this at the beginning. It's a core system design problem. What "+1 level of existing spellcasting class" really means is the same as Legacy Champion's "+1 level of existing class features" but applies only to casters.

If you really want to address this, then give every non-casting PrC "+1 level of existing class features" at most levels. Then you might get things like (completely ignoring prereqs for the moment) Wizard 8/Spymaster 7/Thief-Acrobat 5. You have to admit, that would be far more interesting than many of the existing casting PrCs and allow far more diversity.




Squire of Legend. It's only redeeming feature is that it's only three levels long.

If you did it right a wiz/sorc could end up with +1 bab, a couple more hp, 6 more skill points, and trade a casting level for three once a day abilities that duplicate first and second level spells.Nah, Squire of Legend was pretty clearly meant to be put on your cohort. It's meant to be supporting cast, not the star of the movie.

[Cosi]

Spells themselves are more interesting than almost anything any non-casting class gets.

That seems like a Fighter problem, not a Wizard problem. If Fighters get boring abilities, give them better abilities. I'm not stopping you.


Just because it's not on the table doesn't mean they aren't getting something new and interesting at every level already.

It's not just about being interesting. Being distinctive also matters. Yes, you get some new spells known when you gain a new level of Sorcerer. Whoop de freaking do. By definition none of them are things that any other Sorcerer on the planet couldn't get.

Also, Sorcerer is the only class where that really happens. Divine casters (or Warmage style Arcane casters) know all their spells when they get a new level of spells. Wizards can learn spells whenever they want. That eliminates, or at least greatly diminishes, any value from gaining even numbered levels.


Then the solution to this is nerfing the spells, not boosting the classes even higher.

That goes into the much more complicated question of "how powerful do we want people to be". If you want people to be balanced close to the Wizard, you should (mostly) provide buffs. If you want people to be balanced close to the Fighter you should (mostly) apply nerfs. Which one you choose is subjective, and different choices have different trade-offs.


Then again, if we go with my thought, then every PrC costs casting. You're not behind any other character, unless they go straight "boring" class with no new class specific features. You either go straight caster or sacrifice a bit of casting for alternate abilities.

Your not behind any other character, except the characters that didn't sacrifice power for flavor. How is that not exactly the problem I've identified?


Yes, in theoretical builds you see online, losing casting is the greatest sin imaginable, but in actual play, it's just not that big of a deal.

Real Games fallacy.


If it is, you might as well just say, "You learn this spell and can cast it spontaneously."

I'm talking about something like the Archmage, which gives up permanent spell slots.


I'd be fine with Beg., DN, WM, and Sorc. Sorcerer is the generalist who can pick pretty much any spell, but he's got no interesting class features to balance that point.

You need more than those four. People want to play Conjurers, Diviners, Abjurers, and Transmuters. Also things that don't correspond to schools like Ice Mages and Venom Masters. Also, people hate dead levels and you shouldn't use them.


I strongly disagree. It won't make game balance worse among tier 1/2 casters. However, buffing the higher tiers even higher definitely does make game balance worse to anyone who is not playing one.

No, it doesn't. Unless you produce a build that is better than the Incantatrix, casters don't get any more powerful and the gap doesn't widen.

You might a marginal effect where the fact that being a Green Star Adept or Mindbender is now a better deal pushes marginal people towards casters and increases imbalance, but you equally might see a marginal effect where the fact that Acolyte of the Skin or Wyrm Wizard is now a better deal pushes marginal people away from Incantatrix and decreases imbalance. Also, if you successfully push everyone to caster + appropriate PrC you've elimated (or at least vastly reduced) imbalance.


That doesn't address the problem at all... The core problem is linear vs quadratic progression. Giving fighters slightly stronger but fixed linear progression barely even scrapes the surface of that pandora's box, and I'd really rather not open it in this thread...

The core problem is that when you are battling your way through the bowels of Hell, the Wizard has actions that matter and the Fighter doesn't. Linear/Quadratic is just memetic shorthand for that phenomena. If the Fighter got a PrC (or artifact sword) that gave him abilities equal to the marginal difference between Wizard levels 10 and 11 at 11th level (assuming prior balance) and so on in perpetuity, he would be balanced with the Wizard.

[Rizban]

It's not just about being interesting. Being distinctive also matters. Yes, you get some new spells known when you gain a new level of Sorcerer. Whoop de freaking do. By definition none of them are things that any other Sorcerer on the planet couldn't get.This is a non sequitur. Regardless of what class you take, base or PrC, anyone else who takes the same class can do all the same things than you can do. Whether you're a Wizard or a Fighter or a Commoner.


Also, Sorcerer is the only class where that really happens. Divine casters (or Warmage style Arcane casters) know all their spells when they get a new level of spells. Wizards can learn spells whenever they want. That eliminates, or at least greatly diminishes, any value from gaining even numbered levels.New spell levels at every other level... new Fighter feats at every other level... I see a design paradigm here...

If you're arguing for one, you must therefore argue for the other as well. We all know that noncasters can't have nice things, but that doesn't mean we should keep giving the casters even nicer things. Every other class has to lose some class feature progression of some kind in order to take a PrC. Casters should too. Spellcasting level is the only class feature most primary casters even have, so that, by design, must be the trade off. I personally see no problem with that.

Of course, if you're suggesting that my Barbarian should have all of his Barbarian class features up to level 20 and all of the class features of his PrC... :smallamused:



That goes into the much more complicated question of "how powerful do we want people to be". If you want people to be balanced close to the Wizard, you should (mostly) provide buffs. If you want people to be balanced close to the Fighter you should (mostly) apply nerfs. Which one you choose is subjective, and different choices have different trade-offs.Not really. It's a question of, "How hard is it to accomplish X?"
How hard is it to create a Tier 1 Fighter? Tier 2? Tier 1 Monk? Look at the absolutely massive number of Fighter fixes out there. How many of them actually accomplish making a Fighter on par with a Wizard, despite hundreds of people working on the problem?

On the other hand, how hard is it to nerf casters? Make them lose a couple of spellcasting levels. And... we're done. Yes, you can fine tune it, but losing out on a spellcasting level or three, especially if "trading" them for other class features as every other class must do to PrC, keeps the game balance more in line.

Assuming game balance is your key concern, then there's absolutely no reasonable argument for giving wizards additional buffs.


Your not behind any other character, except the characters that didn't sacrifice power for flavor. How is that not exactly the problem I've identified?

Real Games fallacy.Because you're only balancing with the other players in your game, not every single theoretical wizard build on the internet.

Incorrect. I was pointing out the converse fallacy. I'm stating that actual game play is tailored by the DM to the group. Theoretical build competitiveness simply does not apply. Furthermore, if TO is your primary concern, it's again easier to nerf the top 5% of PrCs than it is to buff the bottom 95%. As you yourself pointed out, just giving most half-casting PrCs full casting isn't enough. Conversely, giving the primary offenders among full casting PrCs a few lost levels drastically reduces their potency


I'm talking about something like the Archmage, which gives up permanent spell slots.Yeah, sac a spell slot, gain a "spontaneous spell." I'm not seeing how I missed what you were saying...


You need more than those four. People want to play Conjurers, Diviners, Abjurers, and Transmuters. Also things that don't correspond to schools like Ice Mages and Venom Masters. Also, people hate dead levels and you shouldn't use them.Well, yes, if you're rewriting the system, which is something you stated a few posts back as being against doing...

Gaining a new level of spells is not a "dead level." :smallannoyed: If it is, then so is gaining a new Fighter feat, since feats are meant to be on par with cantrips or 1st-level spells at the strongest. (I'll have to find the design article where the devs stated that...)


No, it doesn't. Unless you produce a build that is better than the Incantatrix, casters don't get any more powerful and the gap doesn't widen.

You might a marginal effect where the fact that being a Green Star Adept or Mindbender is now a better deal pushes marginal people towards casters and increases imbalance, but you equally might see a marginal effect where the fact that Acolyte of the Skin or Wyrm Wizard is now a better deal pushes marginal people away from Incantatrix and decreases imbalance. Also, if you successfully push everyone to caster + appropriate PrC you've elimated (or at least vastly reduced) imbalance.So, instead of being in the bottom 90% of classes, my non-caster is now in the bottom 30%. That definitely is widening the gap. Just because the Valedictorian of your graduating class doesn't improve his A++ doesn't mean your grade isn't lower by comparison to the whole class. If, as you have stated several times, variety is your design goal, then making being a non-tier 1 caster even less appealing by making primary casters even stronger than their already rather weak companions is not the right direction.


The core problem is that when you are battling your way through the bowels of Hell, the Wizard has actions that matter and the Fighter doesn't. Linear/Quadratic is just memetic shorthand for that phenomena. If the Fighter got a PrC (or artifact sword) that gave him abilities equal to the marginal difference between Wizard levels 10 and 11 at 11th level (assuming prior balance) and so on in perpetuity, he would be balanced with the Wizard.And I don't see how giving spellcasters more spellcasting levels even begins to address this problem... :smallconfused:

[Cosi]

This is a non sequitur. Regardless of what class you take, base or PrC, anyone else who takes the same class can do all the same things than you can do. Whether you're a Wizard or a Fighter or a Commoner.

Yes, people who are the same class have the same options. Which is why we should make multiclassing and PrCs as painless as possible. The alternative is to give people strong incentives to play identical Wizards, identical Clerics, identical Rogues, and so on.


New spell levels at every other level... new Fighter feats at every other level... I see a design paradigm here...

The Fighter is a bad class. If your argument is "we should do X, because X is how it works for Fighters", you should make a different argument.


We all know that noncasters can't have nice things, but that doesn't mean we should keep giving the casters even nicer things.

The problem that Fighters are terrible and you should never play one is different from the problem that Wizard PrCs are terrible and incentivize all Wizard builds to be the same. As a result, they require different solutions. Just like the problem that WBL is insufficient at mid levels is different from the problem that most feats are boring and we shouldn't try to solve both of them by allow you to buy or sell feats for gold.


Every other class has to lose some class feature progression of some kind in order to take a PrC. Casters should too. Spellcasting level is the only class feature most primary casters even have, so that, by design, must be the trade off. I personally see no problem with that.

Paying a variable price for a constant value cannot be balanced. If you want people to give up casting, make them give up spell slots like the Archmage does. That's balanced.


How hard is it to create a Tier 1 Fighter? Tier 2? Tier 1 Monk? Look at the absolutely massive number of Fighter fixes out there. How many of them actually accomplish making a Fighter on par with a Wizard, despite hundreds of people working on the problem?

Frank and K's Tomes seem pretty good on that front. I don't know that the Tome Fighter or Tome Monk are "Tier 1", but the Tiers are stupid and those classes are designed to play with full casters. Here's (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=48453) a link to all the Tome material, on a forum where (one of) the creators posts regularly. If you have concerns about the ability of those class to contribute to a party with a Wizard, I encourage you to go ask them about it.

Or you could just make everyone Gestalt with Sorcerer. Wizard // Sorcerer is better than Fighter // Sorcerer, but it's much close than Wizard is to Fighter. Then the guy who wants to play a Monk can play a Monk // Sorcerer/That Arcane Monk PrC (Which Is Now Full Casting) and the guy who wants to play a Fighter can play a Fighter // Sorcerer/Swiftblade and they can both pick up a huge boost to their combat and non-combat effectiveness, while the Wizard becomes a Wizard //Sorcerer/Mage of the Arcane Order and gets marginally more spell versatility.


Because you're only balancing with the other players in your game, not every single theoretical wizard build on the internet.

But what if the other players want to play Theoretical Internet Wizard Builds? If your game is balanced by gentleman's agreement, your game is not balanced.


I'm stating that actual game play is tailored by the DM to the group.

I once heard someone say something like "the DM intervening is the best solution for a game, but the worst solution for the game." And I think that's pretty much the case here. The DM should intervene in the game to maintain balance. Not as much or in the ways many people suggest, but when necessary. But the game should be designed to ensure that such intervention is necessary as rarely as possible. Saying "but the DM could fix it" in response to a criticism of a game's design isn't responsive.


Gaining a new level of spells is not a "dead level." :smallannoyed: If it is, then so is gaining a new Fighter feat, since feats are meant to be on par with cantrips or 1st-level spells at the strongest. (I'll have to find the design article where the devs stated that...)

Yes, the Fighter is a terrible class. Your point?


So, instead of being in the bottom 90% of classes, my non-caster is now in the bottom 30%.

You can't pivot from "the people in the game matter, not the possible builds" to "a larger percentage of possible builds are now better than some classes".


On the other hand, how hard is it to nerf casters? Make them lose a couple of spellcasting levels. And... we're done. Yes, you can fine tune it, but losing out on a spellcasting level or three, especially if "trading" them for other class features as every other class must do to PrC, keeps the game balance more in line.

If, as you have stated several times, variety is your design goal, then making being a non-tier 1 caster even less appealing by making primary casters even stronger than their already rather weak companions is not the right direction.

I don't want "variety". I want "variety of viable builds". The fact that you can be a Fighter or a Barbarian matters not at all, because those classes are terrible and you will never actually be a Fighter or a Barbarian.


And I don't see how giving spellcasters more spellcasting levels even begins to address this problem...

It doesn't because it's not supposed to! Just like when you get chemotherapy, it doesn't magically fix your car. It fixes your cancer, and then you go to a mechanic to get your car fixed.

[Rizban]

[snip]I feel you've missed most of my points and ignored the primary thrust of my argument that I felt was important to quibble about Fighters sucking. So, to reiterate.


Casters are the most powerful class option already.

Primary casters don't actually need more "nice things" to be competitive within the game.
Fighter is a bad class. (On which I think we can all agree)


A Prestige Class is a new class, not a gestalt you add to your existing class.

Entering a PrC should always cost something in the way of losing or slowing a class feature to gain new, additional class features or new uses for existing ones.
Spellcasting is the only class feature most primary casters have. Therefore, per point 2A, that is what they must trade for PrC goodies.
Arguing in favor of a PrC that is effectively Wizard 10//PrC 10 and against one that is Barbarian 10//PrC 10 is nonsensical.


Game balance is difficult to achieve. So, let's not make it harder on ourselves.

Some PrCs are way overpowered. Using those as the balance point is not a good idea.
Some PrCs are way underpowered. Using those as the balance point is also not a good idea.
It's easier to adjust the few best down than it is to adjust the many worse up.
Improving Fighters, et. al is rather difficult, at best. It requires inventing new class features, strengthening existing features, and revising how non-caster combat and feats are handled, i.e. rewriting the game.
Weakening primary casters is easy. It simply requires making them lose spellcasting levels.

[Cosi]

Primary casters don't actually need more "nice things" to be competitive within the game.

Yes, which is why I'm not suggesting buffs that would make casters more powerful. I'm not suggesting that Incantatrix drop the extra prohibited school, or that Shadowcraft Mage be open to non-Gnomes. I'm suggesting that PrCs that don't see play be buffed so they see play. If you are in favor of buffing the Fighter so that more people play it, why are you not in favor of buffing the Acolyte of the Skin so that more people play it?


A Prestige Class is a new class, not a gestalt you add to your existing class.

I don't think that was intended to be true. Plenty of casting PrCs offer full casting and extra benefits, including quite powerful ones (e.g. Dweomerkeeper, Red Wizard). I think the intention, insofar as there was a unified intention, was that PrCs would advance your primary ability (casting for casters, BAB for Fighters, Sneak Attack for Rogues), and replace your class features.


Entering a PrC should always cost something in the way of losing or slowing a class feature to gain new, additional class features or new uses for existing ones.

This is simply not evident in the game at all, and I don't think it makes sense as a design goal unless you are seriously beefing up the class features casters get across the board (including lots of "menu" class features where you can select from several options).


Spellcasting is the only class feature most primary casters have. Therefore, per point 2A, that is what they must trade for PrC goodies.

Given the previous (which I think is very much not a given), yes. But having them give up spellcasting levels for class features isn't balanced. It's a variable cost for a constant benefit. Have it work like the Archmage, and make them give up individual spell slots for benefits appropriate to those spell slots. A 5th level spell slot is a 5th level spell slot is a 5th level spell slot. A level of casting is worth radically different things at different points in a character's progression.


Arguing in favor of a PrC that is effectively Wizard 10//PrC 10 and against one that is Barbarian 10//PrC 10 is nonsensical.

I don't think I was making that point.


Some PrCs are way overpowered. Using those as the balance point is not a good idea.
Some PrCs are way underpowered. Using those as the balance point is also not a good idea.

How can something be overpowered or underpowered without a balance point? Is 7 large or small? If we're talking about single digit numbers, it's large. If we're talking about natural numbers, it's small. You are trying to define a context using statements that have meaning only in context.


It's easier to adjust the few best down than it is to adjust the many worse up.

This misses the mark.

First, people like buffs better than nerfs and nerfs better than bans. So when trying to fix a balance problem, you should first look to fix it by making options stronger, then by making options weaker, then by removing options. I am much more likely to use your houserules if they give me new options than if they take existing ones away, and I don't think I'm alone in that.

Second, you are again begging the question. It's not just a simple matter of moving some people up and some people down. You need to figure out a balance point, and adjust everyone to there. Frankly, I think the arguments for a balance point that is broadly close to the Wizard (wider range of stories, easier to use existing monsters, more axes of character customization, able to use more abilities) are much stronger than the arguments for a balance point that is broadly close to the Fighter. In any case, you need to find and argue for a balance point before moving character power around.

Third, buffs are not nearly as hard as you seem to thing. Simply stapling a Sorcerer to every character basically destroys class imbalance, and takes a sentence to explain. Maybe a paragraph if you do other good things like let people pick their casting stat and buff bad PrCs.


Improving Fighters, et. al is rather difficult, at best. It requires inventing new class features, strengthening existing features, and revising how non-caster combat and feats are handled, i.e. rewriting the game.

It depends. Obviously to fix the game completely, you need to rewrite the game. But I think the Tome Fighter is testament to the fact that it is not impossible to make a Fighter that can play with casters in the context of 3.5. In any case, given that someone went and did it, this objection is a little past its sell-by date.


Weakening primary casters is easy. It simply requires making them lose spellcasting levels.

Making primary casters weaker is easy. Making them balanced with the Fighter is not. Simply taking away a bunch of caster levels is no different than giving Fighters a bunch of extra character levels. I'm sure you could achieve balance doing either, but it's not like you can just write "+7 levels" and be done.

[danielxcutter]

I have just one thing to say.


Take the darn caster PrC argument somewhere else, for the love of Wee Jas.

[Rizban]

I don't want "variety". I want "variety of viable builds". The fact that you can be a Fighter or a Barbarian matters not at all, because those classes are terrible and you will never actually be a Fighter or a Barbarian.I feel this is our primary disagreement. I believe that everyone should be viable, not just the Wizards.

We're not arguing counterpoints in the same debate, e.g. Good vs Evil. We're arguing different points in two entirely different debates, e.g. you're arguing Blue is the best color, and I'm arguing Bacon is the best food.


Yes, which is why I'm not suggesting buffs that would make casters more powerful. I'm not suggesting that Incantatrix drop the extra prohibited school, or that Shadowcraft Mage be open to non-Gnomes. I'm suggesting that PrCs that don't see play be buffed so they see play. If you are in favor of buffing the Fighter so that more people play it, why are you not in favor of buffing the Acolyte of the Skin so that more people play it?I'm not against making any specific overly weak class a bit stronger. I am against buffing all spellcaster PrCs up to Incantatrix level. As I have previously stated. See Point 3A.



I don't think that was intended to be true. Plenty of casting PrCs offer full casting and extra benefits, including quite powerful ones (e.g. Dweomerkeeper, Red Wizard). I think the intention, insofar as there was a unified intention, was that PrCs would advance your primary ability (casting for casters, BAB for Fighters, Sneak Attack for Rogues), and replace your class features.

This is simply not evident in the game at all, and I don't think it makes sense as a design goal unless you are seriously beefing up the class features casters get across the board (including lots of "menu" class features where you can select from several options).I never said "This was the designers' intentions." I said, "This is how I believe it should be." Arguing designers' intent is both fruitless and unverifiable.


Given the previous (which I think is very much not a given), yes. But having them give up spellcasting levels for class features isn't balanced. It's a variable cost for a constant benefit. Have it work like the Archmage, and make them give up individual spell slots for benefits appropriate to those spell slots. A 5th level spell slot is a 5th level spell slot is a 5th level spell slot. A level of casting is worth radically different things at different points in a character's progression.I disagree that it's a "variable cost". It's always exactly one spellcasting level. Regardless of how high a level you get, you're only ever 1 level behind for each lost level.

As an aside, since feats are tied to HD not class level, losing a Fighter level, or 1 point of BAB, etc. can mess up your extremely specific feat tree progression far more than losing a spellcasting level can mess up your spell progression. This has nothing to do with the discussion, just an observation tangentially related to this particular point.




[2C.] Arguing in favor of a PrC that is effectively Wizard 10//PrC 10 and against one that is Barbarian 10//PrC 10 is nonsensical.I don't think I was making that point.I didn't say you were making any points in that post. I simply stated my points. Point 2C was emphasizing and reinforcing points 2A and 2B.


How can something be overpowered or underpowered without a balance point? Is 7 large or small? If we're talking about single digit numbers, it's large. If we're talking about natural numbers, it's small. You are trying to define a context using statements that have meaning only in context.Before proceeding: High tier 3 to low tier 2 is my assumed balance point.
That said, I'll quantify my previous statements:
3Ai. Using a +2 Tier PrC on a Tier 1 class as a balance point is bad.
3Bi. Using a -2 Tier Prc on a Tier 5 class as a balance point is bad.



This misses the mark.

First, people like buffs better than nerfs and nerfs better than bans. So when trying to fix a balance problem, you should first look to fix it by making options stronger, then by making options weaker, then by removing options. I am much more likely to use your houserules if they give me new options than if they take existing ones away, and I don't think I'm alone in that.What people like and what works best is not always the same thing. Furthermore, people are notoriously bad at even knowing what will make them happy. Not to be too blunt, but, at our gaming table, it doesn't matter what you think or what the rest of the internet thinks. We will only ever care what those players at our own table think in the course of the game. If we happen to think that monks are OP because they get ZOMG high unarmed damage dice, then that's what we're going to roll with. (We don't think that about monks, of course. That was an obvious over exaggeration to make a point, so let's not debate it. Mm'kay?)

That said, I'm not arguing for the point that will be most popular or most widely accepted or make people feel the best. I'm stating my beliefs on the changes that I think is best overall for the game independent of what any other one player or group believes. I personally think that casters need to be weaker and that the most potent casting prestige classes need to be nerfed and that the weaker casting PrCs don't need buffed to near Incantatrix levels. You disagree with that. You know what? That's okay.


Second, you are again begging the question. It's not just a simple matter of moving some people up and some people down. You need to figure out a balance point, and adjust everyone to there. Frankly, I think the arguments for a balance point that is broadly close to the Wizard (wider range of stories, easier to use existing monsters, more axes of character customization, able to use more abilities) are much stronger than the arguments for a balance point that is broadly close to the Fighter. In any case, you need to find and argue for a balance point before moving character power around.And I think both are bad balance points, hence why I have been using both specifically as examples of such.
How about we use Bard, Dread Necromancer, and Warblade as balance points?


Third, buffs are not nearly as hard as you seem to thing. Simply stapling a Sorcerer to every character basically destroys class imbalance, and takes a sentence to explain. Maybe a paragraph if you do other good things like let people pick their casting stat and buff bad PrCs. Adding buffs isn't hard, no. Attaining game balance by adding buffs is.

Here's the thing you don't seem to want to accept: Not everyone wants to play a Sorcerer or a Wizard. Despite what you've stated, many people do actually want to play Fighters and Barbarians and Paladins. If they didn't, you wouldn't see so many homebrew fixes posted for them. So, you can't simply gestalt everything with Sorcerer and call it good. People at my table would balk far more at that more than you do at my suggestion that it's okay for casters to lose levels.



It depends. Obviously to fix the game completely, you need to rewrite the game. But I think the Tome Fighter is testament to the fact that it is not impossible to make a Fighter that can play with casters in the context of 3.5. In any case, given that someone went and did it, this objection is a little past its sell-by date.Millions of monkeys banging on typewriters across time... :smallbiggrin:

Having actually played a Tome Fighter, I would put them at a good Tier 3. They're right about where I would like the balance the system. Wizards are still better.


Making primary casters weaker is easy. Making them balanced with the Fighter is not. Simply taking away a bunch of caster levels is no different than giving Fighters a bunch of extra character levels. I'm sure you could achieve balance doing either, but it's not like you can just write "+7 levels" and be done.Nor have I suggested that they should be the same strength as Fighter. I've stated repeatedly that both are poorly balanced and in equal measure.

[zergling.exe]

Anyone arguing about PrC classes, do it here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?507442-PrC-balancing-discussion)!

[Rizban]

Finally found my specific least favorite class. Couldn't remember the source book and had to search.

Watch Detective from Masters of the Wild.

It's a majorly flavorful class, has very interesting abilities, good skills, and I really do want to play it. The problem being it's actually terrible. It basically requires you to be a Ranger to get into it at a reasonable level then does absolutely nothing with your Ranger class at all beyond that. The class features you get would have been fantastic if it were a base class you took from level 1. Also, if you mess up your paladin code equivalent, you lose all class features for six months, and atonement doesn't help...

In games I DM, I give it full BAB and use it as a base class for NPC detectives.

[atemu1234]

My least favorite is probably Blighter. So much wasted potential; especially seeing as it could have been the Druid answer to Ur-Priest.


Spellsword. When you can take Battlecaster to have a Duskblade channel touch spells into a full attack while wearing heavy armor, you can see why no one takes the more than the first level.

I'm pretty sure I've used that combo to get a Duskblade into mithral full plate before.

[danielxcutter]

I'm pretty sure I've used that combo to get a Duskblade into mithral full plate before.

Duskblades get to cast in medium armor after a few levels, if I remember correctly. So by then you wouldn't have to bother with mithral.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Duskblades get to cast in medium armor after a few levels, if I remember correctly. So by then you wouldn't have to bother with mithral.

Full plate is heavy armor without mithral, duskblades still have to contend with ASF with heavy armor.

[danielxcutter]

Full plate is heavy armor without mithral, duskblades still have to contend with ASF with heavy armor.

I meant with Battlecaster.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I meant with Battlecaster.

Mithral's cheaper than feats.

[danielxcutter]

Mithral's cheaper than feats.

Probably true, but the option's still there if you want to.

[ericgrau]

What no duelist? Give up armor and your off hand. Gain some AC that doesn't really make up for armor and gradually some other tiny bonuses spread out over 10 levels.


I'm suggesting that PrCs that don't see play be buffed so they see play. If you are in favor of buffing the Fighter so that more people play it, why are you not in favor of buffing the Acolyte of the Skin so that more people play it?
Probably because I don't care about that PrC and because it's in a 3.0 book that I never heard of before, but that could just be me. But I can see the point on PrCs from more common books.

[JoshuaZ]

What no duelist? Give up armor and your off hand. Gain some AC that doesn't really make up for armor and gradually some other tiny bonuses spread out over 10 levels.


Probably because I don't care about that PrC and because it's in a 3.0 book that I never heard of before, but that could just be me. But I can see the point on PrCs from more common books.

Acolyte of the Skin is in Complete Arcane which is 3.5 and is one of the more common books it seems.

[Flickerdart]

What no duelist? Give up armor and your off hand. Gain some AC that doesn't really make up for armor and gradually some other tiny bonuses spread out over 10 levels.
Duelist does pretty okay (http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/76455/what-is-the-best-build-for-a-duelist-using-only-the-srd) on a lycanthrope, who does not wear armour and does not wield weapons in his off-hand anyway.

[LordOfCain]

Duelist does pretty okay (http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/76455/what-is-the-best-build-for-a-duelist-using-only-the-srd) on a lycanthrope, who does not wear armour and does not wield weapons in his off-hand anyway.

Huh... I would not have thought of that.

[Telonius]

There are lots of PrCs that are so boring that I never use them. But for "least favorite," I think they have to be interesting enough that I'd actually look at them, show a lot of promise for the concept, but fail to deliver what's advertise. Basically, the most disappointing classes.

Master of Masks has got to be up there. I love it as a dip. But as a 10-level PrC, it's awful.

Geomancer is another one. Awesome concept - with the right races and Drift options, I could probably end up looking like Discord - but nowhere near as cool or as powerful.

Arcane Archer. Lots of cool promises, but a pile of mechanical fail.

But probably my biggest disappointment (and least favorite) Prestige Class? Master Inquisitive, from the Eberron Campaign Setting. So here's a class that's chock full of flavor. Playing Sherlock Holmes or Sam Spade in a half-steampunk setting! But then you look at the class features. And you get ... well, not the Baker Street Irregulars. You get a single contact. As in, what the DM should be giving your group anyway if you're running any kind of investigative campaign. Oh, and a couple of subpar feats, and some easily-resisted 1/day divination magics. Welp, so much for Sherlock Holmes, looks like I signed up for Inspector Clouseau.

[VisitingDaGulag]

Currently, what I do is I allow the off-levels in non-full-casting prestige classes to advance your caster level, but not your spells known or spells per day. Same with manifesting classes, although it is certainly a bigger boost for them.

I've toyed with the idea of the reverse: having the off-levels in non-full-casting prestige classes advance your casting, but not your caster level, so a Wizard 5/Acolyte of the Skin 10 would cast as a 15th level wizard, but at a caster level of 10. Minimum caster levels are enforced, so you need something like Practiced Spellcaster in order to cast your highest-level spells, which seems fine to me.Along with the "make PrC's rather than base classes the traps", this girl says all the right things.

[Arbane]

But probably my biggest disappointment (and least favorite) Prestige Class? Master Inquisitive, from the Eberron Campaign Setting. So here's a class that's chock full of flavor. Playing Sherlock Holmes or Sam Spade in a half-steampunk setting! But then you look at the class features. And you get ... well, not the Baker Street Irregulars. You get a single contact. As in, what the DM should be giving your group anyway if you're running any kind of investigative campaign. Oh, and a couple of subpar feats, and some easily-resisted 1/day divination magics. Welp, so much for Sherlock Holmes, looks like I signed up for Inspector Clouseau.

Play a Warforged, and you could be Inspector Gadget... :smallbiggrin: