Criteria for judging PrCs

[Mike Miller]

This thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?600652-Tiers-for-Independent-PrCs) started me thinking about rating PrCs in general. Although the focus there was standalone PrCs and fitting them into tiers, I am contemplating any and all PrCs. Therefore, tiers are not the best metric to use. I considered a +/- tier as has been done in the past, but I wanted to move away from that method. for reasons

Instead, I wanted to use a point system. Before deciding how many points maximum (as that is arbitrary), I wanted to define the criteria with which judgment may be passed. This is strictly mechanical judgement, as fluff is easy to completely ignore or rewrite. So far I have:

1) How well does the class perform as advertised? (Is it a melee type without abilities to make it fight better? Is it a caster without casting progression? Etc)

2) Is it worth the opportunity costs? (This may be highly subjective, so may or may not use this)

3) Is it better than sticking with the base classes used to enter it?

4) Prerequisites (the costs of entry have the potential to make it unviable for some characters)

5) Is it "strong?" (For example, two classes that fill a niche could rate fairly similarly but one edge out a more powerful position and thus have a slightly higher rank. Strong is relative here, rather than strictly combat prowess)

6) Is it just for dips or does it have a good capstone?

7) Does it grant abilities that function well together or is it a hodgepodge of random nonsense?

8)?

Other qualifications that are noteworthy but not necessarily part of the rank?
-is it a trap option?
-did an earlier printed version actually function better?
-typical entry classes and/or early entry
-possible builds

Any thoughts?

[PhantasyPen]

Honestly this looks like a fairly comprehensive analysis. Depending on how many points of criteria you have, the PrC's "rating" could easily just be how many of those points of analysis returned positive or negative, which would theoretically be a fairly unbiased system. One thing I would also recommend is that truly game-breaking combos/shenanigans not be taken into consideration outside of specific builds.

[Quertus]

So, how would one judge the power of, say, Ur-Priest? For the 1st level, it's pretty lackluster (oh, look. 1st level spells. That might have been useful several levels ago) to downright detrimental (if you enter as a Cleric), yet it's usually consists rather strong.

Or Illithid Savant, whose power level is all over the board, depending on your choices (and brain availability)?

[Mike Miller]

Honestly this looks like a fairly comprehensive analysis. Depending on how many points of criteria you have, the PrC's "rating" could easily just be how many of those points of analysis returned positive or negative, which would theoretically be a fairly unbiased system. One thing I would also recommend is that truly game-breaking combos/shenanigans not be taken into consideration outside of specific builds.

I like the idea of each category just being 1 for yes and 0 for no, but there would need to be some reworking of what I have laid out already. I think the gamebreaking stuff is worth mentioning, even if it doesn't affect the score. Hence the last stuff I mentioned that are noteworthy.

I could see the rating going either way now. A rank of 0 or 1 per category OR a total of points per category. I don't know that I could whittle it down to be as binary as you suggest, PhantasyPen, but it is interesting.

[Mike Miller]

So, how would one judge the power of, say, Ur-Priest? For the 1st level, it's pretty lackluster (oh, look. 1st level spells. That might have been useful several levels ago) to downright detrimental (if you enter as a Cleric), yet it's usually consists rather strong.

Or Illithid Savant, whose power level is all over the board, depending on your choices (and brain availability)?

Being on my phone and not having a full set of criteria yet (and doing this from memory since I don't have my books at work), makes it hard to do. A concise, preliminary rating would be something along the lines of: fast casting functions as expected and eventually may surpass "normal" full casters progression-wise. Probably worth the opportunity costs given the fast casting progression. Also theurging is the go-to option on the boards. If you want full casting, you will be at least as well off with this PrC as compared to staying in the base class unless you have lots of combats a day, as UrP has a low # of spells per day. Prereqs *memory void*. As a fast caster, it definitely has the potential for filling it's role well and being "strong." It is good to stay in the whole class or dip and theurge. The abilities are just casting? * memory void* so judge this generally favorable *rating system not in place at this time*

Illithids savant is a worse example for the system IMO just because it is a monstrous race PrC , 3.0 PrC , and generally likely to not be allowed. Having said that, my memory of the class is less than the ur priest so I can't really do a break down of it now. At best I would say it is highly dependent on DM cooperation but has the potential to be strong for its role in the party.

[Bartmanhomer]

There's a tier list for prestige classes. :smile:

[DEMON]

There's a tier list for prestige classes. :smile:

Incomplete, though and it's not exactly what Mike is aiming for.

The goal, as I understand it, is to rank, not tier the PrCs. So a low-tier (i.e. non-caster) PrC, that does it's advertised job well, complements the build used to enter it and doesn't have overly and needlessly prohibitive entry requirements, can get a decent rating on a 5- or 10-point scale.


So, how would one judge the power of, say, Ur-Priest? For the 1st level, it's pretty lackluster (oh, look. 1st level spells. That might have been useful several levels ago) to downright detrimental (if you enter as a Cleric), yet it's usually consists rather strong.

While the opportunity cost for a Cleric (or other divine casters) would be huge, those are not the optimal entry classes.

The class requires 2 feats, +3 in 2 different saves a whole bunch of skills and an RP requirements (Evil alignment, need to be trained by another Ur-Priest) to get into and can be reasonably entered at level 6, if one invests most of the build's resources into meeting its pre-reqs.

And then it starts of slow, but very soon catches up to or even eclipses the most powerful of classes, essentialy being a "godless Evil Cleric" progressing at double speed. Though the class's caster level might need a boost via outside cources.
Its other features are consistent with the class's flavor and Rebuke Undead alone is a great fuel for many feats (including everyone's favorite DMM).

All in all a very solid to very powerful, reasonably easy to enter, PrC that can be even entered by non-casters and boost their power greatly. And if entered by a full caster, both can be further enhanced by something like Mystic Theurge.

Without putting too much thought into it, my gut rating would be, let's say... 9/10?

[Bartmanhomer]

Incomplete, though and it's not exactly what Mike is aiming for.

The goal, as I understand it, is to rank, not tier the PrCs. So a low-tier (i.e. non-caster) PrC, that does it's advertised job well, complements the build used to enter it and doesn't have overly and needlessly prohibitive entry requirements, can get a decent rating on a 5- or 10-point scale.



While the opportunity cost for a Cleric (or other divine casters) would be huge, those are not the optimal entry classes.

The class requires 2 feats, +3 in 2 different saves a whole bunch of skills and an RP requirements (Evil alignment, need to be trained by another Ur-Priest) to get into and can be reasonably entered at level 6, if one invests most of the build's resources into meeting its pre-reqs.

And then it starts of slow, but very soon catches up to or even eclipses the most powerful of classes, essentialy being a "godless Evil Cleric" progressing at double speed. Though the class's caster level might need a boost via outside cources.
Its other features are consistent with the class's flavor and Rebuke Undead alone is a great fuel for many feats (including everyone's favorite DMM).

All in all a very solid to very powerful, reasonably easy to enter, PrC that can be even entered by non-casters and boost their power greatly. And if entered by a full caster, both can be further enhanced by something like Mystic Theurge.

Without putting too much thought into it, my gut rating would be, let's say... 9/10?

Isn't rank and tier the same thing? :confused:

[DEMON]

Isn't rank and tier the same thing? :confused:

Nope, not necessarily.

[Mike Miller]

Isn't rank and tier the same thing? :confused:

No, tier is a specific concept used for comparing classes. Rank is just the generic word I am using here for judging PrCs. It is a semantic English language, thing.

[Bartmanhomer]

No, tier is a specific concept used for comparing classes. Rank is just the generic word I am using here for judging PrCs. It is a semantic English language, thing.

Ok. I was thinking something differently. Thank you for verifying that information. :smile:

[Mike Miller]

Another possible noteworthy item but probably not affecting the rating would be whether or not it has restrictions implemented on the character. The main reason it wouldn't affect the rating is I figure most if not all of these restrictions would be fluff based, such as the Paladin's code.

[Psyren]

Any thoughts?

This is of considerable interest to me, because I'm currently undertaking a very similar project for nearly all of the Pathfinder prestige classes (and there are a lot of them! (https://aonprd.com/PrestigeClasses.aspx)) All of the criteria you listed are ones that I consider for a PrC's overall rating, and I use a 5-point rating scale, in ascending order from Avoid, Weak, Okay, Good, Great.

My long-winded thoughts on your criteria themselves:

1) "Perform as advertised" can be a bit subjective, because to know that you have to know what was being advertised in the first place, which in many cases involves relying on a PrC's fluff blurb and possibly looking at its features to know what class the designer was intending you to enter with.

2) For opportunity cost, I only use staying in the base class as a comparison, as the other opportunity cost (i.e. comparing a PrC to every other PrC you could have taken) is both a massive undertaking and doesn't deliver particularly satisfying results, at least not for me. For example, I could say that the opportunity cost of my druid taking something like Skylord is them not being able to take levels of Planar Shepherd; in the strictest terms this is true, as in non-Epic games I only have 15 or so levels to play with, but in practice this just means that 90% of PrCs get a bad rating because they cause me to give up the handful of powerful ones. That conclusion is boring and doesn't give the interesting gems the signal boost they need.

3) Is it better than sticking with base classes - in 3.5 the answer is often "no" since a lot of base classes either give you nothing special or nothing at all. Pathfinder has the opposite problem - mos classes have scaling class feature and bonuses of some kind, so every PrC is compared to that, and even a 10/10 casting PrC with positive features like Divine Scion can end up weak because it doesn't advance your Channel Energy or Revelations. PF does have a number of PrCs that do advance some base class features (or even all of them - hi Evangelist!) which makes the comparison much more interesting.

4) Are the prereqs too tricky/weird - I do find this important because some PrCs have particularly wonky ones that can at best delay your progression and in some campaigns may soft-ban the PrC as a whole. For example, Daivrat requires "peaceful contact with a true genie" - your only guaranteed way to do that on your own is to summon one, which is hard to do at the minimum level you can qualify to enter the PrC unless your GM is willing to help you out.

5) As I mentioned earlier, strength relative to other PrCs isn't something I weigh very much. I will compare two PrCs that are attempting to do very similar things thematically and mechanically though, such as Divine Scion and Exalted.

6) I absolutely call out if a PrC has great dip potential or interesting breakpoints. This inverts well with the "opportunity cost/how does it compare to staying base class" question, since if the PrC gives something cool early on, dipping in to grab it and getting out is a perfectly viable tactic. In core for both editions for example, the Shadowdancer's HiPS ability is worth a quick detour and a few feats to pick up, especially if the game you're playing in has core restrictions.

7) Internal synergies are something I consider too, but getting a bunch of unrelated abilities isn't bad either if the abilities themselves are strong.

TL;DR - requirements and what you're giving up from the base class matter to me the most when evaluating a PrC, and I try to evaluate the whole thing but I'm okay highlighting it when a quick dip gets you something cool. Raw power isn't as important to me (if it was, only things like Ur-Priest and Incantatrix would be "good") but the casting ones do tend to end up higher than the non-casting ones anyway.

[Saintheart]

Another point I might add which may not have been considered yet, maybe under opportunity cost - whether the PrC's features sweat you for a lot of levels before becoming superb all of a sudden. i.e. Runecaster: for 7 levels it's essentially just Cleric casting, but hit the 8th level and it breaks the game because of the generous description and comparatively cheap price of permanent runes.

[Psyren]

Good point - I do have a "Claim to Fame" entry for each PrC I evaluate that goes into "here's the big payoff for taking this PrC" and that factors into its overall rating. A PrC whose Claim to Fame is buried at the end of several levels of nothing does tend to get a less favorable writeup, but for some PrCs the benefit is so strong that it doesn't matter too much. Rainbow Servant is a good example of this; even if that PrC were 13 levels long with the cleric spell access all the way at the end, people would still take it just for that.

[DEMON]

Another point I might add which may not have been considered yet, maybe under opportunity cost - whether the PrC's features sweat you for a lot of levels before becoming superb all of a sudden.


Good point - I do have a "Claim to Fame" entry for each PrC I evaluate that goes into "here's the big payoff for taking this PrC" and that factors into its overall rating. A PrC whose Claim to Fame is buried at the end of several levels of nothing does tend to get a less favorable writeup, but for some PrCs the benefit is so strong that it doesn't matter too much.

Which is another reason I prefer a rating on a scale of 1-5/1-10, instead of assigning one of the standard tiers as those would fluctuate over the course of some PrC's career.

[Mike Miller]

This is of considerable interest to me, because I'm currently undertaking a very similar project for nearly all of the Pathfinder prestige classes (and there are a lot of them! (https://aonprd.com/PrestigeClasses.aspx)) All of the criteria you listed are ones that I consider for a PrC's overall rating, and I use a 5-point rating scale, in ascending order from Avoid, Weak, Okay, Good, Great.

My long-winded thoughts on your criteria themselves:

1) "Perform as advertised" can be a bit subjective, because to know that you have to know what was being advertised in the first place, which in many cases involves relying on a PrC's fluff blurb and possibly looking at its features to know what class the designer was intending you to enter with.

2) For opportunity cost, I only use staying in the base class as a comparison, as the other opportunity cost (i.e. comparing a PrC to every other PrC you could have taken) is both a massive undertaking and doesn't deliver particularly satisfying results, at least not for me. For example, I could say that the opportunity cost of my druid taking something like Skylord is them not being able to take levels of Planar Shepherd; in the strictest terms this is true, as in non-Epic games I only have 15 or so levels to play with, but in practice this just means that 90% of PrCs get a bad rating because they cause me to give up the handful of powerful ones. That conclusion is boring and doesn't give the interesting gems the signal boost they need.

3) Is it better than sticking with base classes - in 3.5 the answer is often "no" since a lot of base classes either give you nothing special or nothing at all. Pathfinder has the opposite problem - mos classes have scaling class feature and bonuses of some kind, so every PrC is compared to that, and even a 10/10 casting PrC with positive features like Divine Scion can end up weak because it doesn't advance your Channel Energy or Revelations. PF does have a number of PrCs that do advance some base class features (or even all of them - hi Evangelist!) which makes the comparison much more interesting.

4) Are the prereqs too tricky/weird - I do find this important because some PrCs have particularly wonky ones that can at best delay your progression and in some campaigns may soft-ban the PrC as a whole. For example, Daivrat requires "peaceful contact with a true genie" - your only guaranteed way to do that on your own is to summon one, which is hard to do at the minimum level you can qualify to enter the PrC unless your GM is willing to help you out.

5) As I mentioned earlier, strength relative to other PrCs isn't something I weigh very much. I will compare two PrCs that are attempting to do very similar things thematically and mechanically though, such as Divine Scion and Exalted.

6) I absolutely call out if a PrC has great dip potential or interesting breakpoints. This inverts well with the "opportunity cost/how does it compare to staying base class" question, since if the PrC gives something cool early on, dipping in to grab it and getting out is a perfectly viable tactic. In core for both editions for example, the Shadowdancer's HiPS ability is worth a quick detour and a few feats to pick up, especially if the game you're playing in has core restrictions.

7) Internal synergies are something I consider too, but getting a bunch of unrelated abilities isn't bad either if the abilities themselves are strong.

TL;DR - requirements and what you're giving up from the base class matter to me the most when evaluating a PrC, and I try to evaluate the whole thing but I'm okay highlighting it when a quick dip gets you something cool. Raw power isn't as important to me (if it was, only things like Ur-Priest and Incantatrix would be "good") but the casting ones do tend to end up higher than the non-casting ones anyway.

Thanks for your in-depth input! That sounds very much like what I was planning. Do you have your work available anywhere or is it just a WIP? I may start this soon but it may have to wait until my schedule opens up a bit.

[Psyren]

Thanks for your in-depth input! That sounds very much like what I was planning. Do you have your work available anywhere or is it just a WIP? I may start this soon but it may have to wait until my schedule opens up a bit.

WIP but I get a little bit more of it done daily. I'll publish on this board when it's ready.

Pathfinder adds one additional wrinkle to the evaluation process: the Prestigious Spellcaster (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/prestigious-spellcaster/) feat, which lets you repair a PrC's lost casting progression in exchange for spending feats on a 1:1 basis (plus 1 prereq tax.) Some powerful PrCs are limited by a few lost caster levels (especially for spontaneous casters on delayed progression) and this feat makes it even easier to get the benefits of those while also reducing their opportunity cost in terms of delayed spell access or missing 9ths. It's particularly beneficial for PrCs that use your caster level in some other calculation, like Agent of the Grave supercharging your undead control pool.

[Mike Miller]

Another point I might add which may not have been considered yet, maybe under opportunity cost - whether the PrC's features sweat you for a lot of levels before becoming superb all of a sudden. i.e. Runecaster: for 7 levels it's essentially just Cleric casting, but hit the 8th level and it breaks the game because of the generous description and comparatively cheap price of permanent runes.

Yes. This is definitely something worth considering. Good call

[Mike Miller]

After some further consideration, I have a possible breakdown as follows:

1) Are the abilities valuable and/or useful? (This is what you receive for taking the PrC. Dead levels will be taken into consideration)
10 points
2) Is it worth the opportunity costs? (Looking just at likely base class entries)
5 points
3) Are the prerequisites restrictive?
5 points

Therefore, a max total of 20 points is possible. Other things that may edge it up or down a little are if it is only good as a dip, only good for the capstone (or other high level ability requiring worthless levels), or good regardless of how many levels.

There may be some overlap between 2 and 3, but I think the effect of prerequisites and opportunity costs weigh on the decision in different ways and deserve their own consideration.

I think these are generally the most informative values of a PrC. Any input is appreciated.

[Sereg]

One thing I would like to see in a list of Prestige class evaluations that I have not really seen before is a description of how much better the class is if you already meet the prerequisites for other reasons. For example, theurges are much better if you already dipped another casting class for a couple of levels as most of he opportunity cost is already paid for. This makes less of a difference for classes with cheap prerequisites and poor features.

[DEMON]

One thing I would like to see in a list of Prestige class evaluations that I have not really seen before is a description of how much better the class is if you already meet the prerequisites for other reasons. For example, theurges are much better if you already dipped another casting class for a couple of levels as most of he opportunity cost is already paid for. This makes less of a difference for classes with cheap prerequisites and poor features.

I don't think it should affect the rating too much, but it perhaps can be mentioned in the commentary.

Of course, if the pre-reqs are shared with another, conceptually aligned PrC/feat/whatever, that one can reasonably expect to be a part of the entry build (of a follow up to the build including the PrC in question), that should indeed affect the rating.

[Mike Miller]

One thing I would like to see in a list of Prestige class evaluations that I have not really seen before is a description of how much better the class is if you already meet the prerequisites for other reasons. For example, theurges are much better if you already dipped another casting class for a couple of levels as most of he opportunity cost is already paid for. This makes less of a difference for classes with cheap prerequisites and poor features.

I feel like people do discuss this when relevant. It is somewhat hard to call out specifically, though, because there are near infinite ways to continue leveling after meeting prereqs without taking any given PrC.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

One thing I would like to see in a list of Prestige class evaluations that I have not really seen before is a description of how much better the class is if you already meet the prerequisites for other reasons. For example, theurges are much better if you already dipped another casting class for a couple of levels as most of he opportunity cost is already paid for. This makes less of a difference for classes with cheap prerequisites and poor features.

I think the classic example of this is what can happen with some Gishes. Most of those share basic requirements of "BAB +X, Able to cast Y level spells" plus the odd proficiency or feat requirements. The prototypical example is Fighter 2/Wizard 6/Eldritch Knight 10/Spellsword 1 and then some pretty much any full casting class to hit the minimum of +16 BAB and 9th level spells.

Obviously, that stub is a relic of the early days of 3.X, but it still holds. With nearly everything allowed, you could take Ruathar levels, Dragonslayer 1, Abjurant Champion, sub Crusader 1 or Warblade 1 instead of Fighter and head to Jade Phoenix Mage, use Knight Phantom instead of EK, tack on Legacy Champion for a few levels to extend one of your other PrCs (assuming you have caster/levels to spare) or some combination of the above.

[upho]

@ Mike Miller: This is a great initiative; PRCs are such a major part of PC building, and I believe many of them tend to get neglected or forgotten about both in discussions about specific build types and in more general design discussions. So I also think it would be useful and highly appreciated by a lot of people if the same basic evaluation and rating method is used for both 3.5 and PF.


WIP but I get a little bit more of it done daily. I'll publish on this board when it's ready.This sounds like exactly what I've been waiting for! I've been thinking about doing the same for DSP's PRCs for quite a while now, but have felt a bit held back by the lack of an at least somewhat uniform evaluation and rating method on the forum as well as the lack of anything similar and reasonably updated for Paizo's PrCs.

Let me know if I can help you out getting something presentable up for the Paizo ones sooner. (If so, I'd probably be put to best use analyzing PrCs which focus on martial combat abilities and don't progress casting or rogue talents.)


Pathfinder adds one additional wrinkle to the evaluation process: the Prestigious Spellcaster (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/prestigious-spellcaster/) feat, which lets you repair a PrC's lost casting progression in exchange for spending feats on a 1:1 basis (plus 1 prereq tax.)This can definitely affect the potential of quite a few caster PrCs pretty radically, and whether to take the feat can be a very tough choice, especially in the case of typically feat starved gish builds and dual progression PrCs (notably the Bladecaster (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/alternative-rule-systems/path-of-war/prestige-classes/bladecaster/) and Battle Templar (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/alternative-rule-systems/path-of-war/prestige-classes/battle-templar/) casting + initiating PrCs from PoW). I wouldn't be surprised if the best solution turns out to be having at least two separate ratings for the PrCs most affected (those of greatest interest to spontaneous casters and the more CL-dependent ones such as the mentioned Agent of the Grave).

Speaking of, did you plan on including anything about the (in)famous Golarion-specific very similar but far more powerful and less costly spellcasting guild fame rewards from Inner Sea Magic (Eclectic Training and Esoteric Training)? Considering that quite a few of the related PrCs are equally Golarion-specific, I think it would be odd to leave out these potentially very important options, but at the same time it would feel a bit awkward to assume they're available precisely because they're such potential game-changers (probably requiring yet another alternative rating for quite a few PrCs).


After some further consideration, I have a possible breakdown as follows:

1) Are the abilities valuable and/or useful? (This is what you receive for taking the PrC. Dead levels will be taken into consideration)
10 points
2) Is it worth the opportunity costs? (Looking just at likely base class entries)
5 points
3) Are the prerequisites restrictive?
5 pointsI'm probably missing something here, but since we're talking about relative values here, I can't see what the actual difference is between 1) and 2)? It appears to me they rate pretty much the same thing, since the ratings of both are determined by comparing the benefits to those which would've been gained and the opportunity costs spared by staying with a likely base class.

IOW, aren't the opportunity costs of 2) actually a part of the "valuable and/or useful" rating of 1)?

I'd probably prefer to change 2) into something along the lines of Psyren's 1) "Perform as advertised". Though it'll be a more subjective rating, I really think a PrC seemingly intended to benefit a certain build type should get points deducted if it actually provides far greater benefits for a very different build type.

[Kalkra]

Not to sound like a broken record, but prerequisites seem to me to be fundamentally disconnected from the rest of your criteria. Ultimately, I'm assuming that any system of ranking will aim to be a functional tool for players rather than a mere intellectual curiosity, and considering prerequisites isn't particularly useful for players.

As an example, take Dwarven Defender: One could argue that it has the strictest prereqs any class can have. If you're not a dwarf, you'll never qualify, no matter how high your level. One could look at this as an interesting thought experiment pertaining to the opportunity cost of choosing any given race, but no player will actually care. If you're playing a dwarf, you want to know how good the class is, and you don't care that you need to be a dwarf. If you're not playing a dwarf, you don't care how good the class is.

I'm assuming that the intent is to subtract the amount of resources which need to be invested from the total benefit of the class in order to help players determine how worth it it is to invest said resources, but that strikes me as been so dependent on the situation that it's impossible to quantify.

One more example would be Spelldancer, which among other things requires 4 ranks in both Concentration and Tumble, one of which you would probably already have, and one of which you probably wouldn't. In other words, when assessing prereqs, you'll need to look at each skill and each feat independently, and then try and determine how much of a cost is associated with each one for any given build which might make use of that class.

I would instead propose leaving prereqs out of the ranking entirely, and letting each player do the math for themselves.

[Psyren]

Let me know if I can help you out getting something presentable up for the Paizo ones sooner. (If so, I'd probably be put to best use analyzing PrCs which focus on martial combat abilities and don't progress casting or rogue talents.)

I'll absolutely need help - between archetypes, VMC, alternate racials, dabbler feats and items, there are probably a ton of extra ways to qualify for a lot of these than I can think of, some of which are more optimal than the ones I came up with (and likely more than the intended entries). That can wait until after the first pass though.

I do note if a PrC progresses something other than casting, and factor that into the rating (that would fall under the "opportunity cost" category Mike Miller mentioned.) For example, Death Slayer is 8/10 divine casting but also progresses Favored Enemy 10/10 and Channel Energy 10/10, but only against undead in both cases - it's such a weird combination that I couldn't help but make a note of it.


This can definitely affect the potential of quite a few caster PrCs pretty radically, and whether to take the feat can be a very tough choice, especially in the case of typically feat starved gish builds and dual progression PrCs (notably the Bladecaster (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/alternative-rule-systems/path-of-war/prestige-classes/bladecaster/) and Battle Templar (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/alternative-rule-systems/path-of-war/prestige-classes/battle-templar/) casting + initiating PrCs from PoW). I wouldn't be surprised if the best solution turns out to be having at least two separate ratings for the PrCs most affected (those of greatest interest to spontaneous casters and the more CL-dependent ones such as the mentioned [COLOR=#000000]Agent of the Grave).

It's a bit tricky - the classes that would benefit the most are the ones that lose 3 or more caster levels, but the more caster levels you lose, the more expensive it becomes feat-wise to repair them all. Determining a standard for when that trade is optimal is tough.


Speaking of, did you plan on including anything about the (in)famous Golarion-specific very similar but far more powerful and less costly spellcasting guild fame rewards from Inner Sea Magic (Eclectic Training and Esoteric Training)? Considering that quite a few of the related PrCs are equally Golarion-specific, I think it would be odd to leave out these potentially very important options, but at the same time it would feel a bit awkward to assume they're available precisely because they're such potential game-changers (probably requiring yet another alternative rating for quite a few PrCs).

I mentioned it for Mystic Theurge, and genuinely didn't think about it for anything else.


Though it'll be a more subjective rating, I really think a PrC seemingly intended to benefit a certain build type should get points deducted if it actually provides far greater benefits for a very different build type.

I don't knock "points" off for an alternate entry being better than the intended one; I tend to chalk that up to players outnumbering designers by several factors, and it being a healthy thing for a game overall if the former group thinks of more optimal combinations than the latter. With that said, my own ratings are far more qualitative than quantitative anyway.



I would instead propose leaving prereqs out of the ranking entirely, and letting each player do the math for themselves.

I agree that skill and race prereqs don't mean much. Skills can be picked up via trait (or in 3.5, Apprentice) while race isn't a decision-making factor most of the time anyway; as you mentioned, someone who's interested in Dwarven Defender probably wants to play a Dwarf. (It's worth pointing out though that Racial Heritage opens these up too.)

But some prereqs do matter I'd say, like the Daivrat's "peaceful contact with a true genie." At a minimum it means I have to think about the lowest level you can cast a spell that will summon one, since summoning a creature is the only way to guarantee it will be peaceful toward you.

[upho]

I'll absolutely need help - between archetypes, VMC, alternate racials, dabbler feats and items, there are probably a ton of extra ways to qualify for a lot of these than I can think of, some of which are more optimal than the ones I came up with (and likely more than the intended entries). That can wait until after the first pass though.Yeah, these kinds of things are what an open forum thread are for, with people poking and offering alternative views once you've got at least a presentable first suggestion up. I was more thinking if you'd like some assistance with getting that first suggestion up. Primarily because it's a rather massive list to go through and many diverse factors involved, so quite a lot of work for one person. Secondarily because I believe it would help me getting started on the DSP ones with the "right frame of mind", so to speak.


I do note if a PrC progresses something other than casting, and factor that into the rating (that would fall under the "opportunity cost" category Mike Miller mentioned.)I just meant that if you'd like to throw any "first pass through" write ups my way, I'd be more effective looking primarily at PrCs which don't progress casting or especially rogue talents. (At least in comparison to full-bab and gish(-ish) martial classes/builds, I still feel like a total noob when it comes to the rogue).


It's a bit tricky - the classes that would benefit the most are the ones that lose 3 or more caster levels, but the more caster levels you lose, the more expensive it becomes feat-wise to repair them all. Determining a standard for when that trade is optimal is tough.Yes, I don't think determining a standard is possible. Which is why I believe each of the most affected PrCs may very well need one or two additional alternative ratings depending on how much room for those feats different hypothetical "typical" builds may have.

For example, any Fighter/Wizard/Eldritch Knight PC without access to the casting guild rewards should of course consider getting one or two instances of the feat, but a more casting leaning build may have both more room for (less opportunity cost) and a greater interest in getting the feats as soon as they have a purpose, while more combat focused build types will likely have multiple at least equally important combat feats competing for slots during most levels (greater opportunity cost). Which could lead to there being two slightly different ratings of the EK; one for caster-leaning builds assuming one or two instances of Prestigious Spellcaster are prioritized, and another one for more combat-leaning builds which doesn't consider the feat.


I mentioned it for Mystic Theurge, and genuinely didn't think about it for anything else.Well, it certainly provides the greatest boon for dual casting progression builds. But IME it's often an almost as great boon for gish types, especially in terms of making their overall power progression less bumpy and by making several additional class combos and character concepts viable.


I don't knock "points" off for an alternate entry being better than the intended one; I tend to chalk that up to players outnumbering designers by several factors, and it being a healthy thing for a game overall if the former group thinks of more optimal combinations than the latter.Oh, I fully agree here. I was being sloppy with my wording, allow me to rephrase: A PrC which has fluff and a few features clearly intended to make a certain character concept possible, but mostly has features which in reality are far more suitable for a very different character concept typically suffers from some degree of crunch incoherence. Fluff which doesn't align with the most mechanically fitting use of the PrC in reality may of course often be ignored, but such poorly matched fluff also tends to be reflected in a few equally poorly matching features. And such poorly matched/incoherent crunch should affect the rating IMO, even if the PrC may be great and one of the top options - or even the only option - for the character concept most of the crunch actually enables.

Similarly, I believe it should be reflected in the rating if a PrC is clearly intended to enable a certain character concept which other options can actually enable better/at less cost/with additional benefits/etc, even if those superior options are mostly found outside the mots likely/suitable class(es) to combine with the PrC. For example, the mentioned Fighter/Wizard/Eldritch Knight combo can of course enable a far greater gish than any combo of fighter and wizard levels may, but in a very large majority of games, I'd bet magus levels and a few archetypes of other classes with similar benefits are clearly superior options for enabling most gish concepts.

Hence why I believed the above are examples of issues a PrC may have with your 1) "Perform as advertised". Am I misunderstanding what you mean?


With that said, my own ratings are far more qualitative than quantitative anyway.Which I really think they should be. This is in practice a far too all-encompassing, multi-faceted and complex undertaking for it to be primarily quantitative anyways, so the greatest reason why people will likely find this compilation useful will of course be because it's primarily made by someone with a lot of experience and a very high level system-fu. (In addition, judging from my own experiences of discussions with you, I'm pretty certain you'll change any controversial view you may have if people can give you solid arguments for why you should do so.)


I agree that skill and race prereqs don't mean much. Skills can be picked up via trait (or in 3.5, Apprentice) while race isn't a decision-making factor most of the time anyway; as you mentioned, someone who's interested in Dwarven Defender probably wants to play a Dwarf. (It's worth pointing out though that Racial Heritage opens these up too.)Yep. I believe most frequently the greatest actually meaningful entry opportunity costs are feat prereqs, especially as their benefits are surprisingly often definitely not otherwise worth the slots for the typical associated build types.


But some prereqs do matter I'd say, like the Daivrat's "peaceful contact with a true genie." At a minimum it means I have to think about the lowest level you can cast a spell that will summon one, since summoning a creature is the only way to guarantee it will be peaceful toward you.And several such more unique prereqs cannot be meaningfully compared via any kind of numbers, being instead first and foremost dependent on GM fiat. In many such cases it's probably still worth speculating how great the opportunity cost may reasonably be expected to be though.

[Mike Miller]

I'm probably missing something here, but since we're talking about relative values here, I can't see what the actual difference is between 1) and 2)? It appears to me they rate pretty much the same thing, since the ratings of both are determined by comparing the benefits to those which would've been gained and the opportunity costs spared by staying with a likely base class.

IOW, aren't the opportunity costs of 2) actually a part of the "valuable and/or useful" rating of 1)?

I'd probably prefer to change 2) into something along the lines of Psyren's 1) "Perform as advertised". Though it'll be a more subjective rating, I really think a PrC seemingly intended to benefit a certain build type should get points deducted if it actually provides far greater benefits for a very different build type.

Hopefully I can explain the difference between 1 and 2 for you.

1 looks at the abilities in isolation of the PrC. Do they work RAW? Are they useful? Are they valuable? Will they help the character and party? The evaluation should ideally be comparable across PrCs of a given type. For example, all beatstick PrCs should be able to compare their 10 point metric to see how valuable it is before considering base classes and prereqs. The "functions as advertised" part from the original post will be included here, as well.

2 looks at whether or not you are better off having obtained these class levels. You have to know what the abilities are before you decide if they are better/equal/worse than what you would have had with more base class levels. This is important because many PrCs have multiple entry points and there is a distinction between what the abilities are and how they function within a build.

[Kalkra]

I agree that skill and race prereqs don't mean much. Skills can be picked up via trait (or in 3.5, Apprentice) while race isn't a decision-making factor most of the time anyway; as you mentioned, someone who's interested in Dwarven Defender probably wants to play a Dwarf. (It's worth pointing out though that Racial Heritage opens these up too.)

But some prereqs do matter I'd say, like the Daivrat's "peaceful contact with a true genie." At a minimum it means I have to think about the lowest level you can cast a spell that will summon one, since summoning a creature is the only way to guarantee it will be peaceful toward you.

First of all, Racial Heritage is PF only, I think. 3.5 had Old Blood, but that's 3rd party. Anyway, even if you can only enter a PrC at a certain level, be it because it requires a certain number of ranks in a skill, or a certain BAB, or peaceful contact with a true genie, I don't think that detracts from the class, but rather it just limits how often you would consider the class. In other words, before you can qualify, you don't care about the class, and after you can qualify you don't care about the prereqs. Maybe I didn't make that clear in my previous post.

In other words, I think that the only important prereqs are the one's which you have to warp your build in some way to accommodate, (mostly feats as upho said), and even then, I'm not sure it's fair to deduct that many points from the class as a whole for that.

[Mike Miller]

Not to sound like a broken record, but prerequisites seem to me to be fundamentally disconnected from the rest of your criteria. Ultimately, I'm assuming that any system of ranking will aim to be a functional tool for players rather than a mere intellectual curiosity, and considering prerequisites isn't particularly useful for players.

As an example, take Dwarven Defender: One could argue that it has the strictest prereqs any class can have. If you're not a dwarf, you'll never qualify, no matter how high your level. One could look at this as an interesting thought experiment pertaining to the opportunity cost of choosing any given race, but no player will actually care. If you're playing a dwarf, you want to know how good the class is, and you don't care that you need to be a dwarf. If you're not playing a dwarf, you don't care how good the class is.

I'm assuming that the intent is to subtract the amount of resources which need to be invested from the total benefit of the class in order to help players determine how worth it it is to invest said resources, but that strikes me as been so dependent on the situation that it's impossible to quantify.

One more example would be Spelldancer, which among other things requires 4 ranks in both Concentration and Tumble, one of which you would probably already have, and one of which you probably wouldn't. In other words, when assessing prereqs, you'll need to look at each skill and each feat independently, and then try and determine how much of a cost is associated with each one for any given build which might make use of that class.

I would instead propose leaving prereqs out of the ranking entirely, and letting each player do the math for themselves.

The reason for prereqs to have an important part in ranking is because they affect your entire build. You need them to take the PrC. Therefore, if the prereqs are particularly burdensome, the PrC will lose some points. Some restrictive examples: archmage, IotSfV. Less restrictive: Eldritch Knight. Many middling ones exist where they have to pay "feat taxes" for entry that aren't great, such as Dodge, toughness, skill focus, or weapon focus. Such feat taxes can force you into delaying entry or finding ways to obtain them as bonus feats.

Considering prereqs is definitely useful for players. If you don't look at prereqs, you may prevent yourself from entering many PrCs. Additionally, prereqs inform us of both the earliest entry point as well as the most likely class entries. Yes, many people ignore alignment and racial prereqs or refluff them. However, I did mention in my first post that my aim is mechanical and not fluff. Over time, we can narrow down a good range for how many points being lost and where, but I don't feel that it is impossible to quantify. Prereqs are fundamental to PrCs. They are the main difference between a base class and a PrC.

[Mike Miller]

First of all, Racial Heritage is PF only, I think. 3.5 had Old Blood, but that's 3rd party. Anyway, even if you can only enter a PrC at a certain level, be it because it requires a certain number of ranks in a skill, or a certain BAB, or peaceful contact with a true genie, I don't think that detracts from the class, but rather it just limits how often you would consider the class. In other words, before you can qualify, you don't care about the class, and after you can qualify you don't care about the prereqs. Maybe I didn't make that clear in my previous post.

In other words, I think that the only important prereqs are the one's which you have to warp your build in some way to accommodate, (mostly feats as upho said), and even then, I'm not sure it's fair to deduct that many points from the class as a whole for that.

Limiting how often you consider a class because of the prereqs is detracting from its value...

If the deduction of points is applied unilaterally across all evaluations, how is that unfair?

[upho]

Hopefully I can explain the difference between 1 and 2 for you.Yes, it definitely appears you could! :smallsmile: Thank you. I think your reply also makes for a good basis for discussing some related questions:


1 looks at the abilities in isolation of the PrC. Do they work RAW? Are they useful? Are they valuable? Will they help the character and party?In comparison to what? Generally speaking, I think this kind of comparison could be anything between the extremes of:

All the he player options available in the game. This comparison has the advantage of providing a more generic power level (which can be very important and helpful for players looking for ideas more likely to be balanced to their table), but on the flip side it typically won't provide more relevant and specific info to help a player who already has a clear idea of which type of build they're going for. And the all-encompassing nature of this comparison also makes it near impossible to gather much meaningful quantifiable data to base a particular rating on, forcing the rating to be mostly dependent on the rating individuals' general system insight, experiences and subjective opinions.
Only the most directly competing player options for the most relevant build type(s) targeted by the PrC being rated (for example in comparison to additional levels in the base class, levels in the most similar PrCs etc). Which of course is of much greater help for the player who already has a good idea of the build type they're interested in, and allows for ratings to be based on more quantifiable qualities and more objective ratings. And conversely, this type of "limited" comparison doesn't necessarily say much about how the PrC's abilities compare to player options overall (more about the problems with this kind of comparison below).

And of course, deciding on a certain comparison point along this general-specific axis doesn't necessarily exclude the possibility of also including a second different (ideally contrasting) such comparison point. But I believe there's a definitely a limit to how many different comparison points are practically useful rather than confusing in practice, and I'd guesstimate that limit to be three or less.


The evaluation should ideally be comparable across PrCs of a given type. For example, all beatstick PrCs should be able to compare their 10 point metric to see how valuable it is before considering base classes and prereqs. The "functions as advertised" part from the original post will be included here, as well.Well, this would of course great for those PrCs which have at least one sufficiently similar other PrCs of the same type allowing for a meaningful comparison. Though of course dependent on how broadly one believes "type" can be defined in this context while still being meaningful, I unfortunately suspect these kinds of comparisons will frequently be unreasonably contrived, too build-specific or simply not relevant enough. To illustrate, let's try using your suggested max 20 points divided into 3 areas, your "beatstick PrC type" example and relative ratings for the two fitting PF PrCs which happened to first pop into my mind to illustrate (assuming "beatstick" is something along the lines of "a build type highly focused on making melee weapon attacks (not spells/equivalents) to defeat enemies in combat"):


Golden Legionnaire (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/prestige-classes/other-paizo/e-h/golden-legionnaire/)
Concept Crunch: Fighter-ish tank protecting allies and hindering foes using out-of-turn melee and mobility abilities. Fluff: Member of elite national security force guarding Andoran in Golarion against foreign threats.

Suitable Base Classes: Fighter (or possibly Paladin or Ranger).

Prereqs: Good alignment, heavy armor prof, +5 bab and 5 ranks in Diplomacy and Intimidate (invitation by member of related organization). Fits the fluff very well, bab and armor prof. also fits the crunch and the skill ranks are useful on their own. 4 points (these prereqs are likely much less restrictive for most interested builds than the prereqs of the AB)

Benefits
Chassis: 10 levels, d10 hd, full bab, good Fort, 2 skill points/level, very short list of "soldier-y" class skills (adds nothing new), prof. with martial weapons and all armors and shields. 0 points? (Because there are no opportunity costs here when compared to what the Fighter chassis grants over 10 levels, but no gains either, and it's not quite as good as the AB's chassis.)
1st level: give allies order as move/swift, allies complying and GL gain +1/2 competence to attack, damage, saves and AC for 1 round. 0.1 points (a tiny action-demanding short-lived bonus of a common type is just sad, but at least it applies to most of the important combat stats)
2nd level: appoint one ally as swift, when adjacent GL takes -1/2/3 penalty to AC and the ally gains +2/4/6 dodge to AC. 0.4 points (this is appropriate for the tank build concept and may actually make a difference a few times in a real game, but the action and AC penalty costs are way too high)
3rd level: can chose to gain +1/2 morale to attack and weapon damage against a foe seen attacking ally (limited number of simultaneously chosen foes). 0.1 points (finally no annoying action cost, but yet again a bonus so small it's easily forgotten and barely worth the bookkeeping, and yet again of a common type)
Various levels: three new AoO triggers for movement out of adjacent and into threatened space, and hits vs adjacent ally, none particularly unique. All other benefits are generic and poor compared to those of other options easily accessible to the targeted type of build concepts. The only notable of these are the limited Stand Still (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/stand-still/)/Bodyguard (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/bodyguard-combat)/In Harm’s Way (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/in-harm-s-way-combat/) chain plus Swift Aid (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/swift-aid-combat) as bonus feats at even levels. 1.1 points (the triggers are appropriate and the bonus feats do provide some fitting mechanics, even if the total of benefit of these features is still very underwhelming when compared to the AB)

Gains vs Opportunity Costs The net result here is definitely a clear negative if compared to what this tank build type would gain by replacing the 10 GL levels with at least somewhat decently used additional Fighter levels. I can't even think of a single corner case build variant of the concept for which this wouldn't remain true. This is almost certainly primarily because there are so much stronger Fighter base class options available now than there were back in 2012 when this PrC was released. (Not to mention that other currently available Paizo + DSP class combos could grant a virtually identical specific tank build concept considerably more fitting mechanics, also giving the concept in-game usefulness and functionality several magnitudes greater.) So... would that be say 0.3 points, since the PrC may however actually be stronger than Fighter levels at the lowest op levels?

TOTAL: 6 points



Awakened Blade (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/alternative-rule-systems/path-of-war/prestige-classes/awakened-blade/)
Concept Crunch: Open to multiple very different beatstick build variants. So maybe: "full initiator and 8/10 psionic manifesting dual progression combined with boosted combat numbers and action economy for superior beatstick performance"? Fluff: From the description:"Awakened blades, as they are called, learn to use their precognitive mastery as both offense and defense in pursuit of greater psionic knowledge and personal glory or power." So deliberately vague fluff intended to work with the very open crunch concept, I guess.

Suitable Base Classes: For beatsticks in general, most often a combo of a full bab initiator class and a full manifester class, such the Int-based Warder (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/alternative-rule-systems/path-of-war/classes/warder/) (defender/control) and Psion (transmogrifist (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/alternative-rule-systems/psionics-unleashed/classes/psion/psionic-disciplines/psychometabolism/transmogrifist/) egoist (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/alternative-rule-systems/psionics-unleashed/classes/psion/psionic-disciplines/psychometabolism/)) combo or the Cha-based Zealot (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/alternative-rule-systems/path-of-war/classes/zealot/) (support/control) and Wilder (raging surge (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/alternative-rule-systems/psionics-unleashed/classes/wilder/#Raging_Surge)) combo. But any initiator class(es) or archetype(s) and any class with a decently matching stat dependence and at least 6th level manifesting progression can become a great AB, the most suitable base class(es) highly dependent on the specific build goals.

Prereqs: Psionic Body (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/alternative-rule-systems/psionics-unleashed/feats/psionic-body-psionic/), Psionic Meditation (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/alternative-rule-systems/psionics-unleashed/feats/psionic-meditation-psionic/), ability to manifest defensive and offensive precognition and to initiate 2nd level maneuvers incl. 1+ stance, plus 5 ranks in Acrobatics, 4 in Autohypnosis, and 3 in Knowledge (martial) and (psionics). These fit the whole "initiator-psionic combo" concept pretty well I guess, with the possible exception of the Acrobatics ranks. But they don't fit nearly as well mechanically, the powers quickly becoming dead weight because of the clashing bonuses from the superior Stance of the Inner Eye, and the Acrobatics ranks being wasted for most Str-based builds. The two feats are OK on their own, but Psionic Meditation tends to become less so with the Hypercognitive Focus feature at 6th. Finally, the total of 15 skill ranks can definitely be a very significant obstacle keeping builds of class(es) not based Int from entering at 6th, especially if they're also focusing on maneuvers and/or providing party functions dependent on other skills (commonly including Intimidate for many beatsticks). 1 point (these prereqs are simultaneously notably more and somewhat less restrictive than those of the GL, as they're often a major hurdle for many builds in early levels, requiring difficult choices between delayed entry vs delayed general functionality, but they also don't restrict alignment like the GL prereqs)

Benefits
Chassis: 10 levels, d10 hd, full bab, good Will, 4 skill points/level, short list of expected class skills (rarely adds more than one new). 0.2 points? (Because there are no opportunity costs worth mentioning, and the additional skill points and better class skill list makes it a bit better than the LG chassis.)
1st level: Standard PrC maneuver/stance progression and full IL progression (of all initiator classes the AB has levels in), and access to either one of two great disciplines. 2 points (this is actually by itself worth far more than all the GL features put together)
1st level: continuous +1-5 insight to initiative and dodge to AC and Ref vs traps, adding uncanny dodge at 3rd and the improved version at 9th. 0.8 points (?)
1st level: Deep Focus as bonus feat. 0.3 points (fantastic synergy with other features and quite a few strong other options)
2nd level: 8 additional levels of base class manifesting progression. 2 points (this typically provides fantastic melee self-buffs (like the flexible metamorphosis (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/alternative-rule-systems/psionics-unleashed/psionic-powers/m/metamorphosis/) line of powers) with great beatstick synergies and various nifty targeting/sense boost powers, as well as vastly increased overall adventuring versatility and capability)
2nd level: Stance granting scaling +2-6 insight bonuses to all most important beatstick combat numbers, can be used simultaneously with other stance at 10th. 1 points (notably because of the rare bonus type)
5th level: initiate counter as free action at any time by expending readied maneuver and (one) psionic focus. 1 points (starts powerful and simply grows with the power of higher level counters, allowing for ridiculous action economy in higher levels (like +2 standard and +1 move in every single round at any time, all day long, every day))
7th level: gain standard or move as immediate by expending a readied maneuver and psionic focus, triggered whenever the AB is targeted by any kind of attack and interrupting the triggering action. 1.2 points (one of the strongest active defense abilities in the game)
Various levels: a couple of bonus combat or psionic feats, easy psionic focus regain with maneuver recovery, and some other nifty minor stuff. 1.5 points

Gains vs Opportunity Costs A vastly greater gain than that of replacing the AB levels with additional initiator and/or manifester levels. And yeah, this is typically not just the strongest "beatstick" PrC, but one of the far strongest of all PrCs in PF. 5 points

TOTAL: 16 points



Judging by the above, my inital reaction is that the available max points should be divided differently between the 3 areas. At least in this example, the division of the points pool leads to far too great relative emphasis being put on the prereq restriction part, and far too little on the provided benefits, which in turn also results in a highly misleading rating points total (the AB is IMO a great example of PrC which should have the max possible total score, despite it's many pesky and redundant prereqs). And in order to avoid tiny fractional values, it also appears a 20 point pool isn't nearly enough to illustrate the actual potential differences between PrCs for the same general build type.

But far more importantly, I think the greatest issue here is how to designate many PrCs to a certain "type". For example, the above AB can be fantastic for builds with very different mechanical goals than those of typical "beatsticks", without making it any less fantastic also for typical beststicks. So in which actually practically functional and meaningful "type" category or categories does the AB belong? Which other PrCs should it ideally be compared against in order to determine the value of its benefits? Should the AB's relative value in comparison to the GL even be used to determine the proper rating of either PrC? Or should they maybe only be compared in the specific case when their possible build concepts meet (as in the case of typical AoO melee control-ish tank)? And if so, how can the likely thousands of such build-specific comparisons/ratings of PrCs be practically feasible? Can such things be significantly generalized/simplified while remaining sufficiently meaningful?


2 looks at whether or not you are better off having obtained these class levels. You have to know what the abilities are before you decide if they are better/equal/worse than what you would have had with more base class levels.Yep. Which I also hope even my tiny "test rating" above also clearly implies.


This is important because many PrCs have multiple entry points and there is a distinction between what the abilities are and how they function within a build...Certainly it would be great if it was practically feasible to give info on all such possible variations, but again, I think one major problem is that it isn't. Or do you have some nifty idea on how to actually meaningfully compare all these potentially great build variations, and how to provide sufficiently meaningful (ie build-dependent) info when a single PrC might very well have easily more than 10 decidedly different yet optimal uses and different related optimal entry/exist levels, base class levels and/or other player option combos, etc, etc.

[Mike Miller]

Yes, it definitely appears you could! :smallsmile: Thank you. I think your reply also makes for a good basis for discussing some related questions:

In comparison to what? Generally speaking, I think this kind of comparison could be anything between the extremes of:

All the he player options available in the game. This comparison has the advantage of providing a more generic power level (which can be very important and helpful for players looking for ideas more likely to be balanced to their table), but on the flip side it typically won't provide more relevant and specific info to help a player who already has a clear idea of which type of build they're going for. And the all-encompassing nature of this comparison also makes it near impossible to gather much meaningful quantifiable data to base a particular rating on, forcing the rating to be mostly dependent on the rating individuals' general system insight, experiences and subjective opinions.
Only the most directly competing player options for the most relevant build type(s) targeted by the PrC being rated (for example in comparison to additional levels in the base class, levels in the most similar PrCs etc). Which of course is of much greater help for the player who already has a good idea of the build type they're interested in, and allows for ratings to be based on more quantifiable qualities and more objective ratings. And conversely, this type of "limited" comparison doesn't necessarily say much about how the PrC's abilities compare to player options overall (more about the problems with this kind of comparison below).

And of course, deciding on a certain comparison point along this general-specific axis doesn't necessarily exclude the possibility of also including a second different (ideally contrasting) such comparison point. But I believe there's a definitely a limit to how many different comparison points are practically useful rather than confusing in practice, and I'd guesstimate that limit to be three or less.

After reading your post, I want to start with a couple short notes. First, I don't do PF. This project will just be 3.5, maybe I didn't make that clear earlier. Psyren is already doing a PF project like this. Second, I am definitely open to changing the amount of points each category is worth, as well as changing the categories. I have just put forth an arbitrary set of numbers for the categories. I like the categories I put forward, but am willing to change them.

...

I think your first main argument missed a critical aspect of my response. I said the abilities are looked at “in isolation of the PrC.” By that, I meant they are not being compared to anything. It is important to look at the abilities and determine their worth on their own. Yes, you will be using them in conjunction with the rest of your classes and within a party, but there will be times when you are relying on an ability all on its own. Only then would I compare the value of an ability to the base class, which falls more into the opportunity cost side of the evaluation. Also, I have mentioned earlier that I would use the most likely entry points, which is your “2.” Obviously no one will compare every single PrC against every single possible entry point. The point of this is to make something useful, not something definitive. Every judgment is subjective, no matter how objective you want it to be.


Well, this would of course great for those PrCs which have at least one sufficiently similar other PrCs of the same type allowing for a meaningful comparison. Though of course dependent on how broadly one believes "type" can be defined in this context while still being meaningful, I unfortunately suspect these kinds of comparisons will frequently be unreasonably contrived, too build-specific or simply not relevant enough. To illustrate, let's try using your suggested max 20 points divided into 3 areas, your "beatstick PrC type" example and relative ratings for the two fitting PF PrCs which happened to first pop into my mind to illustrate (assuming "beatstick" is something along the lines of "a build type highly focused on making melee weapon attacks (not spells/equivalents) to defeat enemies in combat"):


Golden Legionnaire (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/prestige-classes/other-paizo/e-h/golden-legionnaire/)
Concept Crunch: Fighter-ish tank protecting allies and hindering foes using out-of-turn melee and mobility abilities. Fluff: Member of elite national security force guarding Andoran in Golarion against foreign threats.

Suitable Base Classes: Fighter (or possibly Paladin or Ranger).

Prereqs: Good alignment, heavy armor prof, +5 bab and 5 ranks in Diplomacy and Intimidate (invitation by member of related organization). Fits the fluff very well, bab and armor prof. also fits the crunch and the skill ranks are useful on their own. 4 points (these prereqs are likely much less restrictive for most interested builds than the prereqs of the AB)

Benefits
Chassis: 10 levels, d10 hd, full bab, good Fort, 2 skill points/level, very short list of "soldier-y" class skills (adds nothing new), prof. with martial weapons and all armors and shields. 0 points? (Because there are no opportunity costs here when compared to what the Fighter chassis grants over 10 levels, but no gains either, and it's not quite as good as the AB's chassis.)
1st level: give allies order as move/swift, allies complying and GL gain +1/2 competence to attack, damage, saves and AC for 1 round. 0.1 points (a tiny action-demanding short-lived bonus of a common type is just sad, but at least it applies to most of the important combat stats)
2nd level: appoint one ally as swift, when adjacent GL takes -1/2/3 penalty to AC and the ally gains +2/4/6 dodge to AC. 0.4 points (this is appropriate for the tank build concept and may actually make a difference a few times in a real game, but the action and AC penalty costs are way too high)
3rd level: can chose to gain +1/2 morale to attack and weapon damage against a foe seen attacking ally (limited number of simultaneously chosen foes). 0.1 points (finally no annoying action cost, but yet again a bonus so small it's easily forgotten and barely worth the bookkeeping, and yet again of a common type)
Various levels: three new AoO triggers for movement out of adjacent and into threatened space, and hits vs adjacent ally, none particularly unique. All other benefits are generic and poor compared to those of other options easily accessible to the targeted type of build concepts. The only notable of these are the limited Stand Still (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/stand-still/)/Bodyguard (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/bodyguard-combat)/In Harm’s Way (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/in-harm-s-way-combat/) chain plus Swift Aid (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/swift-aid-combat) as bonus feats at even levels. 1.1 points (the triggers are appropriate and the bonus feats do provide some fitting mechanics, even if the total of benefit of these features is still very underwhelming when compared to the AB)

Gains vs Opportunity Costs The net result here is definitely a clear negative if compared to what this tank build type would gain by replacing the 10 GL levels with at least somewhat decently used additional Fighter levels. I can't even think of a single corner case build variant of the concept for which this wouldn't remain true. This is almost certainly primarily because there are so much stronger Fighter base class options available now than there were back in 2012 when this PrC was released. (Not to mention that other currently available Paizo + DSP class combos could grant a virtually identical specific tank build concept considerably more fitting mechanics, also giving the concept in-game usefulness and functionality several magnitudes greater.) So... would that be say 0.3 points, since the PrC may however actually be stronger than Fighter levels at the lowest op levels?

TOTAL: 6 points



Awakened Blade (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/alternative-rule-systems/path-of-war/prestige-classes/awakened-blade/)
Concept Crunch: Open to multiple very different beatstick build variants. So maybe: "full initiator and 8/10 psionic manifesting dual progression combined with boosted combat numbers and action economy for superior beatstick performance"? Fluff: From the description:"Awakened blades, as they are called, learn to use their precognitive mastery as both offense and defense in pursuit of greater psionic knowledge and personal glory or power." So deliberately vague fluff intended to work with the very open crunch concept, I guess.

Suitable Base Classes: For beatsticks in general, most often a combo of a full bab initiator class and a full manifester class, such the Int-based Warder (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/alternative-rule-systems/path-of-war/classes/warder/) (defender/control) and Psion (transmogrifist (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/alternative-rule-systems/psionics-unleashed/classes/psion/psionic-disciplines/psychometabolism/transmogrifist/) egoist (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/alternative-rule-systems/psionics-unleashed/classes/psion/psionic-disciplines/psychometabolism/)) combo or the Cha-based Zealot (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/alternative-rule-systems/path-of-war/classes/zealot/) (support/control) and Wilder (raging surge (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/alternative-rule-systems/psionics-unleashed/classes/wilder/#Raging_Surge)) combo. But any initiator class(es) or archetype(s) and any class with a decently matching stat dependence and at least 6th level manifesting progression can become a great AB, the most suitable base class(es) highly dependent on the specific build goals.

Prereqs: Psionic Body (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/alternative-rule-systems/psionics-unleashed/feats/psionic-body-psionic/), Psionic Meditation (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/alternative-rule-systems/psionics-unleashed/feats/psionic-meditation-psionic/), ability to manifest defensive and offensive precognition and to initiate 2nd level maneuvers incl. 1+ stance, plus 5 ranks in Acrobatics, 4 in Autohypnosis, and 3 in Knowledge (martial) and (psionics). These fit the whole "initiator-psionic combo" concept pretty well I guess, with the possible exception of the Acrobatics ranks. But they don't fit nearly as well mechanically, the powers quickly becoming dead weight because of the clashing bonuses from the superior Stance of the Inner Eye, and the Acrobatics ranks being wasted for most Str-based builds. The two feats are OK on their own, but Psionic Meditation tends to become less so with the Hypercognitive Focus feature at 6th. Finally, the total of 15 skill ranks can definitely be a very significant obstacle keeping builds of class(es) not based Int from entering at 6th, especially if they're also focusing on maneuvers and/or providing party functions dependent on other skills (commonly including Intimidate for many beatsticks). 1 point (these prereqs are simultaneously notably more and somewhat less restrictive than those of the GL, as they're often a major hurdle for many builds in early levels, requiring difficult choices between delayed entry vs delayed general functionality, but they also don't restrict alignment like the GL prereqs)

Benefits
Chassis: 10 levels, d10 hd, full bab, good Will, 4 skill points/level, short list of expected class skills (rarely adds more than one new). 0.2 points? (Because there are no opportunity costs worth mentioning, and the additional skill points and better class skill list makes it a bit better than the LG chassis.)
1st level: Standard PrC maneuver/stance progression and full IL progression (of all initiator classes the AB has levels in), and access to either one of two great disciplines. 2 points (this is actually by itself worth far more than all the GL features put together)
1st level: continuous +1-5 insight to initiative and dodge to AC and Ref vs traps, adding uncanny dodge at 3rd and the improved version at 9th. 0.8 points (?)
1st level: Deep Focus as bonus feat. 0.3 points (fantastic synergy with other features and quite a few strong other options)
2nd level: 8 additional levels of base class manifesting progression. 2 points (this typically provides fantastic melee self-buffs (like the flexible metamorphosis (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/alternative-rule-systems/psionics-unleashed/psionic-powers/m/metamorphosis/) line of powers) with great beatstick synergies and various nifty targeting/sense boost powers, as well as vastly increased overall adventuring versatility and capability)
2nd level: Stance granting scaling +2-6 insight bonuses to all most important beatstick combat numbers, can be used simultaneously with other stance at 10th. 1 points (notably because of the rare bonus type)
5th level: initiate counter as free action at any time by expending readied maneuver and (one) psionic focus. 1 points (starts powerful and simply grows with the power of higher level counters, allowing for ridiculous action economy in higher levels (like +2 standard and +1 move in every single round at any time, all day long, every day))
7th level: gain standard or move as immediate by expending a readied maneuver and psionic focus, triggered whenever the AB is targeted by any kind of attack and interrupting the triggering action. 1.2 points (one of the strongest active defense abilities in the game)
Various levels: a couple of bonus combat or psionic feats, easy psionic focus regain with maneuver recovery, and some other nifty minor stuff. 1.5 points

Gains vs Opportunity Costs A vastly greater gain than that of replacing the AB levels with additional initiator and/or manifester levels. And yeah, this is typically not just the strongest "beatstick" PrC, but one of the far strongest of all PrCs in PF. 5 points

TOTAL: 16 points



Judging by the above, my inital reaction is that the available max points should be divided differently between the 3 areas. At least in this example, the division of the points pool leads to far too great relative emphasis being put on the prereq restriction part, and far too little on the provided benefits, which in turn also results in a highly misleading rating points total (the AB is IMO a great example of PrC which should have the max possible total score, despite it's many pesky and redundant prereqs). And in order to avoid tiny fractional values, it also appears a 20 point pool isn't nearly enough to illustrate the actual potential differences between PrCs for the same general build type.

But far more importantly, I think the greatest issue here is how to designate many PrCs to a certain "type". For example, the above AB can be fantastic for builds with very different mechanical goals than those of typical "beatsticks", without making it any less fantastic also for typical beststicks. So in which actually practically functional and meaningful "type" category or categories does the AB belong? Which other PrCs should it ideally be compared against in order to determine the value of its benefits? Should the AB's relative value in comparison to the GL even be used to determine the proper rating of either PrC? Or should they maybe only be compared in the specific case when their possible build concepts meet (as in the case of typical AoO melee control-ish tank)? And if so, how can the likely thousands of such build-specific comparisons/ratings of PrCs be practically feasible? Can such things be significantly generalized/simplified while remaining sufficiently meaningful?

I did not intend to define classes into “types.” I was just giving a broad example. This is the kind of comparison that people could make if they want to. I will not be defining types, such as beat stick, for PrCs. Quite frankly, you don't even need to break them down into types to compare their 10 point metric. You could still look at a caster-type that rated a 3 and look at an archery type that was rated a 9 and think, “gee, I suppose the usefulness of this caster PrC isn't as good for a caster build as that archery PrC is for an archer build.” It seems like you are putting a lot of emphasis on aspects that I don't feel are important for a useful evaluation. I feel this is redundant, but just to clarify: I don't think types need to be defined, I don't think it is overly useful to break the PrCs into types, I have no intention of doing either of those things, I don't think anyone needs to look into as much material as you are saying to obtain useful comparisons, and I don't think it matters if classes that are similar receive very different ratings because sometimes a few small changes makes all the difference.


Yep. Which I also hope even my tiny "test rating" above also clearly implies.

Certainly it would be great if it was practically feasible to give info on all such possible variations, but again, I think one major problem is that it isn't. Or do you have some nifty idea on how to actually meaningfully compare all these potentially great build variations, and how to provide sufficiently meaningful (ie build-dependent) info when a single PrC might very well have easily more than 10 decidedly different yet optimal uses and different related optimal entry/exist levels, base class levels and/or other player option combos, etc, etc.

I do feel a bit repetitive now, but I said the most likely few entry points. If anyone wants to jump in and add more, by all means do so. It can be great fun speculating on other builds that posters haven't mentioned. I can't help but feel like you are arguing for the sake of arguing here. This last point is obviously something that exists within 3.5 as a fact of its wide library. You could make this argument about anyone's choice of build at any time. "Why are you taking 8 levels of wizard, Bob? You could take PrC 1,2,3,4,5,......at levels 3,4,5,6..." As I mentioned earlier, I just want to make something useful, and I don't think it would be useful to try and enumerate literally every combination everywhere. Aside from the fact that we both know it isn't possible, it would be useless as a reference because you would never find what you are looking for.

Just to reiterate the main focus of this: Provide a user-friendly rating of PrCs based on the most likely aspects of the PrC that will affect a character's experience with the class. In my opinion, those factors are ...

1)How useful are the benefits of the PrC?
2)Is it worth the opportunity costs?
3)What impact do the prerequisites have?

I just chose the 10/5/5 breakdown because I like easy numbers. If I were to really break it down more along how I think it should be, it would probably be something along the lines of

1)14 points
2)4 points
3)2 points

Although this is still just a hunch and probably partly still because I like easy numbers (this totals to 20). It seems like the benefits should carry the majority of the evaluation, the opportunity costs are important too, and the prereqs could probably be considered in a "minor, medium, major" rating with 2, 1, 0 points respectively.

[Mike Miller]

I will try to start a PrC-rating thread this week, but it may end up having to wait for the weekend.