Simple PrC fix

[jedipilot24]

Reading through the handbooks, I have noticed that a lot of prestige classes are rated as not worth it because of the lost caster levels.

So just how unbalancing would it be to house rule that all prestige classes which advance existing spellcasting are full advancement, regardless of text or table?

Which classes would finally be worth it, and which ones would become too powerful?

On a somewhat related note, how unbalancing would it be to rule that all prestige classes which stack with turn undead also grant it?

[JNAProductions]

Reading through the handbooks, I have noticed that a lot of prestige classes are rated as not worth it because of the lost caster levels.

So just how unbalancing would it be to house rule that all prestige classes which advance existing spellcasting are full advancement, regardless of text or table?

Which classes would finally be worth it, and which ones would become too powerful?

On a somewhat related note, how unbalancing would it be to rule that all prestige classes which stack with turn undead also grant it?

You'd make casters more powerful without addressing martials.

It probably wouldn't break anything any more than it's already broken, but I'd honestly go the other way-take some of the most recommended PrCs and knock them down to partial casting. Make it an actual trade-off, rather than a no-brainer.

[weckar]

That's only a problem if anyone actually wants to play a martial.

[Necroticplague]

It probably wouldn't break anything any more than it's already broken, but I'd honestly go the other way-take some of the most recommended PrCs and knock them down to partial casting. Make it an actual trade-off, rather than a no-brainer.

This. Prestige classes should not be strictly superior better than base classes. So giving all casting PRCs full casting is the wrong direction, since it means you have next to zero incentive not to immediately prc out.

The problem isn't that half-casters are too weak (usually), it's that the full casting PRCs are too strong. Incantatrix would still be one of the best PRCs in the game, even if it was a half-caster.

[Doctor Awkward]

There was a thread on the old 339 boards that addressed this topic rather extensively.

The conclusion was that, "Whether or not it is overpowered depends entirely on whether or not the features granted by that prestige class are more powerful than spells that are available at that same level."

[Cosi]

Yes, this is a good fix. The most powerful PrCs are already full casting, there's no reason for options that would be weaker purely off class features to get hit again by reduced casting progression. The only thing I've seen that makes a compelling case for being a problem is Swiftblade, and even that is probably still worse than Incantatrix.


You'd make casters more powerful without addressing martials.

Several points, in no particular order:

You shouldn't not fix a problem because other problems exist. Caster PrCs that cost caster levels are underpowered, remove otherwise-appealing concepts from the game, and are part of a paradigm that is difficult-to-impossible to balance. Fixing that by making them full casting is a good idea, regardless of whether you should also be doing something to make martials better.

You wouldn't make casters stronger, because the most powerful PrCs (Dweomerkeeper, Incantatrix, Shadowcraft Mage, etc) are already full casting progression. So if people are going to be choosing PrCs purely off power concerns, they already don't lose caster levels. Incantatrix is better than Mindbender even if the latter is full progression. To make Mindbender half progression while Incantatrix exists is just an insult.

You wouldn't make casters stronger, because the most powerful options for casters aren't PrC-related. planar binding cheese requires nothing you don't get from pure Wizard levels, and is substantially more powerful than pretty much anything PrCs have to offer. The power level casters can already reach by RAW is powerful enough to subsume all the power of PrCs several times over, so decreasing the costs of PrCs just increases the options available to reach particular power levels.

Related to the previous two points, build variety is a more important concern than theoretical maximum power levels. You're already going to put some restrictions (whether implicit gentleman's agreements or explicit houserules) on the power levels characters can reach, so having to say "no Incantatrixes, Hathran, or Swiftblades" rather than "no Incantatrixes or Hathran" is a much smaller sacrifice than the gain from people profitably being Green Star Adepts or Dragonslayers.

Increasing the power level of (now) partial-casting PrCs might actually decrease observed imbalance. Suppose we model players as having a number of builds they're interested in playing, and picking the one that rates highest on a 10 point power scale (itself also an abstraction). Now suppose we have two players. One wants to play an Incantatrix (9/10). The other wants to play either a Bear Warrior (6/10) or a Mindbender (4/10 under current rules, 8/10 with full casting). Under the current rules, you observe a 3 point power gap. Under these houserules, you see a 1 point power gap. Obviously that's a simplified abstraction, I think the underlying point is fairly strong.


It probably wouldn't break anything any more than it's already broken, but I'd honestly go the other way-take some of the most recommended PrCs and knock them down to partial casting. Make it an actual trade-off, rather than a no-brainer.

Partial casting is a terrible balancing mechanism, because a lost level of casting is a variable cost, but the benefits of PrCs are fixed. At 6th level, being behind a level of casting costs a Wizard one 3rd level spell and one 2nd level spell. At 16th level, being behind a level of casting costs a Wizard one 8th level spell and one 7th level spell. What class feature is balanced at both of those costs? In particular, what actually extant class feature of a PrC you'd identify as overpowered is balanced at both of those costs? To say nothing of the fact that if you manage to make PrCs expensive enough to be a net loss (easy to do by accident, and occasionally endorsed as a goal) you'll simply cause everyone to play a single classed caster, and those characters homogenize very quickly.

The balanced way of adding costs will be spell slot costs, but going in and figuring out what kind of spell slot every class ability should cost is a vast effort. It's far easier to simply accept that characters will be slightly more powerful (though still within the range of power previously available), and use the very easy fix of making these PrCs full progression.

[Mike Miller]

Reading through the handbooks, I have noticed that a lot of prestige classes are rated as not worth it because of the lost caster levels.

So just how unbalancing would it be to house rule that all prestige classes which advance existing spellcasting are full advancement, regardless of text or table?

Which classes would finally be worth it, and which ones would become too powerful?

On a somewhat related note, how unbalancing would it be to rule that all prestige classes which stack with turn undead also grant it?

I have houseruled all partial casting PrCs to be full casting PrCs in my current campaign (as well as manifesters, etc). It has been fine so far. My group is a low to middle optimization group and it is fun. I don't have their sheets in front of me, but they're mostly a casting/manifesting group and have made use of the houserule.


This. Prestige classes should not be strictly superior better than base classes. So giving all casting PRCs full casting is the wrong direction, since it means you have next to zero incentive not to immediately prc out.

You already have next to zero incentive not to immediately PrC out of lots of base classes. Look at sorcerer: no features. Look at wizard: just bonus feats. Look at cleric: no features. There are others, but I don't see that particular reason as a compelling argument for nerfs. Generally boosting weaker classes is more fun for everyone than nerfing stronger classes. Each table varies, though

[Necroticplague]

To say nothing of the fact that if you manage to make PrCs expensive enough to be a net loss (easy to do by accident, and occasionally endorsed as a goal) you'll simply cause everyone to play a single classed caster, and those characters homogenize very quickly.

Not true. See also: pathfinder. You are very strongly incentivized to play a single-classed character, regardless of casting, but characters of the same class can be very different, because classes actually have options.

[Cosi]

You already have next to zero incentive not to immediately PrC out of lots of base classes. Look at sorcerer: no features. Look at wizard: just bonus feats. Look at cleric: no features. There are others, but I don't see that particular reason as a compelling argument for nerfs. Generally boosting weaker classes is more fun for everyone than nerfing stronger classes. Each table varies, though

Yes, exactly. In particular, the idea of "buff weak things instead of nerfing strong things" is an idea that doesn't get nearly enough support.


Not true. See also: pathfinder. You are very strongly incentivized to play a single-classed character, regardless of casting, but characters of the same class can be very different, because classes actually have options.

Yes, you could write things to provide greater differentiation between characters of a given class. But the game isn't written that way. And if the game was written that way, people would have enough class abilities that you could just view the PrC as trading out the class abilities for PrC abilities.

[Edenbeast]

Yes, exactly. In particular, the idea of "buff weak things instead of nerfing strong things" is an idea that doesn't get nearly enough support.

I think this is indeed the way to go, but I would still advice a case by case approach. In my opinion it's mostly the PrC's that are half caster progression (e.g. each even level) that suffer. There are quite some PrC's that lose maybe 1 or 2 on 10 levels that are still very good and don't need to be given full caster progression, take for example Malconvoker, Wild Soul or War Weaver.

[Edenbeast]

Also, you could use the PrC Tier System (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?107618-3e-Zeal-s-(in-progress)-Tier-System-for-PrCs) as a guideline. Anything that is listed as down one or more would qualify for boosted caster progression, and anything equal or up doesn't.