An argument for half-caster PrCs

[heavyfuel]

It's pretty common to see people referring to half-casters as the absolutely worst thing in the game. Losing 5 caster levels over the course of a 10 lv PrC is worse than playing a Monk 20.

However, there is one situation where they absolutely shine: If you are the DM.

Imagine that you want to have a caster NPC, be they friend or foe to the PCs, you probably don't really care about levels. You definitely care less about levels than your players.

Let's say you want this enemy NPC to be a Sorcerer able to cast Cloudkill. Cloudkill is supposed to be his whole schtick and his strongest spell. Ok, so he should have a caster level of no higher than 10. But at CL 10, if he's a sorcerer 10 he might be too frail to survive more than a couple of rounds. So instead, you make him Sorcerer 7 / Spellsword 5. This grants him more HP, better saves, and he can wear armor now. Sure, his CR rose by 2 points, but who cares? He's hardly as strong as CR 12 full caster sorcerer. CR is more of a guideline, as we all now how broken the system is. The important thing is you now have a Sorcerer able to cast his signature spell and is also a bit beefed up.

Anyway, just thought I'd share this use I employ for these half-caster classes.

(yeah, if you play at OP levels where HP and saves don't matter, this doesn't help you, no need to post about it)

[EldritchWeaver]

Any reason why you can't have the sorcerer level 9 and add some fighter levels or something?

[Kayblis]

I love how the argument is basically "they're so bad you can add more class levels and still come out with a mediocre result".

Add martial levels to the sorcerer. A feat or two won't hurt and you can always waste them on Improved Toughness for a bit more HP.

[Particle_Man]

Another argument for half-casters is it helps DMs who don't want to deal with full casters and so institute a rule that characters must take a non-caster level after taking a caster level.

Maybe it would allow Green Star Adept to get some love. :smallwink::smallbiggrin:

[heavyfuel]

Any reason why you can't have the sorcerer level 9 and add some fighter levels or something?

The thing is that these PRCs usually have something nice going for them. Not nicer than caster levels, but nice. For example, the Spellsword lets you cast in armor, somewhat.


I love how the argument is basically "they're so bad you can add more class levels and still come out with a mediocre result".

Pretty much! Mediocre isn't bad if mediocre is what you're aiming for :smallwink:


Another argument for half-casters is it helps DMs who don't want to deal with full casters and so institute a rule that characters must take a non-caster level after taking a caster level.

Maybe it would allow Green Star Adept to get some love. :smallwink::smallbiggrin:

Never played with this rule, but it makes sense. :smallbiggrin:

[NontheistCleric]

Pretty much! Mediocre isn't bad if mediocre is what you're aiming for :smallwink:

Isn't that obvious, though? The only reason half-caster classes are disparaged in optimization circles, and quite rightly, is because they bring power levels down, and that's not what people want in that situation. Clearly the situation is quite different if you're trying to make an underpowered NPC. It's not exactly a revelation that if you want a weak character, you should build them badly.

Your initial example, though, doesn't do much for your argument at all. If you want a character specialized in casting Cloudkill, you optimize their casting abilities around the use of that spell, rather than restricting their abilities down to the bare minimum needed to cast the spell. It's no good trying to be good at casting Cloudkill when you're simply not good at casting in general.

[Jay R]

I build PCs to survive whatever happens, and be able to do cool things from 1st level until the highest level that game reaches. I want him to become one of the greatest heroes in the world.

I build NPCs to provide a single encounter -- or occasionally to survive through a series of encounters so his death will make a suitable climax to the story arc. But the crucial aspect is that they are created to have a good chance of losing, either immediately or eventually.

Since they have different goals, OF COURSE they should be built differently.

[King of Nowhere]

i thought gishes were considered good builds, and bards - who can be argued to be half casters, or maybe 2/3rds of casters - solid tier 3.

How is a half caster prc worse than a gish or a bard?

probably it is considered worse because you start with a T1 class and bring it down to T2 or T3, while a gish starts with a T4 mundane and brings it to T3 with some casting. this relies on the assumption that you are trying to optimize the base class as much as you can.
If you are aiming for T3, a half caster is as reasonable a build as a gish or bard.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I've always seen them as a way to boost non-casters without going whole-hog into gish territory, for the most part. Some of them are clearly NPC, one-trick ponies though.

Let's look at a popular one; mind bender. No sensible player is going down that road unless they're on a warlock or even lesser caster for the base and even then they know they're trading away versatility to specialize in their one trick.

From a GM perspective, though; it's a great way to make use of potent enchantment effects without making it possible to just change over to something else if the players figure it out and counter. It creates a great resource for the "easy if handled well" type of encounter.

[Cosi]

How is a half caster prc worse than a gish or a bard?

Bards aren't good unless they specialize heavily, and then they're either getting 9ths from Sublime Chord or discarding casting entirely to go Bardblade.

Gishes rarely lose more than two or three caster levels, and even that's a pretty hefty cost.

Many of the half casting PrCs are just bad on the merits of their class features. Entropomancer would be a marginal class if it gave full casting.

But the real reason they suck is that losing caster levels is just fundamentally not balanced. It is a mechanic that should not be in the game, and even if you think single-classed casters are too good, the correct solution is to nerf those classes rather than put bad mechanics elsewhere. Particularly since the place in question is an optimal subsystem that cannot reduce the power of optimized characters.

[Hackulator]

I mean, the issue here is that people on this forum seem to think the only point of playing is to make your character as powerful as possible. Sometimes the game is more fun with a less optimal character.

[sleepyphoenixx]

i thought gishes were considered good builds, and bards - who can be argued to be half casters, or maybe 2/3rds of casters - solid tier 3.

How is a half caster prc worse than a gish or a bard?

probably it is considered worse because you start with a T1 class and bring it down to T2 or T3, while a gish starts with a T4 mundane and brings it to T3 with some casting. this relies on the assumption that you are trying to optimize the base class as much as you can.
If you are aiming for T3, a half caster is as reasonable a build as a gish or bard.

Bards aren't really half casters. They're either melee with bardsong buffs or full casters with Sublime Chord if you build them properly.
And if you don't build them properly? There's a reason bards are seen as weak and not worth playing in a lot of low-op groups.

It's similar with gishes. A gish is either an almost-full caster - the classic CL 17/16 BAB builds - or it's something like a Duskblade and adds some other mechanic to the build.

The problem with half-casters is that they tend to not really add anything. They're just worse casters. You already have a "dead" level every 2 levels where you don't get much new stuff, and taking a half casting PrC makes it worse. It feels like you're stagnating. That's the main problem with it, not the power level. It's not fun.


I mean, the issue here is that people on this forum seem to think the only point of playing is to make your character as powerful as possible. Sometimes the game is more fun with a less optimal character.
Lots of people here build less-than-optimal characters. Duskblades are popular despite being on the weaker side and ToB classes are too despite being weaker than T1 casters. Same for gish builds. And "optimize to the level of your party" is a rule that's pretty universally agreed on here.

The reason people optimize their chosen build is that not being able to contribute isn't fun. It's fine to play a fighter. It's not fine to play a fighter who can't hit anything and falls over in a strong breeze. It breaks SoD when the DM has to fudge rolls so your supposedly strong character doesn't get his ass beaten by kobolds.

The issue with most half casters is that they don't get anything to make up for not getting new spells when you level up. Which is, as i said above, not fun.
You want a half caster done right? Look at the Swiftblade. It loses 4 caster levels but it feels like you're actually getting something for what you sacrifice (instead of just making bad decisions for the sake of not being a filthy munchkin). It defines your build and actually plays like something different, not just a worse wizard.

[The Insanity]

I build NPCs to provide a single encounter -- or occasionally to survive through a series of encounters so his death will make a suitable climax to the story arc. But the crucial aspect is that they are created to have a good chance of losing, either immediately or eventually.
I build NPCs to fill a world with people for the PCs to interact with.

Personally, we just halved half-caster prcs.

[Cosi]

I mean, the issue here is that people on this forum seem to think the only point of playing is to make your character as powerful as possible. Sometimes the game is more fun with a less optimal character.

No, the issue is that the game creates tensions between being effective and being interesting. You shouldn't have to choose between making a character that is more fun to play and making a character that is more effective at what they do. That's not a logical tradeoff (that is, there's no inherent reason a character can't be both optimal and fun), and there's nothing gained by asking you to make it. Having Mindbender kinda suck as anything other than a 1-level dip doesn't make the class any more interesting, it just means that some people who might enjoy playing Mindbenders won't play them because they aren't very good.

[King of Nowhere]

So, if i get this right, the problem is not half casters by themselves, it's that those classes have nothing to offer.

And the more general problem is that jack-of-all is seen as a bad role, because you can only make a few actions per round and so it's better a single powerful option than many weak options (cast a low level spell with low save dc or make an attack that's likely to miss)

[Ashiel]

i thought gishes were considered good builds, and bards - who can be argued to be half casters, or maybe 2/3rds of casters - solid tier 3.

How is a half caster prc worse than a gish or a bard?

probably it is considered worse because you start with a T1 class and bring it down to T2 or T3, while a gish starts with a T4 mundane and brings it to T3 with some casting. this relies on the assumption that you are trying to optimize the base class as much as you can.
If you are aiming for T3, a half caster is as reasonable a build as a gish or bard.

Gishes are fine, Bards are actually quite good, and the biggest problem with prestige classes that lose caster levels is the caster level themselves, since while getting higher level spells might not be important to your build, having a lower caster level means your spells are easier to strip and a weaker than your level would suggest. For example, a 20th level bard is still casting CL 20 spells so when a pack of CR 13 demon minions are throwing dispel magic around at will while their bosses fight you in earnest, the bard is unlikely to have their buffs and spells stripped. The 20th level caster who's CL 15 is actually likely to have their spells broken apart by minions very quickly.

In a similar vein, the reverse is true. They will have a harder time breaking curses, dispelling spells, removing diseases, and may simply not receive the full benefits of your spells (greater magic weapon for example will never reach its full strength before CL 20th).

[Troacctid]

So, if i get this right, the problem is not half casters by themselves, it's that those classes have nothing to offer.

And the more general problem is that jack-of-all is seen as a bad role, because you can only make a few actions per round and so it's better a single powerful option than many weak options (cast a low level spell with low save dc or make an attack that's likely to miss)
It's not just that those classes aren't good enough, or that it's not good to be a jack of all trades. There are fundamental design flaws in the system that make it inordinately difficult to balance prestige classes for spellcasters. Combine that with the designers' long-held insistence on adhering to flawed design principles like overestimating the importance of BAB, and you have a recipe for a lot of poorly-balanced classes.

[Particle_Man]

Practised Spellcaster becomes sort of a feat tax if you go the half-caster prc route. Also for Mystic Theurge builds (then it is a 2 feat tax).

That said, if *everyone* is a half-caster, a DM can make it work. As evidence, some DMs I know make it work. :smallbiggrin:

[Cosi]

So, if i get this right, the problem is not half casters by themselves, it's that those classes have nothing to offer.

I think that's pretty much backwards. The classes have stuff to offer. Green Star Adept is a very cool class. You turn yourself into a magic robot by eating rocks from space. That is exactly the kind of whacky gonzo stuff that D&D should be encouraging. But while the class has a very cool aesthetic, it is mechanically extremely terrible. You throw away a bunch of casting and in exchange you get some abilities that are kind of okay.


And the more general problem is that jack-of-all is seen as a bad role, because you can only make a few actions per round and so it's better a single powerful option than many weak options (cast a low level spell with low save dc or make an attack that's likely to miss)

It's not the action constraint, it's that you need to have a core competency. If the Bard was as baseline good at melee combat as the Bardblade, but had the regular Bard's casing and skills, it would be a pretty good class. Ditto with having Sublime Chord-level casting plus Bard-level melee and skills. It's just that the game doesn't support "kinda crappy at a bunch of stuff" as a viable concept. It is much better to be good at one thing than bad at lots of things.


There are fundamental design flaws in the system that make it inordinately difficult to balance prestige classes for spellcasters.

No there aren't. There are three paradigms for balancing caster classes and (elements of) all of them are present in the core rules.

First, you could simply accept that PrCs make casters slightly better and make full casting PrCs that have class features. Core example: the Loremaster.

Second, you could give PrC features in exchange for spell slots, sidestepping the variable-cost problem of charging caster levels. Core example: the Archmage.

Third, you could give casters class features that can be traded for PrC class features. Core example: the Druid.

It's also important to remember that any balance concerns one might have about spellcasters are distinct from the problems of spellcasting PrCs. If Wizards are overpowered, the correct solution is to change Wizards, not to make Wizard PrCs crappy. That has the effect of homogenizing Wizard builds, and reducing the amount of content available to whatever casters you consider balanced..

[StreamOfTheSky]

The anti-half-caster hysteria was always overblown. Ive never seen anyone claim losing 5 caster levels was worse than Monk 20, but if anyone has said this, they're completely wrong. But there is a definite widespread claim that they suck, and I disagree.

Being a half-caster makes you outright weaker than a full caster, and outright stronger than most non-casters (exception possibly being ones like the ToB classes, designed to be more competitive options to casters than other martials, and I still think half-caster is better). Since "quadratic wizards, linear warriors" is a thing -- spellcasting grows in power exponentially -- the half-caster does not end up exactly between a full caster and non-caster in power, but rather closer to the non-caster.
But the half-caster make no mistake is still more powerful than the non-caster.

The mistake was treating half-casters like a stand-in for a full caster in the party and having the same expectations for them. They're much better classified as non-casters with some spike damage potential and a much larger set of utility options than their peers.

[Cosi]

Again, the problem is not the final power level of a build that takes a half-casting PrC, the problem is that half-casting PrCs are an option that makes you weaker if you take them. It may well be that a Sorcerer/Acolyte of the Skin is at an acceptable power level, because Sorcerer casting is good enough that losing a quarter of your casting for some minor abilities is a fair trade. But the same cannot be said of a Warlock/Acolyte of the Skin or a Shadowcaster/Acolyte of the Skin. If you think that full casting classes are good enough that losing five levels of casting doesn't make them underpowered, the phenomenon you are describing is that those classes are too good. And while I disagree with that assessment, I think that even if you agree with it, the correct way to deal with it is by directly altering the power level of whichever casting classes you think are problematic, not by creating or perpetuating a state of affairs where large numbers of options of creating interesting, specialized casters with unique and thematic concepts are mechanically inferior to remaining in a class which offers no class features.

[skunk3]

A lot of the half caster PrC's aren't THAT bad but a lot of people want to make the godliest characters they can and view anything that is subpar numerically/mechanically as non-viable. THAT is the problem. They project their characters as extensions of themselves and want that character to be as strong and as capable as possible, even when IRL that player is a stereotypical, basement-dwelling, nerdy neckbeard who smells like onions.

There's tons of half caster PrC's that are flavorful and fun (and many other PrC's in general) but people shy away from them like the plague because they have to be min/maxed or at the very least optimized to the gills. TBH boards like this one promote power gaming, which I think is a bit of a shame but oh well. If a half caster PrC seems cool to you, just run with it even if it doesn't stack up against other options. Have FUN and don't worry about your character dying.