Prestigious Spellcaster - A Game Changer?

[DarkOne-Rob]

Prestigious Spellcaster (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/prestigious-spellcaster/) and it's prerequisite Favored Prestige Class (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/favored-prestige-class) are potential game changers for Pathfinder players who want to play flavorful PrCs without losing out on the most important class features for spellcasters (higher level spells). What PrCs are you most excited about trying out with these feats?

Personally, I am leaning towards the transformative PrCs like Dragon Disciple or Agent of the Grave. The hybrid/theurge classes are potentially exciting too, but the chance to actually play a Draconic Sorcerer/Dragon Disciple and not hamper my PC is really too appealing to beat out an Eldritch Knight...

Your thoughts?

[Azoth]

It is too costly to do it for PRCs that don't already have near full progression. If you wanted to do it for Dragon Disciple and keep full progression you would need to give up 4 feats. That is a tough thing to swallow.

Now, if you can get a copy of Inner Sea Magic look at the Mage Guild rules. For about 500GP/level you can end up with 3 levels of spell progression regained.

If you combine the two, then it is much more stomachable to give up 2 feats and some gold to keep full progression on a Ftr1/Sorc9/DD10 build.

Personally, I have used it for a Scaled Monk1/ Paladin2/ Sorc2/Dragon Disciple10/Eldritch Knight 5 build. I only took Prestigious Caster 2 times so I lost two levels of progression, but the build was a monster in a fight. Charisma to AC and Saves, BAB 15, and still squeezed in 9th level spells. I really should have dropped the last 3 levels of Dragon Disciple for more Eldritch Knight to have better BAB, but it was still a blast.

[Hackulator]

Honestly, I think those feats are broken and a terrible idea.

[Florian]

I´ve mixed feeling about those two feats. On one hand, it always hurt martial classes to potentially miss up to 10 hp (more pronounced with Fast Learner or Unbreakable), especially on one of the more flavorful PrC, like Hellknight, Sanguine Angel or Mammoth Rider.
On the other hand, I don´t really have the feeling that prestigious spellcaster is really needed, as the build-defining PrC already push the base casting class hard.

[Cosi]

It's not really enough. You shift from losing levels to losing feat slots, and those are still costly enough to make half casting PrCs like Mindbender or Green Star Adept not worth it. As always, the best casting PrCs are already full casting. You can become an Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil or Shadowcraft Mage without giving up any casting or any feats, and those are already better than Effigy Master or Acolyte of the Skin.


Honestly, I think those feats are broken and a terrible idea.

As always, Hackulator makes a detailed argument that honestly considers both sides of the issue before presenting a conclusion in the politest possible terms.

But really, this isn't close to broken. Honestly, all casting PrCs should just be full casting to begin with. There's no reason that you should lose half your casting just to get some flavor abilities from being a Green Star Adept. Particularly in Pathfinder where casting classes have class features.

[Hackulator]

It's not really enough. You shift from losing levels to losing feat slots, and those are still costly enough to make half casting PrCs like Mindbender or Green Star Adept not worth it. As always, the best casting PrCs are already full casting. You can become an Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil or Shadowcraft Mage without giving up any casting or any feats, and those are already better than Effigy Master or Acolyte of the Skin.



As always, Hackulator makes a detailed argument that honestly considers both sides of the issue before presenting a conclusion in the politest possible terms.

But really, this isn't close to broken. Honestly, all casting PrCs should just be full casting to begin with. There's no reason that you should lose half your casting just to get some flavor abilities from being a Green Star Adept. Particularly in Pathfinder where casting classes have class features.

Sorry, who are you?

But yeah, PrCs should be a tradeoff for interesting abilities, not clearly superior.

[Florian]

Honestly, all casting PrCs should just be full casting to begin with.

There´s absolutely no need for that, especially in PF. A PrC should give an alternative set of class features while keeping the same power level of the original class. A, say, gish build will have to compete with a Magus and not with a full caster class, and so on.

[Azoth]

There´s absolutely no need for that, especially in PF. A PrC should give an alternative set of class features while keeping the same power level of the original class. A, say, gish build will have to compete with a Magus and not with a full caster class, and so on.

Even on that front a Fighter1/Wizard5/HellKnight Signifier 4/Eldritch Knight10 has BAB16 and casts as a Wizard 18 meaning 9th level spells. Magus, eat your heart out with BAB15 and 6th level spells.

[Florian]

Even on that front a Fighter1/Wizard5/HellKnight Signifier 4/Eldritch Knight10 has BAB16 and casts as a Wizard 18 meaning 9th level spells. Magus, eat your heart out with BAB15 and 6th level spells.

The way things are developing right now, multi-PrC builds might become a non-issue.

Edit: Meaning that PrC, archetypes and feats are affiliated now.

[chaos_redefined]

Sorry, who are you?

But yeah, PrCs should be a tradeoff for interesting abilities, not clearly superior.

Sure. And in this case, we are trading some feats for those original class features.

[Cosi]

But yeah, PrCs should be a tradeoff for interesting abilities, not clearly superior.

Some points:

1. In PF, casters get enough class features to make PrCs a tradeoff. Insofar as it was reasonable to cost caster levels in 3e, it is no longer reasonable to do so in PF.
2. The goal is not necessarily to have PrCs tradeoff, but rather to maximize the number of interesting characters, and it is easier to do that if you make PrCs cheap.
3. The best casting PrCs already don't cost caster levels. You can become an Incantatrix or Dweomerkeeper without having to lose any caster levels, so being asked to do so to become a Spellsword is somewhat insulting.
4. Even if PrCs aren't a fair tradeoff with classes, they are a fair tradeoff with other prestige classes. Every level of Mage of the Arcane Order you take is a level of Primal Scholar you don't take.
5. The paradigm of giving up caster levels for class features is very difficult to balance, because caster levels are of scaling cost. At 6th level, losing a caster level costs a (3.5) Wizard a 2nd and a 3rd level spell slot. At 16th, that same lost level is costing him a 7th and an 8th level spell slot. Unless you make all PrC abilities scale, whatever ability a PrC gets him will be either brokenly good at 6th or brokenly useless at 16th. If you want to make PrCs have a cost, the correct solution is the one the Archmage uses -- spend spell slots, which are of fixed value, to buy fixed abilities.

For people who aren't Hackulator: Over/Under on sentences in their response. I would put it at under three.


There´s absolutely no need for that, especially in PF. A PrC should give an alternative set of class features while keeping the same power level of the original class. A, say, gish build will have to compete with a Magus and not with a full caster class, and so on.

I don't necessarily agree. Certainly, archetypes are PF's attempt to fill the same hole 3e filled with PrCs and it would be more in keeping with the house still to cover any given hole by using one, but they're not perfect at doing so. They have advantages. It's easier to write an archetype, and you get archetype bonuses sooner than you can take a PrC. But they also have disadvantages. Principally, PrCs cover more classes. A single Mage Knight PrC could cover every Gish combination from Wizard/Fighter to Dread Necromancer/Samurai, while you would have to have an archetype for each class pair to do the same.

Personally, I don't consider either solution ideal. Had I my druthers, I would have a system where all classes picked from the same pool of archetypes, and classes had built in "ACFs" that allowed them to choose between abilities that nudged them in specific directions. That would cover most of the Theurge (Knight Phantom, Ultimate Magus) or Specialist (Master Transmorgifist, Elemental Savant) PrCs. That still leaves stuff like the Archmage that is conceptually prestigious, but that's probably best handled by something like Paragon Paths or Epic Destinies.

[DarkOne-Rob]

As the original poster I appreciate that I am getting some discussion to happen, but I am not really so interested in the balance discussion (in this thread). I really want to know what PrCs appeal to people now that these feats exist as options to help shore up weaker caster PrCs. Can we get back to that question, please?

[Hackulator]

Some points:

1. In PF, casters get enough class features to make PrCs a tradeoff. Insofar as it was reasonable to cost caster levels in 3e, it is no longer reasonable to do so in PF.
2. The goal is not necessarily to have PrCs tradeoff, but rather to maximize the number of interesting characters, and it is easier to do that if you make PrCs cheap.
3. The best casting PrCs already don't cost caster levels. You can become an Incantatrix or Dweomerkeeper without having to lose any caster levels, so being asked to do so to become a Spellsword is somewhat insulting.
4. Even if PrCs aren't a fair tradeoff with classes, they are a fair tradeoff with other prestige classes. Every level of Mage of the Arcane Order you take is a level of Primal Scholar you don't take.
5. The paradigm of giving up caster levels for class features is very difficult to balance, because caster levels are of scaling cost. At 6th level, losing a caster level costs a (3.5) Wizard a 2nd and a 3rd level spell slot. At 16th, that same lost level is costing him a 7th and an 8th level spell slot. Unless you make all PrC abilities scale, whatever ability a PrC gets him will be either brokenly good at 6th or brokenly useless at 16th. If you want to make PrCs have a cost, the correct solution is the one the Archmage uses -- spend spell slots, which are of fixed value, to buy fixed abilities.

For people who aren't Hackulator: Over/Under on sentences in their response. I would put it at under three.



I don't necessarily agree. Certainly, archetypes are PF's attempt to fill the same hole 3e filled with PrCs and it would be more in keeping with the house still to cover any given hole by using one, but they're not perfect at doing so. They have advantages. It's easier to write an archetype, and you get archetype bonuses sooner than you can take a PrC. But they also have disadvantages. Principally, PrCs cover more classes. A single Mage Knight PrC could cover every Gish combination from Wizard/Fighter to Dread Necromancer/Samurai, while you would have to have an archetype for each class pair to do the same.

Personally, I don't consider either solution ideal. Had I my druthers, I would have a system where all classes picked from the same pool of archetypes, and classes had built in "ACFs" that allowed them to choose between abilities that nudged them in specific directions. That would cover most of the Theurge (Knight Phantom, Ultimate Magus) or Specialist (Master Transmorgifist, Elemental Savant) PrCs. That still leaves stuff like the Archmage that is conceptually prestigious, but that's probably best handled by something like Paragon Paths or Epic Destinies.

I'll be honest, I briefly considered reading this and then decided that for the rest of my life that would be a minute I wished I could have back.

[grarrrg]

I really want to know what PrCs appeal to people now that these feats exist as options to help shore up weaker caster PrCs. Can we get back to that question, please?

One of the biggest gains is that Spontaneous casters (Sorc/Oracle/etc...) can consider fully taking 7/10 casting PrCs and not worry about losing 9ths. (Yes there's the 'magic guild' option, but feats are easier to slap on and go)

[Cosi]

I really over-played on that. Hackulator can't even muster two sentences defending his belief that giving the Mindbender full casting is broken in a world when Incantatrixes exist.


As the original poster I appreciate that I am getting some discussion to happen, but I am not really so interested in the balance discussion (in this thread). I really want to know what PrCs appeal to people now that these feats exist as options to help shore up weaker caster PrCs. Can we get back to that question, please?

Uh, I guess you can take the final level of Fatespinner now? I think the balance concern is actually pretty relevant here, as the core of is that partial casting PrCs just ... aren't that good. Like, you could be a Knight Phantom with full casting now, but this feat doesn't make you have any less full casting as an Incantatrix, so why do you care? I guess maybe PF added some better partial casting classes?

But seriously, there's no reason for casting PrCs to cost any levels at all, so ultimately you don't care. The people who make power based choices will still not take partial casting classes (because the feat cost is real, and those classes are just flat worse than full casting ones) and the ones who make flavor based choices will still be punished (though admittedly less so). Ultimately, it's a marginal change, and on the margins it makes worse PrCs better, but it's not really enough to move the needle.

[Coretron03]

I'll be honest, I briefly considered reading this and then decided that for the rest of my life that would be a minute I wished I could have back.

Your best response to Cosi's 5 reasons is that his post is such a utter waste of time you would fovermore regret wasting your time reading it? After he gave a direct disagreement to your assertion of the feat being op? You know, the same post where you implied both feats were overpowered, which includes the earth shattering ability of "you get 1-10 hitpoints or skill points, which you would have got anyway (probably better, as you could pick different favoured class bonuses) if you kept progressing in your normal class" and "Regain what you gave up to gain sub-par abilities"?

Thats something i've never seen before and I've read Pickford/visgani threads.

[Psyren]

I think these feats are great; they open up a lot of interesting new options for both PF and 3.P games. There are a lot of PrCs out there that nobody gives the time of day simply because they're missing 2-4 caster levels. I'd happily give up a bunch of feats to make a character concept work - heck, that's what most of us are doing with PrCs anyway.

[enderlord99]

I'll be honest, I briefly considered reading this and then decided that for the rest of my life that would be a minute I wished I could have back.

Then read this instead: "They cost feats, idiot. They aren't free."

[Malimar]

Renegade Mastermaker. So subpar, so much flavor; not losing two casting levels would make it no longer completely not worth taking. (I say this as the guy who wrote the (hand)book on RMs, so I'm already invested in the class.)

Fleshwarper's similarly flavorful, but a bit more well-balanced, got enough going for it that the single lost casting level is just about nearly worth it, so getting it back would be a bonus.

Thrallherd is already too good, would be even better without two lost manifesting levels.

Would it make True Necromancer worth it, or would it just require you to take the relevant feat too many times?


EDIT: Of course, if we're talking Pathfinder, I probably still wouldn't take any prestige class with my, say, human sorcerer -- twenty free spells known as a favored class bonus is better than pretty much anything a prestige class would give. Wake me when they start giving to prestige classes something worth giving that up.

[Endarire]

It makes those with plenty of feats have more PrC options. <shrug>

[Florian]

I really want to know what PrCs appeal to people now that these feats exist as options to help shore up weaker caster PrCs.

Personally, I don´t see those feats having too high an impact on PrC choices, less impact than VMC, which opened up the option to use dual-class PrC on a single class chassis (Battle Herald, Rage Oracle). Yes, you could do things like full-caster Arcane Archer now, but that´s pretty much it.
On the rare build I actually went for PrC (Winter Witch, Blackfire Adept), the overall synergy is high enough to willingly trade away a caster level and I wouldn't fit two additional feat in, as they must be taken before the first level of the PrC.

[Mordaedil]

I'll be honest, I briefly considered reading this and then decided that for the rest of my life that would be a minute I wished I could have back.

Friend, if reading a few sentences of non-aggressive feedback is too much for you, then perhaps forums aren't the medium of response you are looking for?

[Hackulator]

Friend, if reading a few sentences of non-aggressive feedback is too much for you, then perhaps forums aren't the medium of response you are looking for?

It was way more writing than was necessary for this discussion. Being able to express your ideas in a succinct manner is a sign of good thinking (excepting certain creative endeavors). If someone seems incapable of that, I will often not bother with what they say.


Then read this instead: "They cost feats, idiot. They aren't free."

Please feel free to quote where I said they were free. It's a pretty logical progression. I feel like we can all agree a spellcasting level is just superior to a feat. Therefore, a feat which gives you a spellcasting level is out of balance. If you don't agree with that, have fun with your wizard who sacks the majority of his spellcasting levels for feats.

[Coretron03]

It was way more writing than was necessary for this discussion. Being able to express your ideas in a succinct manner is a sign of good thinking (excepting certain creative endeavors). If someone seems incapable of that, I will often not bother with what they say.
Or maybe, just maybe, your wrong in so many ways that someone needs that much space to cover it all. Plus, dismissing what they wrote because it was too long is insane, much more so because what Cosi wrote was informative, contained logical reasoning, solid points and, most of all, Cosi gave reasons to support his side while you dismissed his points as a waste of time with little reason why.



Please feel free to quote where I said they were free. It's a pretty logical progression. I feel like we can all agree a spellcasting level is just superior to a feat. Therefore, a feat which gives you a spellcasting level is out of balance. If you don't agree with that, have fun with your wizard who sacks the majority of his spellcasting levels for feats.
A feat for a spellcasting level would be Op, yes, if it let you get more then a character of your ECL should have. As is, its just playing catch up because you picked a Prc thats weaker then the base wizard.

[Cosi]

Please feel free to quote where I said they were free. It's a pretty logical progression. I feel like we can all agree a spellcasting level is just superior to a feat. Therefore, a feat which gives you a spellcasting level is out of balance. If you don't agree with that, have fun with your wizard who sacks the majority of his spellcasting levels for feats.

Except you can only take them if you've already taken options that are underpowered. A feat that gave you +20 on all your attack rolls would be overpowered. But if it required that you first took a feat that gave you -19 on all your attack rolls, it would be far less so, for reasons that one hopes would be obvious.


Or maybe, just maybe, your wrong in so many ways that someone needs that much space to cover it all. Plus, dismissing what they wrote because it was too long is insane, much more so because what Cosi wrote was informative, contained logical reasoning, solid points and, most of all, Cosi gave reasons to support his side while you dismissed his points as a waste of time withh little reason why.

Pretty much. Those were five largely unrelated points about the issue, Hackulator's point seems to be that if he is wrong in a sufficiently large number of ways, that's like being right, which seems ... strange to say the least.

[Psyren]

I feel like we can all agree a spellcasting level is just superior to a feat.

Actually it's two, and the reality is that you're giving up much more than that. In Pathfinder especially, every PrC has a heavy opportunity cost, which is no less real just because you're not physically paying for something. Many of them also have additional costs in the form of their prerequisites, both in terms of the feats, skills and other requirements you need to invest in, as well as the effect that qualifying timely has on your build's choices.

[Grim Reader]

Sand Shaper -40 odd extra spells known and interesting class features. Your capstone is the ability to resurrect yourself, which is competitive with the Pathfinder capstones.

Swiftblade. Walker in the Waste. Might work on some of the invocation/spellcasting Theurges. EK and Knight Phantom of course. Dipping into Spellsword for Channel Spell may be viable.

Would Racial Paragon classes count as PrC for this? 3/3 advancement Human Paragon for example. Then again, you are limited to only one PrC to use this on, so a 3-level one might not be the thing.

[Jormengand]

I feel like prestigious spellcaster really deserves to be OP - that is, any PrC that loses caster levels, any caster levels, should have enough stuff to be worth the caster level.

That is, the ability to get a caster level back on a PrC that's lost one, at the low price of a feat should be really powerful. Certainly a character with a prestige class which loses caster levels who takes the feat is way more powerful than one who's spent their feats on almost anything else. But then the PrCs which give up caster levels rarely get anything worthwhile in return.

I don't put much truck in the argument that it's actually two feats - it's not like favoured PrC is a total waste of a feat, and if you're trying to get, say, pathfinder's dragon disciple up to full then it's 4/3 of a feat for each level.

[Psyren]

Certainly a character with a prestige class which loses caster levels who takes the feat is way more powerful than one who's spent their feats on almost anything else.

This is correct, but it's also the wrong comparison to be making. You should be comparing a character who took a PrC along with this feat (however many times needed) to one that didn't PrC at all, because that is actually the calculation players will be making mentally. So rather than comparing Sorc/DD without PrS to Sorc/DD with PrS and saying the latter is unequivocally stronger, you should be comparing Sorc/DD with PrS to a pure Sorcerer who has all those feats free to spend wherever he wants, plus his full favored class bonus, access to archetypes and other bloodlines etc.

[Zanos]

Digging the new avatar, Jorm.

Honestly I've noticed in PF that almost every build in the game is base class to 20 with different ability picks. Despite pathfinder having a couple dozen PrCs I hardly ever see them. Hopefully these feats will make some of them more popular, but in most cases I honestly don't think it would be OP to give PrCs full casting progression because base classes already have a lot to offer that you're losing by taking a PrC, which wasn't the case in 3.5. Usually.

[Florian]

Honestly I've noticed in PF that almost every build in the game is base class to 20 with different ability picks.

Well, yes. If you want power and flexibility, stick to a base/core class. If you want focus, go for a PrC.

Honestly, beyond certain very specific foci, there´s no reason to go for a PrC, like at all.

[Epic Legand]

Hay guys, I think this entire discussion is based on a misconception. While there are 2 feats required, and Prestigious Spellcaster can be taken more then once, It does not have the same benefit when taken a second time. The second time it is taken, it only provides a caster level increase, NOT a full progression.

A second point no one has discussed, PC's often have feat requirements, and then stacking 2 more feats on top of that is very expensive in terms of opportunity cost. In PF ( the system where this feat was written) PC are often a poor choice, this 2 feat combo gets you BACK a full caster level, not raises you a full caster level. In 3.5, your often not losing out much by taking a PC, so it looks better in comparison.

I do not feel the feat combo is not broken, as I have never felt it was worth the costs to get into a PF Prestige Class, even with this as a choice. I say this as a power gamer. Class features and favored class features are often better then PC features (in PF). This combo just makes a poor choice, not quite as bad.

[Psyren]

Hay guys, I think this entire discussion is based on a misconception. While there are 2 feats required, and Prestigious Spellcaster can be taken more then once, It does not have the same benefit when taken a second time. The second time it is taken, it only provides a caster level increase, NOT a full progression.

It's ambiguous actually, you can read it either way. I go with the "+1 progression per feat" reading.



A second point no one has discussed, PC's often have feat requirements, and then stacking 2 more feats on top of that is very expensive in terms of opportunity cost. In PF ( the system where this feat was written) PC are often a poor choice, this 2 feat combo gets you BACK a full caster level, not raises you a full caster level. In 3.5, your often not losing out much by taking a PC, so it looks better in comparison.

"No one?" I made this exact point...

[Jormengand]

This is correct, but it's also the wrong comparison to be making. You should be comparing a character who took a PrC along with this feat (however many times needed) to one that didn't PrC at all, because that is actually the calculation players will be making mentally. So rather than comparing Sorc/DD without PrS to Sorc/DD with PrS and saying the latter is unequivocally stronger, you should be comparing Sorc/DD with PrS to a pure Sorcerer who has all those feats free to spend wherever he wants, plus his full favored class bonus, access to archetypes and other bloodlines etc.

Here, let me get the rest of my post for you:


I feel like prestigious spellcaster really deserves to be OP - that is, any PrC that loses caster levels, any caster levels, should have enough stuff to be worth the caster level.

That is, the ability to get a caster level back on a PrC that's lost one, at the low price of a feat should be really powerful. Certainly a character with a prestige class which loses caster levels who takes the feat is way more powerful than one who's spent their feats on almost anything else. But then the PrCs which give up caster levels rarely get anything worthwhile in return.

I don't put much truck in the argument that it's actually two feats - it's not like favoured PrC is a total waste of a feat, and if you're trying to get, say, pathfinder's dragon disciple up to full then it's 4/3 of a feat for each level.

That is, "This would be good if dragon disciple were as good as sorcerer 20. However, it's not, and the reason why it's not is that the stuff that dragon disciple gets isn't good enough to justify losing three caster levels. If it were, then being able to get those three caster levels back with four feats would be overpowered."


Digging the new avatar, Jorm.

Yeah, photobucket kinda ate the one which was actually well-drawn. Oh well. :smalltongue:

[Hackulator]

Everyone here is forgetting that T1s are completely out of balance themselves. Saying "oh well they already took a suboptimal choice by going a PrC so this feat is just catchup" is completely missing where the issues in the game design are. Tier 1 classes are completely unbalanced with everything else, a PrC that gives you some cool powers but loses some game breaking levels of casting is GOOD for design, making your character fun to play for you but less "anti-fun" (to steal a term from Blizzard) for everyone else. Taking those cool powers and then adding back in the game breaking casting is once again, bad design.

[Jormengand]

Everyone here is forgetting that T1s are completely out of balance themselves.

We didn't forget that. We just all mutually understand it. "Wizard OP" isn't exactly some radical new idea; it's commonly understood.

[zlefin]

Pathfinder could probably do away wtih prestige classes altogether considering how much use they see. They're mostly a legacy from 3.5, wherein they existed to add spice and flavor to builds; but in PF where every class has lots of good class features, AND many archetypes exist to cover a variety of options, prestige classes seem unnecessary.
I'm sure these new feats will change that a little, but mostly people weren't even taking the good prestige classes in PF; at least not that i've seen.

[Florian]

We didn't forget that. We just all mutually understand it. "Wizard OP" isn't exactly some radical new idea; it's commonly understood.

I´m actually with Hackulator on that one. Please keep in mind that PrC in PF are more focused than regular non-PrC builds, therefore putting up a very different kind of performance. For example, what a Blackfire Adept can do with calling and summoning is way above the pay grade of a "common" Wizard - But the "power level" stays equal, even after "losing" 3 caster levels to get there.

It´s actually more a problem with "legacy" PrC that have either become redundant or unnecessary by now. This includes the Arcane Archer/Eldritch Knight (Magus), Duelist (Swashbuckler), Dragon Disciple (Bloodrager) and Shadowdancer (Shadow Scion (Rogue)) - the list goes on.
The "new" batch of PrC, starting with Path of Prestige, Path of the Righteous and mostly updated with Adventurer´s Guide (which ties PrC to Affiliation) doesn´t realy have that problem.


Pathfinder could probably do away wtih prestige classes altogether considering how much use they see. They're mostly a legacy from 3.5, wherein they existed to add spice and flavor to builds; but in PF where every class has lots of good class features, AND many archetypes exist to cover a variety of options, prestige classes seem unnecessary.
I'm sure these new feats will change that a little, but mostly people weren't even taking the good prestige classes in PF; at least not that i've seen.

We already see the transition of a lot of PrC to archetypes - Shadowdancer to Shadow Scion (Rogue), Lantern Bearer to Lantern Bearer (Ranger), and so on.

I already mentioned that the actual batch of PrC have focus. When you build a character with a specific purpose in mind, like knowing you´ll play an AP, then they can actually be interesting choices - like going Hellknight for Kingmaker or Wrath of the Righteous.

[Psyren]

Everyone here is forgetting that T1s are completely out of balance themselves. Saying "oh well they already took a suboptimal choice by going a PrC so this feat is just catchup" is completely missing where the issues in the game design are. Tier 1 classes are completely unbalanced with everything else, a PrC that gives you some cool powers but loses some game breaking levels of casting is GOOD for design, making your character fun to play for you but less "anti-fun" (to steal a term from Blizzard) for everyone else. Taking those cool powers and then adding back in the game breaking casting is once again, bad design.

T1 balance isn't relevant though. Giving a wizard 30 fun and viable PrCs to choose from instead of 5 is not going to make them any more T1 than they already are. Furthermore, none of the PrCs getting a boost from this can hold a candle to the current pack-leaders of Incantatrix, Iot7FV, Dweomerkeeper, Planar Shepherd etc, even with the boost.

There is a fundamental misunderstanding here of what "overpowered" (and its result, power creep (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3b3hDvRjJA)) actually is. Boosting a weaker option to viability is not that.

[Zanos]

Pathfinder Tier 1s aren't usually that bad anyway. I've had more trouble with 3/4 BAB half casters jacking their numbers up ridiculously and using "at least it's not a wizard" as a defense.

[Psyren]

Pathfinder Tier 1s aren't usually that bad anyway. I've had more trouble with 3/4 BAB half casters jacking their numbers up ridiculously and using "at least it's not a wizard" as a defense.

For that matter, Pathfinder PrCs are pretty blah too :smallbiggrin:

But even if you ported this feat into 3.5 - which, honestly, is where it would do the most good - I wouldn't see it as a problem there either.

[TheBrassDuke]

Sand Shaper -40 odd extra spells known and interesting class features. Your capstone is the ability to resurrect yourself, which is competitive with the Pathfinder capstones.

Swiftblade. Walker in the Waste. Might work on some of the invocation/spellcasting Theurges. EK and Knight Phantom of course. Dipping into Spellsword for Channel Spell may be viable.

Would Racial Paragon classes count as PrC for this? 3/3 advancement Human Paragon for example. Then again, you are limited to only one PrC to use this on, so a 3-level one might not be the thing.

+1 on Sandshaper--that's what I originally began researching the feat for!

[Azoth]

I won't say all Pathfinder PRCs are bad and not worth it. My current group banned Soul Eater (at least in my hands). This has to do with all of the various ways I have shown that it completely allows one to snap WBL over your knee, and how to use it to recharge even 9th level spells with relative ease.

Granted, this work best if you only dip Soul Eater for two levels rather than take it in its entirety.

A tame example of a way to abuse it. Buy an Ox for 50GP. Level drain it 5 times for 5 Soul Points. It dies, have your Cacodaemon familiar devour it's soul. You now can either use those 5 Soul Points to make a Soul Gem worth 100gp (create Soul Gem spell), recharge a 2nd level spell slot, or craft 500gp worth of material for free.

You still have a soul gem left over worth 25gp. Feel free to hold onto it to cheapen the cost of a spell with an expensive material component.

Who knew worshiping The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse made one the best crafter in the game and allowed an infinite recharge trick.

[Cosi]

This is correct, but it's also the wrong comparison to be making. You should be comparing a character who took a PrC along with this feat (however many times needed) to one that didn't PrC at all, because that is actually the calculation players will be making mentally.

Or just taking a PrC that is actually good. I do not think there is any partial casting PrC that, if given full casting, would be better than just being a metamagic cheese Incantatrix or a supernatural spell cheese Dweomerkeeper. Even fair PrCs like Mage of the Arcane Order are still just better than e.g. Acolyte of the Skin.


This includes the Arcane Archer/Eldritch Knight (Magus)

Eldritch Knight accomplishes something Magus does not. It allows you to combine any martial class with any magical class. If you happen to want a dude who fights honorably and uses illusion magic, you can play a Beguiler/Knight/Eldritch Knight*. It's probably not very good, but it's better than PF's options of "wait for an Archetype that does what you want" and "straight multiclass".

*: Assuming being a Beguiler is not incompatible with being a Knight.


Pathfinder Tier 1s aren't usually that bad anyway. I've had more trouble with 3/4 BAB half casters jacking their numbers up ridiculously and using "at least it's not a wizard" as a defense.

I mean, it is harder to challenge a guy with huge numbers (like an optimized martial) than a guy with a variety of abilities (like an optimized caster). Uberchargers and the like have always been hard to work with because of how binary they are. Casters are much easier to challenge because they have more places to set up challenges.


Everyone here is forgetting that T1s are completely out of balance themselves.

To start with, out of balance with what? Other full casters? Fighters? Monsters? Your conception of how the game should run? With the exception of the Warmage, the Healer, and maybe something I'm forgetting, full casters (9th level spells or powers) are all in a band where the best character in a party is likely to come down to chance rather than class choice. That's balanced, and there are probably more classes at that balance point than the one with e.g. the Monk.

But I also think that the "game breaking power" of Tier One characters is largely illusory. Yes, you can do very powerful things with Wizards. But for the most part, the things you can do with Wizards that are broken are available to other classes, and broken in their hands as well. A 7th level Bard's ability to use charm monster and Diplomacy to turn everyone he meets into his army is broken in pretty much exactly the same way as the Wizard's ability to use planar binding to conjure an infinite army of demons.

Once you strip away all the abilities that are inherently broken in the hands of everyone (primarily, dumpster diving the MM and breaking various economies), the Sorcerers, Druids, and Beguilers of the world are left with ability sets that are essentially fair and match up pretty well against what the game expects you to do at high levels. A Trumpet Archon is a CR 14 monster that is a 14th level Cleric. That seems like a pretty compelling argument for the position that "Cleric" is something the game can cope with you being.

For those following at home, here's an exercise -- what is the least optimized Wizard who can defeat eight out of ten unknown EL = Level encounters? I think you'll find that you have to go pretty deep at most levels before that happens, and that should be indicative of the reality that Wizards are not in fact "broken".


Saying "oh well they already took a suboptimal choice by going a PrC so this feat is just catchup" is completely missing where the issues in the game design are.

Okay, so solve the issues there! If Wizards are brokenly better than Fighters, either make Wizards worse or make Fighters better. Don't give Wizards the option to make themselves worse then act all surprised when they don't take it. "Why are you hitting yourself" is dumb, but "why aren't you hitting yourself" is a whole lot dumber.

PrCs are optional. If you make every PrC require you to lose all your casting, cut off one of your toes, and eat a bag of slugs, you won't see Wizard players suddenly start ordering gastropods in bulk. You will see them stop taking PrCs.


Tier 1 classes are completely unbalanced with everything else, a PrC that gives you some cool powers but loses some game breaking levels of casting is GOOD for design, making your character fun to play for you but less "anti-fun" (to steal a term from Blizzard) for everyone else.

It may seem counter-intuitive, but if you made caster PrCs (particularly theurges) good enough, you would probably reduce practical imbalance, even if you increased theoretical imbalance. If you make bad caster PrCs better, you may convince people who would previously play non-casters to play casters. If you can get all the non-caster players to do this, everyone is playing a caster, and balance is much better, even if characters are more powerful.

A model, for anyone interested:

Suppose we have two players, Alice and Bob. Both will play whatever the most powerful character from the list of characters that interests them is.

Alice would like to play either an Incantatrix (10/10 power) or a Monk (2/10 power).

Bob would like to play either a Bonded Summoner (3/10 power) or a Fighter (4/10 power).

Currently, Alice plays an Incantatrix and Bob plays a Fighter, producing an overall gap of six points. But suppose you buffed Bonded Summoner, something Hackulator assures us is bad because it puts more power in the hands of casters. Now, the full casting Bonded Summoner is a 8/10 on power. Bob switches to the Bonded Summoner, and the power gap shrinks to two points. This seems like the exact opposite of what Hackulator assures us would happen.


Taking those cool powers and then adding back in the game breaking casting is once again, bad design.

No it's not.

Let's try to imagine how PrCs might work in the world Hackulator proposes. So, what are our design goals? Well, Hackulator seems to believe they look something like this:

1. Make Wizards less good.

I'm also going to make explicit the implicit constraint that your solution needs to be something that you can solve with a reasonable amount of design effort. If your plan is "rewrite all the PrCs", it's probably DOA even if it nominally works (though it could be viable for the next game). So:

1. Make Wizards less good.
2. Use as much existing content as possible.

Okay, then. Let's try:

Solution 0: Make PrCs, like, super bad.
Problem: PrCs are optional. If people don't like PrCs, they don't take them.

That seems like a pretty serious flaw. It doesn't matter if casters with PrCs are "fixed", because either you are playing with people who don't care about power (in which case, why are you trying to fix power issues?) or you aren't and people will just not take options that make them worse.

Actually, in the interest of exploring every possibility, there is a radical solution here: only write six levels of Beguiler. Beguiler keeps its spell progression and list, but you have to PrC even if all the PrCs suck. So:

Solution 1: Casting classes end as soon as they grant 3rd level spells. At this point, casters must take a PrC, which cripples them until Fighters stop crying.
Problems: Mechanically, this works pretty well. But I don't think people are on board with classes ending at different levels. Also, you do have to ban all the full progression PrCs (it'd be funny to forget this step and watch people show up with Shadowcraft Mages because they literally have to).

Okay, so now we have to amend our goals -- whatever our solution is, people have to actually choose to take whatever PrCs we have. So:

1. Make Wizards less good.
1. Not make Wizards any better.
2. Use as much existing content as possible.

The obvious solution here is to take away caster levels, which is what most existing PrCs do:

Solution 2: Casting PrCs all cost some number of caster levels.
Problems: The cost of a lost level of casting is variable, both across character level and character class. If a 7th level Wizard becomes an 8th level character without gaining any casting, he loses (doesn't gain) one daily 3rd level slot, one daily 4th level slot, and sundries from loosing a caster level (e.g. spells known). A Sorcerer loses different stuff, but you can sort of pretend its of equal value (also, because we're smart, we'll solve any Sorcerer/Wizard imbalance by changing the classes, instead of random other things). But the real issue is that when that same Wizard hits 18th level, he's paying an entirely different set of costs. He loses the same side benefits to his casting, but he now loses one daily 8th level slot, and one daily 9th level slot. But he still got the same class features at that level.

This seems pretty terminally boned to me. Any level of a PrC that offers some benefit for a lost caster level with either be broken when you get it, or underpowered later. Neither of those seems to me a good paradigm on which to base PrCs. But this scheme might be salvageable. You could try:

Solution 2A: Casting PrCs all cost some number of caster levels, and provide overall bonuses that compensate for those losses throughout your life.
Problems: First, this runs pretty hard up against our "existing content" restriction -- how many existing partial casting PrCs can you name that you would take instead of "more Wizard levels"? Second, this means that you can't ever bail on a PrC without running back into the issues with Solution 2. Also, it's very likely that you will end up with breakpoints, where people who take one level of Mindbender get way more than they pay for (for example, a Beguiler pays for pretty close to nothing).

Okay, that seems pretty bad. We can't use most existing PrCs, and based on the attempts to do this (e.g. existing PrCs), we're likely end up just powering up Wizards anyway. Maybe we could do:

Solution 2B: Casting PrCs all cost some number of caster levels, and provide scaling bonuses that track to the cost of lost caster levels.
Problems: Well, we now have to re-write almost every PrC, so constraint 2 is pretty clearly broken here. Also, you have to figure out a balanced scaling ability for every PrC you want to do.

That's notionally balanced, but practically unworkable. I think at this point it should be clear that costing caster levels is not a workable paradigm. But what if we're heart-set on making casters pay for their bonuses by giving up their "broken" casting? We could try taking fixed chunks of casting:

Solution 3: Casting PrCs trade spell slots for abilities.
Problems: The only real problem here is design effort. You have to assign a slot cost to every ability any PrC grants. If you're willing to do that, I think this solution is fine, and it is notionally power neutral.

Maybe we've been approaching this from the wrong direction? What if we just made PrC abilities mixed benefits? So:

Solution 4: Give PrCs abilities that help you do on-theme stuff, but hurt you if you do off-theme stuff.
Problems: Same as Solution 2B, really. Very few existing PrCs work like this (I think just Unseen Seer), and it's hard to imagine much variety to abilities like this.

Is there something we can do without touching the abilities of the PrCs themselves? I think so, because PrCs have an opportunity cost built in -- you gotta set some feats on fire to take them. So:

Solution 5: Make all PrCs require useless feats.
Problems: You get very few feats, and they are mostly kinda crap. You just don't get all that much power to work with by forcing people to take Skill Focus (Basketweaving) instead of Extend Spell. Also, runs up against constraint 2 again. Also, you can't really make PrCs based off of feats (for example, no metamagic PrCs).

But this seems like it should be fruitful track. If you make PrCs more expensive, you should be able to make them balanced without having to make them less good. But as it stands (in 3.5), you don't have all that many nobs to work with. Casters don't get class features, they don't have that much of a chassis to trade down, and taking away casting is hard to do in a balanced way. So we have to scale down constraint 1 again:

1. Make Wizards less good.
1. Not make Wizards any better.
1. Not make Wizards too much better.
2. Use as much existing content as possible.

And at this point balancing PrCs is pretty trivial. Green Star Adept doesn't get you all that much, particularly for a traditional caster Wizard. If you somehow get in at 5th level without losing caster levels, at 12th level you can safely fight in your own cloudkill. Yay! But if you really wanted to, you could do that at 9th level if you just were a Warforged. And of course, Incantatrix is right there, not costing any caster levels.

So you get my preferred solution:

Solution 6: Make all PrCs full casting, and accept that casters will be marginally stronger in exchange for being dramatically more diverse.
Problems: It does make casters better, but for the most part you don't notice because partial casting PrCs don't have good class features, and the best casting PrCs were already full casting.

There's also the PF solution:

Solution 7: Give casters class features so PrCs cost something.
Problems: Pretty much the same as Solution 6, except you have to do more work.

It seems to me, that from a design perspective, the best solutions are the ones that accept that PrCs are a drop in the bucket of caster power and just accept that when you fix martials you will have to aim slightly higher to account for that.

So Hackulator, what have I missed here? What should we do with PrCs that doesn't require us to rewrite the whole system, doesn't make them wasted space, and makes them nerf casters? What option am I not seeing?

TL;DR:

You can't use an optional system to reduce character power.
The traditional solution of costing caster levels has empirically failed to work, and is unlikely to be workable.
There are workable power-neutral solutions for caster PrCs, but they require a lot of effort to implement.
The easiest solutions involve simply accepting a marginal increase in caster power in exchange for a much larger increase in caster diversity.

[Ellrin]

Eldritch Knight accomplishes something Magus does not. It allows you to combine any martial class with any magical class. If you happen to want a dude who fights honorably and uses illusion magic, you can play a Beguiler/Knight/Eldritch Knight*. It's probably not very good, but it's better than PF's options of "wait for an Archetype that does what you want" and "straight multiclass".

Or our theoretical magus could be a Samsaran and/or take the Spell Blending Arcana as many times as he likes, and grab all the Sor/Wiz illusion spells he wants; and if he needs some mechanical effects related to fighting honorably, he can VMC cavalier.

I get where you're coming from, but I feel like you've got to get extremely specific before you reach a point where an eldritch knight can cover a thematic concept that a straight-classed magus could not.

[Sagetim]

I'm sure I'll get around to actually reading the most recent posts here at some point, but for now it's 1 am and I should have been asleep already. My main question is: How does this feat interact with True Necromancer (specifically) and other dual progression classes that don't give full progression to both across their whole shebang (like Ultimate Magus, as an example, or...I don't know what off hand because I'm falling asleep here). This would be a cross pollenation with the 'help Althaer build the cheesy necromancer' thread, since I managed to present the idea of animating ghost cats, awakening them as undead, training them as maneuver users and stuffing them in a bag to unleash on unsuspecting enemies...and I was hoping we might find a way to get him full 9th level spells by the end of a 20 level build while still going full bore into True Necromancer.

[Coretron03]

I'm sure I'll get around to actually reading the most recent posts here at some point, but for now it's 1 am and I should have been asleep already. My main question is: How does this feat interact with True Necromancer (specifically) and other dual progression classes that don't give full progression to both across their whole shebang (like Ultimate Magus, as an example, or...I don't know what off hand because I'm falling asleep here). This would be a cross pollenation with the 'help Althaer build the cheesy necromancer' thread, since I managed to present the idea of animating ghost cats, awakening them as undead, training them as maneuver users and stuffing them in a bag to unleash on unsuspecting enemies...and I was hoping we might find a way to get him full 9th level spells by the end of a 20 level build while still going full bore into True Necromancer.
I think you could read it as granting you spell levels in both as it grants a plus 1 in spellcasting level. However, it would be a strange rule interaction at best, as (As far as I know) pathfinder doesn't have Theuruge PRCs that aren't fullcasting.

[Florian]

@Cosi:

I´m actually interested: How far did you keep up with how PF has developed and handles things?

The current stance is to phase out "non-affiliated" PrC (mostly CRB and APG) and replace them with "affiliated" PrC that are extremely specialized. Psyren already pointed out that the comparison point is base class + archetype vs. base class + PrC and how that sums up, the secondary comparison point is gain in specialization vs. cost of specialization.

The interesting point is how feats that alter or modify class feature progression, like Boon Companion, Accomplished Sneak Attacker and Prestigious Spellcaster will affect the cost-benefit-ratio of loss in flexibility vs. gain in specialization.

Edit: Let´s compare something.

My current character is progressing along a Tiefling (Kyton-Spawn) Diviner 5/Blackfire Adept 5/Diabolist 10 path (Currently Diviner 5/BFA 3/Diabolist 5). That´s a net loss of two full caster levels and a net gain of raising the cap on calling spells by up to 8 HD.
Prereqs after the AG update would be two feats, either one additional feat or CHA 14 (both PrC are affiliated) or two additional feats or CHA 16 to also be in the Mage´s Guild. With 2,3 or 4 feats out of 4 already blocked, Prestigious Spellcaster is unattainable.

Now contrast that to two of the "dabbler" PrC: Noble Scion and Westcrown Devil. Both have very easy prerequisites and have optional spell casting progression of 2/10 and 3/10. Both are pretty much specialized, Noble Scion on Leadership and Westcrown Devil is a daring rogue type. The net gain of 8 or 7 full caster levels all the while keeping the full PrC class features is... brutal... for the cost of "just" two feats.

Edit 2: Arcane Archer sits right in the middle of it. The main gain for a late entry (Ftr2/Wiz8) is twofold, keeping school powers relatively intact and moving AMF to be a damn good BFC option. The difference here is between losing 5 or 2 caster levels, which will amount to 7th or 9th max.

[Coretron03]

Now contrast that to two of the "dabbler" PrC: Noble Scion and Westcrown Devil. Both have very easy prerequisites and have optional spell casting progression of 2/10 and 3/10. Both are pretty much specialized, Noble Scion on Leadership and Westcrown Devil is a daring rogue type. The net gain of 8 or 7 full caster levels all the while keeping the full PrC class features is... brutal... for the cost of "just" two feats.

Edit 2: Arcane Archer sits right in the middle of it. The main gain for a late entry (Ftr2/Wiz8) is twofold, keeping school powers relatively intact and moving AMF to be a damn good BFC option. The difference here is between losing 5 or 2 caster levels, which will amount to 7th or 9th max.

I think you misunderstand how the feat works. It requires a feat for each casting level lost (Plus favoured Prestige class), not giving full casting for just 2 feats (Which seems what you mean with the end of the first paragraph I quoted) which is false. It would take 9 feats to get 8 levels of casting, not 2.

Feat text:
"Benefit(s): The first time you gain a level in your favored prestige class and the spells per day class feature does not grant an increase in effective level for the purpose of casting spells, you gain new spells per day as if the prestige class did grant +1 level of spellcasting for that level. This effect is retroactive if you gain this feat at a level beyond the point where your favored prestige class would normally have not advanced your spellcasting."
Emphasis Mine. Its backed up by the special section of the feat that implies it doesn't give full casting.

[Florian]

I think you misunderstand how the feat works. It requires a feat for each casting level lost (Plus favoured Prestige class), not giving full casting for just 2 feats (Which seems what you mean with the end of the first paragraph I quoted) which is false. It would take 9 feats to get 8 levels of casting, not 2.

Check out http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2u7dt?Prestigious-Spellcaster-Feat-Questions#1

You can take the feat multiple times and I think I didn't give the impression that you shouldn't handle it any other way than one feat per +1 caster level.

My comparing point is actually VMC, so 5 feats for some class features.

[Coretron03]

The net gain of 8 or 7 full caster levels all the while keeping the full PrC class features is... brutal... for the cost of "just" two feats.

I was referring to this part of your post, which seemed to imply that you thought that prestigious spellcaster gave full progression with only 2 feats. I didn't mean to say that each feat gave a only a caster level.

[Florian]

I was referring to this part of your post, which seemed to imply that you thought that prestigious spellcaster gave full progression with only 2 feats. I didn't mean to say that each feat gave a only a caster level.

Ah, ok, re-reading it, I agree that my post could give the wrong impression. I assumed to comparing the feats to Accomplished Sneak Attacker and Boon Companion is enough to bring the meaning across that it´s pretty unique to need "just two feats" to advance a class feature, even if you have to take the feat multiple times.

[Cosi]

I´m actually interested: How far did you keep up with how PF has developed and handles things?

I stopped caring too much about what PF does somewhere between the charade that was the playtest and the incredible stupidity of their errata paradigm.

That said, I am broadly aware of the tendency you're point at (archetypes over PrCs), and I addressed it in an earlier post.

But I'm not sure what effect you think it has on the balance effects of buffing partial casting PrCs.


The net gain of 8 or 7 full caster levels all the while keeping the full PrC class features is... brutal... for the cost of "just" two feats.

It's a large gain in power, but that doesn't necessarily make it unbalancing. If the rest of the party is 90th percentile characters like Rainbow Servants or Hathrans, taking your character from the 10th percentile to the 80th makes the game more balanced.

[Florian]

But I'm not sure what effect you think it has on the balance effects of buffing partial casting PrCs.

Ah, ok, that explains it.

Point is that PF moved on towards having the Bard-type chassis as the referenced balance point. The gamut of the now available classes are based on 3/4 BAB, 6/9 casting, shored up with class features, and so on.
Using your terms, 60% is the base-line, 75% the optimized maximum (compared to 3.5E).

[Cosi]

Point is that PF moved on towards having the Bard-type chassis as the referenced balance point. The gamut of the now available classes are based on 3/4 BAB, 6/9 casting, shored up with class features, and so on.
Using your terms, 60% is the base-line, 75% the optimized maximum (compared to 3.5E).

If casting is worth a different amount, that doesn't change the underlying logic of the problem of casting costs. If classes get less from casting, and more from class features, that seems like an argument that we are already in a trade-off based equilibrium purely off class features and don't need any lost caster levels to balance things.